Averbach v. Cairo Amman Bank
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-00004
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Averbach v. Cairo Amman Bank, Judge Woods denied jurisdictional dismissal, dismissed some claims, and returned aiding-and-abetting claims for further review.
The plaintiffs’ claims were partly dismissed, the bank’s personal-jurisdiction challenge was denied, and the remaining aiding-and-abetting claims remained unresolved pending further review.
What happened
In Averbach v. Cairo Amman Bank, the plaintiffs brought claims under federal law alleging that Cairo Amman Bank aided terrorism. The bank challenged the claims, the plaintiffs’ standing, and the court’s authority over the bank.
The court dismissed the claims of Julie Averbach, Matanya Nathansen, and Nevenka Gritz with prejudice. It dismissed the remaining plaintiffs’ direct-liability claims without prejudice, allowing an amended complaint within fourteen days. The court did not yet decide whether the remaining aiding-and-abetting claims were adequately pleaded.
The court denied the bank’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and returned the aiding-and-abetting issue for further review after additional briefing about a later Supreme Court decision. Judge Gregory H. Woods issued the order.
The detailed version
- Averbach v. Cairo Amman Bank · No. 1:19-cv-00004
- Gregory Woods
- Aug. 6, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs sued Cairo Amman Bank under 18 U.S.C. § 2333, asserting claims for direct liability and for aiding and abetting terrorism. The bank moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, lack of standing, and lack of personal jurisdiction.
The court previously adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation that plaintiffs with standing could replead. In the later recommendation under review, Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker concluded that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded an aiding-and-abetting claim, that they had not stated a direct-liability claim, and that Julie Averbach, Matanya Nathansen, and Nevenka Gritz lacked standing. After jurisdictional discovery, Judge Parker also recommended denying the bank’s renewed motion challenging personal jurisdiction.
Rulings on the Claims
Neither party objected to Judge Parker’s conclusions that the three named plaintiffs lacked standing and that the direct-liability claim should be dismissed without prejudice. The court reviewed those conclusions for clear error and adopted them. In its conclusion, the court stated that the claims of Julie Averbach, Matanya Nathansen, and Nevenka Gritz were dismissed with prejudice, and that the remaining plaintiffs’ direct-liability claim under § 2333 was dismissed without prejudice. The court allowed an amended complaint to be filed within fourteen days.
The court deferred a decision on whether the remaining plaintiffs adequately pleaded aiding and abetting terrorism. It explained that the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh affected the legal standard. The court returned that issue to Judge Parker and directed her to consider the bank’s motion under the revised legal analysis after supplemental briefing.
Personal Jurisdiction
Personal jurisdiction is a court’s authority to exercise its power over a defendant. After reviewing the issue anew, the court rejected the bank’s objections and adopted Judge Parker’s conclusion that personal jurisdiction existed. The court relied on allegations and evidence that the bank processed transactions from a New York bank account to committees in the West Bank and Gaza that, according to the recommendation, were controlled by Hamas and used for activities supporting terrorism.
The court therefore denied the bank’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It noted that the parties could provide Judge Parker supplemental briefing on whether the Twitter decision affected the personal-jurisdiction analysis.
Disposition
The court denied the bank’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissed the specified claims as described above, and returned the aiding-and-abetting issue to Judge Parker for an amended recommendation after supplemental briefing. The order also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions pending at Docket Numbers 97 and 188.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.