Cluster 780118

But see Olsen v. Gov’t of Mexico, 729 F.2d 641 , 646 (9th Cir. 1984) (abrogated on other grounds by Joseph v. Office of Consulate Gen. of Nig., 830 F.2d 1018 , 1026 (1987)) (“[I]f plaintiffs allege at least one entire tort occurring in the United States, they may claim under section 1605(a)(5).”). 8 As noted above, the class representatives all resided in the state of Kentucky at the time of the alleged abuse. “[I]n FSIA cases, we use the forum state’s choice of law rules to…

See Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara (“Pertamina I”), 313 F.3d 70, 86 (2d Cir. 2002) (“When a party holds funds in a bank account, possession is established, and the presumption of ownership follows.”).

See, e.g., Hilton, 159 U.S. at 194 , 16 S.Ct. 139 (“We receive the construction given by the courts of the nation as the true sense of the law, and feel ourselves no more at liberty to depart from that construction than to depart from the words of the statute.”) (citation omitted); Karaha Bodas Co., L.L.C. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara (“Pertamina”), 313 F.3d 70, 92 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Where a choice between two interpretations of ambiguous foreign law r…

“Just as class action procedure allows nonnamed class members to object to a settlement at the fairness hearing without first intervening, it should similarly allow them to appeal the District Court’s decision to disregard their objections.” Id.; see also Karaha, 313 F.3d at 83 (“[W]e have long allowed appeal ‘when the nonparty has an interest that is affected by the trial court’s judgment.”).

“A party seeking to enforce a judgment ‘stand[s] in the shoes of the judgment debtor in relation to any debt owed him or a property interest he may own.’” Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara (“Pertamina”), 313 F.3d 70, 83 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting Bass v. Bass, 528 N.Y.S.2d 558, 561 (1st Dep't 1988)).

Relying on the Second Circuit’s decision in Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2002), Magistrate Judge Gorenstein began his analysis by acknowledging that under New York law, “[w]hen a party holds funds in a bank account, possession is established, and the presumption of ownership follows.” Id. at 86 (2d Cir. 2002).

Cf. Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70, 83 (2d Cir. 2002).

“Under New York law, ‘[t]he first step in any case presenting a potential choice[-] [-]of[-]law issue is to determine whether there is an actual conflict between the laws of the jurisdictions involved.’” Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara (“Pertamina”), 313 F.3d 70, 85 (2d Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).

When a party holds funds in a bank account, possession is established, and the presumption of ownership follows.” Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70, 86 (2d Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).

Under the interests analysis, “the law of the jurisdiction having the greatest interest in the litigation is applied and the facts or contacts which obtain significance in defining State interests are those which relate to the purpose of the particular law in conflict.” Karaha Bodas, 313 F.3d at 85 (internal alteration and omission adopted) (quoting Koreag, Controle et Revision S.A. v. Refco F/X Assoc.

L.L.C. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Dumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70, 83 (2d Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Alliance Bond Fund, Inc. v. Grupo Mexicano De Dasarrollo, S.A., 190 F.3d 16 , 20 (2d Cir. 1999)).

App. Ct. 2011) (same under Illinois law); Karaha Bodas Co., L.L.C. v. Pertamina, 313 F.3d 70, 86 (2d Cir. 2002) (same under New York law).) PCI, in turn, is one of the debtors.

Int’l Grp., Inc., 837 F.3d 195, 204 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70, 82 (2d Cir. 2002)).

In property disputes, "New York choice of law rules require the application of an interests analysis, in which the law of the jurisdiction having the greatest interest in the litigation [is] applied and ... the facts or contacts which obtain significance in defining State interests are those which relate to the purpose of the particular law in conflict." Pertamina , 313 F.3d at 85 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In New York, a party in possession of property is presumed to be its owner, Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70, 86 (2d Cir. 2002); and when a stock certificate is issued in a party’s name, a rebuttable presumption of ownership is created, Perkins v. Guaranty Tr.

The determination of foreign law is “a question of law, which is subject to de novo review.” Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara (‘Pertamina”), 313 F.3d 70, 80 (2d Cir. 2002) (internal quotation omitted).

We have long allowed appeals by a non-party “when the nonparty has an interest that is affected by the trial court’s judgment.” Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara (“Pertamina”), 313 F.3d 70, 82 (2d Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted);, see also United States v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 931 F.2d 177, 183-84 (2d Cir. 1991); Hispanic Soc’y v. N.Y.C.

The determination of foreign law is “a question of 11 law, which is subject to de novo review.” Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan 12 Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara (“Pertamina”), 313 F.3d 70, 80 (2d Cir. 13 2002) (internal quotation omitted).

Mellon, 770 F.3d 993 , 1000–01 (2d Cir. 2014) (looking to New York law to determine what type of interest rendered property attachable under § 1610(g)), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 893 (2016); Walker Int’l Holdings, Ltd. v. Republic of Congo, 415 F.3d 413, 415 (5th Cir. 2005) (applying Texas law to determine attorney fees award in FSIA action); Hegna v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 380 F.3d 1000, 1007 (7th Cir. 2004) (applying Illinois law to decide whether property interest was o…

Mellon, 770 F.3d 993, 1000-01 (2d Cir. 2014) (looking to New York law to determine what type of interest rendered property attachable under § 1610(g)), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 893 (2016); Walker Int’l Holdings, Ltd. v. Republic of Congo, 415 F.3d 413, 415 (5th Cir. 2005) (applying Texas law to determine attorney fees award in FSIA action); Hegna v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 380 F.3d 1000, 1007 (7th Cir. 2004) (applying Illinois law to decide whether property interest was op…

Mellon, 770 F.3d 993, 1000-01 (2d Cir.2014) (looking to New York law to determine what type of interest rendered property attachable under § 1610(g)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 893 , 193 L.Ed.2d 809 (2016); Walker Int’l Holdings, Ltd. v. Republic of Congo, 415 F.3d 413, 415 (5th Cir.2005) (applying Texas law to determine attorney fees award in FSIA action); Hegna v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 380 F.3d 1000, 1007 (7th Cir.2004) (applying Illinois law to decide whether …

Defendants filed an accompanying memorandum of law, arguing that each question met the conditions in 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b) for certification, see Dkt. 617, which would permit (but not oblige) the Second Circuit to hear an interlocutory appeal, see Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70, 81 (2d Cir.2002).

Karaha Bodas, 313 F.3d at 86; see also Ames Dep’t Stores, 274 B.R. at 614 (stating that where debtor holds-property as a trustee or an agent, the property or proceeds of the property would not become property of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate).

“However, a denial of leave to amend that is based on a legal interpretation, such as for futility, is reviewed de novo.” Id. “[I]n FSIA cases, we use the forum state’s choice of law rules to resolve all issues, except jurisdictional ones.” Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70, 85 (2d Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted).

More importantly, in a recent decision, the Second Circuit held “that a foreign sovereign’s views regarding its own laws merit — although they do not command— some degree of deference.” Karaha Bodas Co., L.L.C. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara (“Pertamina”), 313 F.3d 70, 92 (2d Cir.2002) (adopting the Indonesian’s government’s position regarding the ownership, under Indonesian law, of majority of funds in dispute, but reaching a contrary position regardi…

For example, in Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70, 81 (2d Cir.2002), we recognized the standing of non-party Republic of Indonesia to appeal a judgment that allowed a party to garnish property allegedly owned by the Republic.

Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496 , 61 S.Ct. 1020 , 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941) (holding that in a diversity case, the forum state’s choice of law rules are to be applied); Karaha Bodas Co., LLC v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara (“Pertamina ”), 313 F.3d 70, 84 (2d Cir.2002) (applying Klaxon in the FSIA context); Barkanic v. Gen.

See, e.g., Walker Int’l Holdings, Ltd. v. Republic of Congo, 415 F.3d 413, 415-16 (5th Cir.2005) (applying Texas enforcement law in a FSIA case); Hegna v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 380 F.3d 1000, 1006-07 (7th Cir.2004) (applying Illinois law); Karaha Bodas Co., LLC v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70, 83 (2d Cir.2002) (applying New York law).

"In property disputes, if a conflict is identified, New York choice of law rules require the application of an `interests analysis,' in which `the law of the jurisdiction having the greatest interest in the litigation [is] applied and ... the facts or contacts which obtain significance in defining State interests are those which relate to the purpose of the particular law in conflict.'" Karaha Bodas, 313 F.3d at 85.

Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70, 80 (2d Cir.2002).

Id. at 75.

See Kearney, 45 Cal. Rptr.3d 730 , 137 P.3d at 922 ; Karaha, 313 F.3d at 85.

As noted above, the class representatives all resided in the state of Kentucky at the time of the alleged abuse. “[I]n FSIA cases, we use the forum state's choice of law rules to resolve 'all issues,’ except jurisdictional ones.” Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70, 85 (2d Cir.2002).

Cf. Rendall-Speranza v. Nassim, 107 F.3d 913 (D.C.Cir. 1997) (exercising pendent appellate jurisdiction pursuant to an interlocutory appeal of the denial of sovereign immunity under the FSIA). [8] As noted above, the class representatives all resided in the state of Kentucky at the time of the alleged abuse. "[I]n FSIA cases, we use the forum state's choice of law rules to resolve `all issues,' except jurisdictional ones." Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak D…

Bank & Trust Co. of N.Y. v Statile, 94 AD2d 754, 754-755 [2d Dept 1983]; see also Wulff v Roseville Trust Co., 164 App Div 399, 404-405 [1st Dept 1914] [“Property which a debtor holds in trust for others ... is not subject to an attachment issued against his property”]; Karaha Bodas Co., L.L.C. v Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara [“Pertamina”], 313 F3d 70, 92 [2d Cir 2002].) Such a showing, which might have been based upon an agreement between Ms. Darling an…

As this Court has previously 16 stated, “a foreign sovereign's views regarding its own laws merit – although they do not 17 command – some degree of deference.” Karaha Bodas Co., L.L.C. v. Perusahaan 18 Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70, 92 (2d Cir. 2002).

As this Court has previously stated, "a foreign sovereign's views regarding its own laws merit—although they do not command—some degree of deference." Karaha Bodas Co., L.L.C. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70, 92 (2d Cir.2002).

(Cordius Trust v Kummerfeld, 153 Fed Appx 761, 762 [2d Cir 2005]; Karaha Bodas Co., L.L.C. v Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara [“Per tamina”], 313 F3d 70, 83 [2d Cir 2002]; Alliance Bond Fund, Inc. v Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A., 190 F3d 16, 20 [2d Cir 1999]; Arnold v Blast Intermediate Unit 17, 843 F2d 122, 124-125 [3d Cir 1988]; Rodd v Region Constr.

Having accepted jurisdiction under § 1292(b), we need not consider whether jurisdiction would also be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(1), which grants appellate courts jurisdiction over orders "refusing or dissolving injunctions," or under the collateral order doctrine See Karaha Bodas Co., L.L.C. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70 , 81 & n. 11 (2d Cir.2002) (considering appeal of orders related to attachment of assets of Indonesian national…

Cf. Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70, 85 (2d Cir.2002) (noting that in FSIA cases, federal courts use state choice of law rules to resolve all issues except jurisdictional ones, which require application of federal law).

The contacts of the parties and occurrences with each jurisdiction are thus factors to be considered in applying interest analysis, together with the policies underlying each jurisdiction's rules, the strength of the governmental interests embodied in these policies, and the extent to which these interests are implicated by the contacts. 5 See Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70, 85, 87 (2d Cir.2002); Allstate Ins.

The contacts of the parties and occurrences with each jurisdiction are.thus factors to be considered in applying interest analysis, together with the policies underlying each jurisdiction’s rules, the strength of the governmental interests embodied in these policies, and the extent to which these interests are implicated by the contacts. 5 See Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70, 85, 87 (2d Cir.2002); Allstate Ins.

Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70, 80 (2d Cir.2002).

DISCUSSION “Ordinarily, appeals are permitted only from ‘final decisions of the district courts.’ ” Karaha Bodas Co., v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70, 81 (2d Cir.2002) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ).

DISCUSSION 10 "Ordinarily, appeals are permitted only from `final decisions of the district courts.'" Karaha Bodas Co., v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70, 81 (2d Cir.2002) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ).

Karaha Bodas Co. v. Pertamina, 313 F.3d 70, 92-93 (2d Cir.2002).

Cf. Karaha Bodas Co., L.L.C. v. Perusahaan Pertamina Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70, 92 (2d Cir.2002) (“[A] foreign sovereign’s views regarding its own laws merit — al though they do not command — some degree of deference.”) (emphasis added).

See Karaha Bodas Co. v. Pertamina, 313 F.3d 70, 86 (2d Cir. 2002) (applying New York law to conclude that “[w]hen a party holds funds in a bank account, possession is established, and the presumption of ownership follows,” but that “this presumption may be rebutted by evidence that [a third party] actually controlled the disputed funds, or that [the bank account holder] merely held the funds for the [third party], in the manner of a trustee”). product were paid to or deposit…

Special Fin. , 414 F.3d 325 , 337 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Cooney v. Osgood Mach., Inc. , 81 N.Y.2d 66 , 72, 595 N.Y.S.2d 919 , 612 N.E.2d 277 (1993) ; see Bakalar , 619 F.3d at 144 ("New York choice of law rules require the application of an 'interest analysis,' in which 'the law of the jurisdiction having the greatest interest in the litigation [is] applied ...' ".)(quoting Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara , 313 F.3d 70 , 85 (2d Cir. 20…

See Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70, 83 (2d Cir. 2002); see also EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 389 Fed.Appx. 38, 44 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (relying on state law to determine the location of property).