OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs

Last updated

OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 5, 2015
Decided December 1, 2015
Full case nameOBB PERSONENVERKEHR AG, Petitioner v. CAROL P. SACHS
Docket no. 13–1067
Citations577 U.S. ___ ( more )
136 S. Ct. 390; 193 L. Ed. 2d 269; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 7670; 84 U.S.L.W. 4011
Case history
PriorOn writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Sachs v. Republic of Austria, 737 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2013)
Holding
Although the plaintiff purchased a rail ticket in the United States, an injury that occurred on a rail platform in Austria was "based upon" conduct that occurred solely in Austria; the plaintiff's suit therefore fell outside the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's commercial activity exception
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinion
MajorityRoberts, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
28 U.S.C.   § 1605(a)(2) (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act)

OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, 577 U.S. ___ (2015), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, holding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act barred a California resident from bringing suit against an Austrian railroad in federal district court. [1] The case arose after a California resident suffered traumatic personal injuries while attempting to board a train in Innsbruck, Austria. [2] She then filed a lawsuit against the railroad in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in which she alleged the railroad was responsible for causing her injuries. [3] Because the railroad was owned by the Austrian government, the railroad claimed that the lawsuit should be barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which provides immunity to foreign sovereigns in tort suits filed in the United States. [4] In response, the plaintiff argued that her suit should be permitted under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act's commercial activity exception because she purchased her rail ticket in the United States. [5]

Contents

Writing for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice John Roberts held that the plaintiff's injury was "based upon" conduct that occurred solely in Austria, and the suit therefore fell outside the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's commercial activity exception. [6] Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that "the conduct constituting the gravamen of Sachs's suit plainly occurred abroad". [7] Commentators have identified this case as part of "a series of rulings" in which the Supreme Court of the United States "has limited the use of U.S. courts as a forum for adjudicating wrongs that took place primarily outside the country". [8] Although some analysts suggest the case has a "larger meaning", other analysts have described the Court's ruling as "less momentous than we might have expected". [9]

Background

Tort immunity for foreign sovereigns

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 codified the longstanding common law principle that foreign sovereigns could not be held liable for torts in United States courts. [10] After its enactment, the Act became "the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in [United States] courts". [11] The Act states that United States courts may only exercise subject matter jurisdiction in cases brought by a private citizen against a foreign sovereign when the suit falls within one of the Act's enumerated exceptions. [12] Absent subject matter jurisdiction, United States Courts may not exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign. [13] However, one of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act's enumerated exceptions is the commercial activity exception, which specifies that foreign sovereigns may be held liable in United States courts when "the action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by [a] foreign state". [14] According to the Act, the definition of a "foreign state" also includes an "agency or instrumentality" of the foreign state. [15]

Initial lawsuit

Carol Sachs, a resident of California, purchased a Eurail pass from a Massachusetts-based travel agent in March 2007. [16] She arrived in Innsbruck, Austria, one month after purchasing her Eurail pass, where she intended to board a train operated by ÖBB Personenverkehr AG (ÖBB) bound for Prague. [16] When Sachs attempted to board the train, she fell from the platform onto the tracks and suffered traumatic personal injuries. [17] Sachs filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in which she alleged ÖBB was responsible for causing her injuries. [18] Although ÖBB was operated by the Austrian Ministry of Transport, Sachs argued her suit was not barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act because her suit was based upon the railway's act of selling her a Eurail pass in the United States. [3] In response, ÖBB moved to dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that Sachs' suit was barred by sovereign immunity. [18] The district court granted ÖBB's motion, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. [19] However, the Ninth Circuit ordered the case to be reheard en banc, and a majority of judges reversed the panel's decision. [20] The en banc majority concluded that Sachs' suit was permitted under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's commercial activity exception because her claims were "based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by OBB". [21] ÖBB then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which granted certiorari on January 23, 2015. [22]

Opinion of the Court

Official roberts CJ.jpg
Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1902.jpg
Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice John Roberts (pictured left) cited a letter written by former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (pictured right) to then-professor Felix Frankfurter, which explained that the "essentials of a personal injury narrative will be found at the point of contact – the place where the boy got his fingers pinched". [23]

Writing for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice John Roberts held that Sachs' injury was "based upon" conduct that occurred solely in Austria, and the suit therefore fell outside the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's commercial activity exception. [24] Although the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not define the phrase "based upon" with specificity, Chief Justice Roberts explained that the Court's 1993 ruling in Saudi Arabia v. Nelson [25] should guide the Court's analysis in this case. [26] In Nelson, the Court held that the Saudi Arabian government was protected by sovereign immunity in a tort suit brought by an American who alleged he was tortured by Saudi police after reporting safety violations in a Saudi hospital. [27] Although the plaintiff alleged the suit was based upon commercial activity that occurred when the Saudi hospital recruited the plaintiff in America, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs claims involved "sovereign acts" rather than commercial activity. [28] The Court ultimately held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act's "based upon" provision requires courts to identify the "particular conduct" upon which a plaintiff's claim is based. [29]

Applying the Nelson analysis to the facts of this case, Chief Justice Roberts held that "the conduct constituting the gravamen of Sachs’s suit plainly occurred abroad". [7] Justice Roberts also concluded that "[u]nder any theory of the case", there was "nothing wrongful about the sale of the Eurail pass standing alone". [7] To support his arguments, Chief Justice Roberts cited a letter written by former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. to then-professor Felix Frankfurter, which explained that the "essentials of a personal injury narrative will be found at the point of contact – the place where the boy got his fingers pinched". [23] Chief Justice Roberts wrote that "[a]t least in this case, that insight holds true". [30] Therefore, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that Sach's suit did not fall within the commercial activity exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and that the Ninth Circuit's opinion should be reversed for lack of jurisdiction. [31]

Analysis and commentary

Although some commentators suggested the Court's opinion may have a significant impact in tort cases involving foreign sovereigns, other commentators suggested the case's impact would be limited. [9] Lyle Denniston, for example, noted that although "the case focused on one American and one incident, it may well have larger meaning" and that following the Court's opinion, foreign railroads "could rarely, if ever, be held accountable for causing injuries, or worse". [32] However, Amy Howe wrote that the Court's decision "at first blush appears less momentous than we might have expected when the Court agreed to take the case on earlier this year". [33] In The National Law Journal , Tony Mauro commented that the court's opinion was "the latest in a series of rulings in which the high court has limited the use of U.S. courts as a forum for adjudicating wrongs that took place primarily outside the country". [8] Although she characterized the case as "a good decision by the Court", Ingrid Wuerth noted that the Court "left for another day" other cases "with less tangible injuries such as the misappropriation of trade secrets and other data or intellectual property-related actions, some of which may prove difficult to analyze under the Court's gravamen test". [34]

Following the publication of the Court's opinion, Dorsey & Whitney LLP partner Juan C. Basombrio, who argued the case before the Supreme Court on behalf of ÖBB Personenverkehr, issued a press release that praised the Court's decision to respect "the importance of international comity". [35] The press release also noted that "[i]n a world that has become increasingly connected by international commercial transactions, and where there is also increasing friction in the relations between the United States and other nations, this is a seminal and important decision that will foster harmony between the United States and other nations at least in the commercial context". [36] Stanford Law School professor Jeffrey Fisher, who argued on behalf of Carol Sachs at the Supreme Court, stated that he was "deeply disappointed in the court's ruling". [37] Fisher wrote that he "hoped the court would consider – as it often does – the totality of respondent's arguments in support of the holding below", but that "[t]he court's failure to do so means that the Ninth Circuit and other courts still have not been given guidance concerning how to resolve cases like this". [37]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act</span> United States law

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) is a United States law, codified at Title 28, §§ 1330, 1332, 1391(f), 1441(d), and 1602–1611 of the United States Code, that established criteria as to whether a foreign sovereign nation is immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts—federal or state. The Act also establishes specific procedures for service of process, attachment of property and execution of judgment in proceedings against a foreign state. The FSIA provides the exclusive basis and means to bring a civil suit against a foreign sovereign in the United States. It was signed into law by United States President Gerald Ford on October 21, 1976.

Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that the sovereign immunity recognized in the Eleventh Amendment prevented a federal court from ordering a state from paying back funds that had been unconstitutionally withheld from parties to whom they had been due.

The doctrine and rules of state immunity concern the protection which a state is given from being sued in the courts of other states. The rules relate to legal proceedings in the courts of another state, not in a state's own courts. The rules developed at a time when it was thought to be an infringement of a state's sovereignty to bring proceedings against it or its officials in a foreign country.

Dolan v. United States Postal Service, 546 U.S. 481 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, involving the extent to which the United States Postal Service has sovereign immunity from lawsuits brought by private individuals under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Court ruled that an exception to the FTCA that barred liability for the "negligent transmission of mail" did not apply to a claim for injuries caused when someone tripped over mail left by a USPS employee. Instead, the exception only applied to damage caused to the mail itself or that resulted from its loss or delay.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006.

Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), combined three pending federal cases for a hearing in certiorari in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to members of the armed forces sustained while on active duty and not on furlough and resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces. The opinion is an extension of the English common-law concept of sovereign immunity.

Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349 (1993), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered the term "based upon a commercial activity" within the meaning of the first clause of 1605(a)(2) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.

Permanent Mission of India v. City of New York, 551 U.S. 193 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court construed the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to allow a federal court to hear a lawsuit brought by the City of New York to recover unpaid property taxes levied against India and Mongolia, both of which own real estate in New York.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sovereign immunity in the United States</span> Legal protection of federal, state and tribal governments

In United States law, the federal government as well as state and tribal governments generally enjoy sovereign immunity, also known as governmental immunity, from lawsuits. Local governments in most jurisdictions enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides foreign governments, including state-owned companies, with a related form of immunity—state immunity—that shields them from lawsuits except in relation to certain actions relating to commercial activity in the United States. The principle of sovereign immunity in US law was inherited from the English common law legal maxim rex non potest peccare, meaning "the king can do no wrong." In some situations, sovereign immunity may be waived by law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991</span> United States law

The Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 is a US statute that allows for the filing of civil suits in the United States against individuals who, acting in an official capacity for any foreign nation, committed torture and/or extrajudicial killing. The statute requires a plaintiff to show exhaustion of local remedies in the location of the crime, to the extent that such remedies are "adequate and available." Plaintiffs may be U.S. citizens or non-U.S. citizens.

United States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Little Tucker Act, which provides jurisdiction to federal courts for certain claims brought against the federal government, does not apply to lawsuits brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case examining whether a federal court has jurisdiction over activity that violates the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act but takes place off Indian lands, and, if so, whether tribal sovereign immunity prevents a state from suing in federal court. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the State of Michigan's suit against Bay Mills is barred by tribal immunity.

Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case that found that a law which only applied to a specific case, identified by docket number, and eliminated all of the defenses one party had raised does not violate the separation of powers in the United States Constitution between the legislative (Congress) and judicial branches of government. The plaintiffs, in the case had initially obtained judgments against Iran for its role in supporting state-sponsored terrorism, particularly the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings and 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, and sought execution against a bank account in New York held, through European intermediaries, on behalf of Bank Markazi, the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The plaintiffs obtained court orders preventing the transfer of funds from the account in 2008 and initiated their lawsuit in 2010. Bank Markazi raised several defenses, including that the account was not an asset of the bank, but rather an asset of its European intermediary, under both New York state property law and §201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. In response to concerns that existing laws were insufficient for the account to be used to settle the judgments, Congress added an amendment to a 2012 bill, codified after enactment as 22 U.S.C. § 8772, that identified the pending lawsuit by docket number, applied only to the assets in the identified case, and effectively abrogated every legal basis available to Bank Markazi to prevent the plaintiffs from executing their claims against the account. Bank Markazi then argued that § 8772 was an unconstitutional breach of the separation of power between the legislative and judicial branches of government, because it effectively directed a particular result in a single case without changing the generally applicable law. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit both upheld the constitutionality of § 8772 and cleared the way for the plaintiffs to execute their judgments against the account, which held about $1.75 billion in cash.

Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified whether a case becomes moot when a party provides a settlement offer that satisfies a named plaintiff's claims in a class action suit and whether a government contractor is entitled to "derivative sovereign immunity".

Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp., 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case that clarified whether Fannie Mae can be sued in state courts. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court held that plaintiffs may file lawsuits against Fannie Mae in any state or federal court that is "already endowed with subject-matter jurisdiction over the suit."

Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case brought against the nation of Iran by the families of American victims of the Ben Yehuda Street bombings which occurred in September 1997. Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, nations cannot typically be sued unless the state can be proved to have provided support for terrorists or acts of terrorism. After a district judge ruled Iran owed $71.5 million to the families of the victims, the families brought several cases to court in an attempt to attach and execute on assets owned by the state of Iran located in the United States.

Patchak v. Zinke, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act, which precludes federal courts from hearing lawsuits involving a particular parcel of land. Although six Justices agreed that the Gun Lake Act was constitutional, they could not agree on why. In an opinion issued by Justice Thomas, a plurality of the Court read the statute to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over cases involving the property and held that this did not violate Article III of the U.S. Constitution. In contrast, Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, both of whom concurred in the judgment, upheld the Act as a restoration of the government's sovereign immunity. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for himself and Justices Kennedy and Gorsuch, dissented on the ground that the statute intruded on the judicial power, in violation of Article III.

Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term. The Court held that civil service of a lawsuit against the government of Sudan was invalid because the civil complaints and summons had been sent to the Embassy of Sudan in Washington, D.C. rather than to the Sudanese Foreign Minister in Khartoum.

Jam v. International Finance Corp., 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term. The Supreme Court ruled that international organizations, such as the World Bank Group's financing arm, the International Finance Corporation, can be sued in US federal courts for conduct arising from their commercial activities. It specifically held that international organizations shared the same sovereign immunity as foreign governments. This was a reversal from existing jurisprudence, which held that international organizations had near-absolute immunity from lawsuits under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the International Organizations Immunities Act.

Opati v. Republic of Sudan, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act with its 2008 amendments, whether plaintiffs in federal lawsuits against foreign countries may seek punitive damages for cause of actions prior to enactment of the amended law, with the specific case dealing with victims and their families from the 1998 United States embassy bombings. The Court ruled unanimously in May 2020 that punitive damages can be sought from foreign nations in such cases for preenactment conduct.

References

  1. ↑ OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs,No. 13–1067 , 577 U.S. ___, slip op. at 1–2 (2015).
  2. ↑ OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 1–3.
  3. 1 2 OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 1, 3.
  4. ↑ OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 1, 3–4.
  5. ↑ OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 1, 3–4 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2)).
  6. ↑ OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 1–2, 10–11.
  7. 1 2 3 OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 8.
  8. 1 2 Tony Mauro, Justices' Austrian Train Ruling Further Restricts Foreign Claims in U.S. Courts, The National Law Journal, December 1, 2015.
  9. 1 2 Compare Lyle Denniston, Constitution Check: Do U.S. laws protect Americans traveling overseas?, Constitution Daily, December 3, 2015 (noting the case has a "larger meaning") with Amy Howe, First decision of the Term is a unanimous one in Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act case, SCOTUSblog (December 1, 2015, 2:50 PM) (noting that the case was "less momentous than we might have expected").
  10. ↑ 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602–1611.
  11. ↑ Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. 488 U.S. 428, 443 (1989).
  12. ↑ Lee M. Caplan, The Constitution and Jurisdiction over Foreign States: The 1996 Amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in Perspective, 41 Va. J. Int'l L. 369, 405 (2001) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a)).
  13. ↑ Lee M. Caplan, The Constitution and Jurisdiction over Foreign States: The 1996 Amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in Perspective, 41 Va. J. Int'l L. 369, 405 (2001) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b)).
  14. ↑ 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2).
  15. ↑ 28 U.S.C. § 1603(a).
  16. 1 2 OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 2.
  17. ↑ OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 2–3 (internal citations omitted).
  18. 1 2 OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 3.
  19. ↑ OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 4 (citing Sachs v. Republic of Austria, 2011 WL 816854, *1, *4 (ND Cal., January 28, 2011); Sachs v. Republic of Aus., 695 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2012)).
  20. ↑ OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 4 (citing Sachs v. Republic of Austria, 737 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2013)).
  21. ↑ OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 4 (citing 737 F.3d at 602) (internal quotations omitted).
  22. ↑ OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, 135 S. Ct. 1172 (2015).
  23. 1 2 OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 9 (citing Letter (December 19, 1915), in Holmes and Frankfurter: Their Correspondence, 1912–1934, p. 40 (R. Mennel & C. Compston eds. 1996) (internal quotations omitted).
  24. ↑ OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 5.
  25. ↑ Saudi Arabia v. Nelson , 507 U.S. 349 (1993).
  26. ↑ OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 5–6.
  27. ↑ OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 5–6; see also Nelson, 507 U.S. at 353–58.
  28. ↑ OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 6 (citing Nelson, 507 U.S. at 358).
  29. ↑ OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 6 (citing Nelson, 507 U.S. at 357) (internal quotations omitted).
  30. ↑ OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 9.
  31. ↑ OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 10–11.
  32. ↑ Lyle Denniston, Constitution Check: Do U.S. laws protect Americans traveling overseas?, Constitution Daily (December 3, 2015).
  33. ↑ Amy Howe, First decision of the Term is a unanimous one in Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act case, SCOTUSblog (December 1, 2015).
  34. ↑ Ingrid Wuerth, The Supreme Court’s Anodyne Opinion in Sachs v. OBB Personenverkehr, Lawfare (December 4, 2015).
  35. ↑ Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Dorsey Partner Juan Basombrio Prevails Before United States Supreme Court Representing Austria’s National Railway (December 1, 2015).
  36. ↑ Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Dorsey Partner Juan Basombrio Prevails Before United States Supreme Court Representing Austria’s National Railway (December 1, 2015) (internal quotations omitted).
  37. 1 2 Jimmy Hoover, Austrian Railway Immune To US Suits, High Court Says, Law360 (December 1, 2015) (internal quotations omitted).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.