Schansman v. Sberbank of Russia PJSC
- Andrew Carter
- 1:19-cv-02985
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Schansman v. Sberbank, Judge Carter denied reconsideration and interlocutory-appeal requests because Sberbank showed no exceptional circumstances.
Sberbank of Russia PJSC, whose requests to reopen the September 2021 decision and obtain immediate appellate review were denied; the plaintiffs’ claims were not dismissed by this order.
What happened
In Schansman v. Sberbank of Russia PJSC, Sberbank asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision allowing the plaintiffs’ claims to proceed. The plaintiffs allege that Sberbank and VTB Bank supported and financed a terrorist group accused of shooting down a Malaysia Airlines flight in 2014.
Sberbank also asked the court to certify the earlier decision for an immediate appeal. It challenged the court’s rulings about causation, the pleading of knowledge and intent related to international terrorism, and personal jurisdiction.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied both requests. He found that Sberbank had not shown the exceptional circumstances required to reopen the earlier decision or permit an immediate appeal, and that the disputed issues involved law and facts that were not suitable for review before a complete record existed.
The detailed version
- Schansman v. Sberbank of Russia PJSC · No. 1:19-cv-02985
- Andrew Carter
- Sept. 30, 2022
Background
The opinion concerns Sberbank’s requests relating to the court’s September 30, 2021 decision denying defendants’ earlier motion to dismiss. According to the complaints, Sberbank and VTB Bank provided material support and financing to the Donetsk People’s Republic, which the complaints describe as a terrorist group accused of downing a Malaysia Airlines flight over eastern Ukraine in 2014.
Motion for Reconsideration
Sberbank moved for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That rule allows relief from a final judgment in specified circumstances, such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or other reasons justifying relief. The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy requiring exceptional circumstances and should not be used simply to relitigate an issue already decided.
The court concluded that Sberbank had not shown sufficient facts or law to justify overturning the September 2021 decision. The court had previously considered arguments about personal jurisdiction, potential liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act, and other legal issues, and had found that the operative complaint contained enough factual matter to state a plausible claim. The court therefore denied Sberbank’s motion for reconsideration.
Interlocutory Appeal
Sberbank also sought certification for an interlocutory appeal, which is an appeal before the district court enters a final judgment. Its request concerned the causation standard, whether the complaint adequately pleaded knowledge and intent to engage in international terrorism, and personal jurisdiction based on the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), certification requires a controlling legal question, substantial disagreement about that question, and a likelihood that immediate review would materially advance the litigation. The court stated that interlocutory review is reserved for exceptional circumstances. It found that Sberbank had not shown such circumstances and that the disputed issues involved mixed questions of law and fact concerning Sberbank’s conduct, its connection with New York’s financial system, and its knowledge and intent. The court concluded that those issues were not suitable for appellate review without a full record.
Disposition
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied Sberbank’s motion for reconsideration and motion for interlocutory appeal. The clerk was directed to terminate the docket entry for the reconsideration motion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.