Victory after all these years!!and a helpful decision on immunity!
Marlene
From: "Wirth, Stephen K." <[email protected]>
Date: 27 March 2019 at 2:31:13 PM GMT-4
To: Marlene Mazel <[email protected]>
Cc: "Anderson, Reeves" <[email protected]>, "Bellinger III, John B." <[email protected]>
Subject: Newman Injunction Affirmed!
Dear Marlene,
We have very good news: The Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of the Newman case and affirmed the permanent, nationwide injunction against both Weisskopf and Eliahu.
The court’s opinion (attached) includes excellent language about immunity and the litigation campaign against Israel. With regard to foreign-official immunity, the court held that “[e]ven assuming the officials’ challenged conduct was improper under Israeli law, there is no doubt that the conduct was official in nature. Accordingly, the Israeli Officials are entitled to foreign official immunity.” The court thus reaffirmed the common-law right to official immunity for official acts even where plaintiffs allege that the defendants acted illegally. We anticipate that this language will be useful in future cases brought against Israeli government officials.
With regard to the remaining defendants (the charities), the court held that plaintiffs failed to state a RICO claim for all the reasons set forth in our appellate brief.
And, finally, the court affirmed the anti-filing injunction in full, finding that all five of the Second Circuit’s factors weigh in favor of the injunction:
(1) the litigant’s history of litigation and in particular whether it entailed vexatious, harassing or duplicative lawsuits; (2) the litigant’s motive in pursuing the litigation; (3) whether the litigant is represented by counsel; (4) whether the litigant has caused needless expense to other parties or has posed an unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel; and (5) whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts and other parties.
The district court only mentioned factors 1, 2, and 4, so it is great to see the Second Circuit go the extra step of agreeing with us on factors 3 and 5.
On top of that, the opinion details the abusive nature of these cases:
- “Weisskopf has a demonstrable history of vexatious and baseless litigation against defendants.”
- “Prior to this action, Plaintiffs, led by Weisskopf, filed twelve other actions in either federal or state courts throughout the United States.”
- “[T]he record contains several indications that Eliahu is likely to engage in further harassing, duplicative, and vexatious litigation against these defendants.”
- “[T]he district court did not err in determining that Weisskopf and Eliahu lacked an objective good faith expectation of prevailing. They were unsuccessful with their claims and defenses in Israel, and yet they came to the United States continuing to press their claims. The dismissal of similar, if not identical, prior actions underscores that both Weisskopf and Eliah had little, if any, good faith basis for believing they could prevail on their claims.”
- “[D]efendants have continually been forced to defend frivolous lawsuits at not insignificant costs and the courts have been burdened with adjudicating these repeating claims.”
This is a resounding victory that calls out plaintiffs’ harassment campaign. If Weisskopf and/or Eliahu are not deterred by this decision and the recent dismissal in New York (under the injunction, no less!), we look forward to using the court’s words in any future cases brought by this group.
Please pass along our congratulations to the Israeli officials. We deeply appreciate the opportunity to represent them in these cases, and we hope today’s decision brings them some vindication and a sense of closure.
Best,
Stephen
Stephen K. Wirth
Arnold & Porter
+1 202.942.6739
This communication may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete it from his or her computer.
___________________________________________
For more information about Arnold & Porter, click here:
http://www.arnoldporter.com