15‐1580
Licci et. al. v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER
JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S
LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER
THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A
SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
Square, in the City of New York, on the 24th day of August, two thousand
sixteen.
PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK,
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
Circuit Judges.
____________________________________________
YAAKOV LICCI, a minor, by his father and natural
guardian Elihav Licci and by his mother and natural
guardian Yehudit Licci, et al., ELIHAV LICCI,
YEHUDIT LICCI, TZVI HIRSH, ARKADY GRAIPEL,
TATIANA KREMER, YOSEF ZARONA, TAL SHANI,
SHLOMO COHEN, NITZAN GOLDENBERG, RINA
DAHAN, RAPHAEL WEISS, AGAT KLEIN, TATIANA
KOVLEYOV, VALENTINA DEMESH, RIVKA EPON,
JOSEPH MARIA, IMMANUEL PENKER, ESTHER
PINTO, AVISHAI REUVANCE, ELISHEVA ARON,
CHAYIM KUMER, SARAH YEFET, SHOSHANA
SAPPIR, RAHMI GUHAD GHANAM, a minor, by his
father and natural guardian Fuad Shchiv Ghanam and
by his mother and natural guardian Suha Shchiv
Ghanam, FUAD SHCHIV GHANAM, individually,
SUHA SHCHIV GHANAM, individually, MAʹAYAN
ARDSTEIN, a minor, by her father and natural guardian,
Brian Ardstein, and by her mother and natural guardian,
Keren Ardstein, NOA ARDSTEIN, a minor, by her
father and natural guardian, Brian Ardstein, and by her
mother and natural guardian, Keren Ardstein, NETIYA
YESHUA ARDSTEIN, a minor, by her father and natural
guardian, Brian Ardstein, and by her mother and natural
guardian, Keren Ardstein, ARIEL CHAIM ARDSTEIN, a
minor, by her father and natural guardian, Brian
Ardstein, and by her mother and natural guardian Keren
Ardstein, BRIAN ARDSTEIN, individually, KEREN
ARDSTEIN, individually, MARGALIT RAPPEPORT, a
minor, by her mother and natural guardian, Laurie
Rappeport, LAURIE RAPPEPORT, individually, ORNA
MOR, YAIR MOR, MICHAEL FUCHS, ESQ., MUSHKA
KAPLAN, a minor, by her father and natural guardian
Chaim Kaplan, and by her mother and natural guardian
Rivka Kaplan, ARYE LEIB KAPLAN, a minor, by his
father and natural guardian Chaim Kaplan, and by his
mother and natural guardian Rivka Kaplan,
MENACHEM KAPLAN, a minor, by his father and
natural guardian Chaim Kaplan, and by his mother and
natural guardian Rivka Kaplan, CHANA KAPLAN, a
minor, by her father and natural guardian Chaim
Kaplan, and by her mother and natural guardian Rivka
Kaplan, EFRAIM LEIB KAPLAN, a minor, by his father
and natural guardian Chaim Kaplan and by his mother
and natural guardian Rivka Kaplan, CHAIM KAPLAN,
individually, RIVKA KAPLAN, individually,
ROCHELLE SHALMONI, OZ SHALMONI, DAVID
OCHAYON, YAAKOV MAIMON, MIMI BITON,
MIRIAM JUMAʹA, as personal representative of the
estate of Fadya Jumaʹa, MIRIAM JUMAʹA, individually,
SALAH JUMAʹA, as personal representative of the
estate of Samira Jumaʹa, SALAH JUMAʹA, individually,
SAID JUMAʹA, individually, ABD EL‐RAHMAN
JUMAʹA, as personal representative of the estate of
Samira Jumaʹa, ABD EL‐RAHMAN JUMAʹA,
individually, RAHMA ABU‐SHAHIN, ABDEL GAHNI,
as personal representative of the estate of Soltana Jumaʹa
and individually, SHADI SALMAN AZZAM, as the
personal representative of the estate of Manal Camal
Azam, KANAR SHAʹADI AZZAM, a minor, by his
father and natural guardian, Shadi Salman Azzam,
ADEN SHAʹADI AZZAM, a minor, by his father and
natural guardian, Shadi Salman Azzam, SHADI
SALMAN AZZAM, individually, ADINA
MACHASSAN DAGESH, ARKADY SPEKTOR, YORI
ZOVREV, MAURINE GREENBERG, JACOB
KATZMACHER, DEBORAH CHANA KATZMACHER,
CHAYA KATZMACHER, MIKIMI STEINBERG, JARED
SAUTER, DANIELLE SAUTER, YAAKOV ABUTBUL,
ABRAHAM NATHAN MOR, a minor, by his father and
natural guardian, Zion Mor, and by his mother and
natural guardian, Revital Mor, BAT ZION MOR, a
minor, by her father and natural guardian, Zion Mor,
and by her mother and natural guardian, Revital Mor,
MICHAL MOR, a minor, by her father and natural
guardian, Zion Mor, and by her mother and natural
guardian, Revital Mor, ODED CHANA MOR, a minor,
by her father and natural guardian, Zion Mor, and by
her mother and natural guardian, Revital Mor, ZION
MOR, individually, REVITAL MOR, individually,
ADHAM MAHANE TARRABASHI, JIHAN KAMUD
ASLAN, ZOHARA LOUIE SA’AD, IYAH ZAID
GANAM, a minor, by his father and natural guardian
Ziad Shchiv Ghanam, and by his mother and natural
guardian Gourov Tisir Ghanam, ZIAD SHCHIV
GHANAM, individually, GOUROV TISIR GHANAM,
individually, THEODORE GREENBERG, EMILLA
SALMAN ASLAN,
Plaintiffs‐Appellants,
v. 15‐1580
Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL,
Defendant‐Appellee,
American Express Bank, Ltd.,
Defendant.
____________________________________________
FOR APPELLANTS: MEIR KATZ (Robert J. Tolchi, on the brief), The Berkman
Law Office, LLC, Brooklyn, NY.
FOR APPELLEE: JONATHAN D. SIEGFRIED (Douglas W. Mateyaschuk,
Peter J. Couto, on the brief), Petrillo Klein & Boxer LLP,
New York, NY.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Daniels, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the order of the District Court is AFFIRMED
IN PART.1
Plaintiffs‐Appellants (“Plaintiffs”) appeal from a decision and order of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Daniels, J.).
This summary order affirms the District Court’s judgment with regard to all of
1
Plaintiffs’ claims except those under the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”), 28 U.S.C. § 1350.
This summary order and the accompanying opinion, Licci et al. v. Lebanese Canadian
Bank, SAL, 15‐1580, which addresses Plaintiffs’ ATS claims, combine to affirm the
District Court’s judgment in toto.
We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural
history, and the issues presented for review. 2
We review the District Court’s dismissal of an action on collateral estoppel
grounds de novo. Johnston v. Arbitrium (Cayman Is.) Handels AG, 198 F.3d 342, 346
(2d Cir. 1999). For substantially the reasons stated by the court below, we find
that the Plaintiffs’ Antiterrorism Act (“ATA”) claims, 18 U.S.C. § 2331 et seq., are
barred under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. A party is collaterally estopped
from raising an issue if “(1) the identical issue was raised in a previous
proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated and decided in the previous
proceeding; (3) the part[ies] had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue;
and (4) the resolution of the issue was necessary to support a valid and final
judgment on the merits.” Wyly v. Weiss, 697 F.3d 131, 141 (2d Cir. 2012).
The Plaintiffs contend that collateral estoppel does not bar their ATA
claims because the judgment in the prior proceeding was “non‐final.” This
argument is unavailing, as the decision of the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia in Kaplan v. Cent. Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 961 F.
Supp. 2d 185 (D.D.C. 2013) (“Kaplan v. Central Bank”) is a final judgment for
2 These facts are described in further detail in the accompanying opinion, see Licci, 15‐
1580.
purposes of collateral estoppel, see Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth Oil Ref. Co., 297
F.2d 80, 82 (2d Cir. 1961), that satisfies all of the conditions for collateral estoppel,
see Wyly, 697 F.3d at 141. The Plaintiffs’ attempt to treat Kaplan v. Central Bank, a
final decision, and Kaplan v. Hezbollah, No. 09‐CV‐00646 (D.D.C. Apr. 8, 2009), a
non‐final decision, as a single case, is unavailing.
In addition, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Israeli state law claims in light of its
dismissal of all of the Plaintiffs’ federal law claims. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(a), (c);
Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys. of Long Island, Inc., 711 F.3d 106, 118 (2d Cir. 2013).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM IN PART the judgment of the District Court as
to Plaintiff’s ATA and Israeli state law claims.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk