Averbach v. Cairo Amman Bank
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-00004
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Averbach v. Cairo Amman Bank, Judge Woods granted the bank’s dismissal motion but allowed amendment of most claims within 30 days.
The plaintiffs’ JASTA claims were dismissed. Julie Averbach, Matanya Nathansen, and Nevenka Gritz could not amend their personal-injury claims, while the plaintiffs were allowed to amend their remaining claims within 30 days. Cairo Amman Bank obtained dismissal of the complaint at this stage.
What happened
In Averbach v. Cairo Amman Bank, the plaintiffs challenged a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss their complaint. Their claims involved the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act and alleged that Cairo Amman Bank aided terrorism.
The court agreed that the complaint did not adequately allege the bank’s general awareness or substantial assistance. It also agreed that certain foreign-national plaintiffs could not seek personal-injury damages under the statute.
Judge Woods accepted the recommendation and granted Cairo Amman Bank’s motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs may amend all claims except personal-injury claims brought by Julie Averbach, Matanya Nathansen, and Nevenka Gritz, within 30 days.
The detailed version
- Averbach v. Cairo Amman Bank · No. 1:19-cv-00004
- Gregory Woods
- Mar. 9, 2020
Background
The court reviewed a report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker, which recommended dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint. The plaintiffs objected, Cairo Amman Bank opposed the objections, and the plaintiffs replied.
The plaintiffs asserted claims under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). The opinion identifies the relevant theory as aiding and abetting and discusses claims for personal injuries and other damages arising from terrorist attacks. The opinion does not provide a full factual account because it states that the parties were familiar with the facts described in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that general or conclusory objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation are reviewed for clear error. It nevertheless reviewed the recommendation de novo, meaning independently and anew, and found no error.
First, the court agreed that the complaint did not allege the “general awareness” required for a JASTA aiding-and-abetting claim. The court distinguished the case from decisions in which a bank allegedly received information identifying violent causes of death and therefore had sufficient notice of the relevant insurance scheme.
Second, the court agreed that the plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded substantial assistance. It stated that the report’s analysis of the six factors identified in Halberstam v. Welch was consistent with Second Circuit precedent and other district court decisions in the circuit.
Third, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ standing argument. It read 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a) as allowing a United States national, or that person’s estate, survivors, or heirs, to sue for injuries to the national’s person, property, or business caused by international terrorism. The court concluded that the statute does not provide a remedy for foreign nationals seeking damages for their own personal injuries.
Leave to amend and disposition
The court stated that leave to amend is usually allowed after dismissal for failure to state a claim, but that amendment may be denied when a plaintiff cannot allege facts sufficient to support the claim. It agreed that Julie Averbach, Matanya Nathansen, and Nevenka Gritz lacked standing to bring JASTA claims on their own behalf for personal injuries because they are foreign nationals. The court found that no set of facts could give them standing for those claims and denied leave to amend those personal-injury claims.
The court accepted and adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety and granted Cairo Amman Bank’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs were granted leave to amend all claims except the personal-injury claims of Julie Averbach, Matanya Nathansen, and Nevenka Gritz, no later than 30 days after the order. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions pending at Docket No. 46.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.