Levin v. Bank of New York
- James Oetken
- 1:09-cv-05900
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Levin v. Bank of New York, Judge Oetken requested letters addressing Supreme Court guidance before deciding the pending dismissal motion.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the case, who were directed to submit letters addressing the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 1610(g) and the immunity status of the “Melli Blocked Account.”
What happened
In Levin v. Bank of New York, the parties disputed whether Section 1610(g) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act removes immunity from assets located outside the United States.
The court noted that neither side directly addressed the Supreme Court’s decision in Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran. Rubin held that Section 1610(g) identifies property available to satisfy certain judgments but does not itself remove immunity; the property must be exempt under another provision of Section 1610.
The court did not decide the pending motion to dismiss. Judge Oetken ordered both parties to submit letters by February 4, 2022, addressing Rubin and whether the “Melli Blocked Account” is exempt from immunity under another provision of Section 1610.
The detailed version
- Levin v. Bank of New York · No. 1:09-cv-05900
- James Oetken
- Jan. 27, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs and defendants filed briefs concerning a pending motion to dismiss. Their main dispute was whether Section 1610(g) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act removes immunity from assets located outside the United States so that those assets may be attached or used to satisfy a judgment.
Court’s Direction
The court observed that neither party directly addressed the Supreme Court’s holding in Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran. The Supreme Court stated that Section 1610(g) identifies property that may be available for attachment and execution to satisfy a judgment under Section 1605A, but does not itself remove the property’s immunity. Instead, the property must be exempt from immunity under another provision of Section 1610.
The court invited both parties to submit letters by February 4, 2022, addressing Rubin and whether the “Melli Blocked Account” is exempt from immunity under another provision of Section 1610. Judge J. Paul Oetken did not rule on the pending motion to dismiss in this order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.