IFC-AMC Motion to Dismiss
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 1:17-cv-01494-VAC-SRF Document 34-1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1030 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE JUANA DOE I et al., § § Plaintiffs, § § vs. § § C.A. No. 17-1494-VAC-SRF IFC ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY, § LLC, § § Defendant. § [PROPOSED] ORDER WHEREAS, Defendant IFC Asset Management Company, LLC, having moved to dismiss the claims in Plaintiff Juana Doe I et al.’s Complaint (D.I. 1); and, WHEREAS, the Court having considered the briefs and arguments in support of and in opposition to said Motion; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this _______ day of ____________, 2018, that the Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. _______________________________ United States District Judge RLF1 18887565v.1 Case 1:17-cv-01494-VAC-SRF Document 34-1 Filed 02/16/18 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1030 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE JUANA DOE I et al., § § Plaintiffs, § § vs. § § C.A. No. 17-1494-VAC-SRF IFC ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY, § LLC, § § Defendant. § [PROPOSED] ORDER WHEREAS, Defendant IFC Asset Management Company, LLC, having moved to dismiss the claims in Plaintiff Juana Doe I et al.’s Complaint (D.I. 1); and, WHEREAS, the Court having considered the briefs and arguments in support of and in opposition to said Motion; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this _______ day of ____________, 2018, that the Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. _______________________________ United States District Judge RLF1 18887565v.1 Case 1:17-cv-01494-VAC-SRF Document 35 Filed 02/16/18 Page 1 of 51 PageID #: 1031 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE JUANA DOE I et al., § § Plaintiffs, § § vs. § § C.A. No. 17-1494-VAC-SRF IFC ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY, § LLC, § § Defendant. § DEFENDANT’S OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS OF COUNSEL: Jeffrey T. Green Susan M. Hannigan (#5342) Frank R. Volpe Travis S. Hunter (#5350) Spencer D. Driscoll Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. Matthew J. Letten One Rodney Square Sidley Austin LLP 920 N. King Street 1501 K Street, N.W. Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Washington, D.C., 20005 (302) 651-7700 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant IFC Asset Management Company, LLC Case 1:17-cv-01494-VAC-SRF Document 35 Filed 02/16/18 Page 2 of 51 PageID #: 1032 TABLE OF CONTENTS NATURE & STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ............................................................................1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................1 I. IFC AND IFC AMC ...........................................................................................................1 II. PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS ........................................................................................2 III. IFC AND IFC AMC’S INVESTMENTS WITH DINANT AND BANCO FICOHSA ...........................................................................................................................3 ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................4 I. THE COURT LACKS SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS BECAUSE IFC AMC IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT ...................................................................................................................................4 A. IFC AMC shares in IFC’s immunities because it is a wholly- owned subsidiary carrying out IFC’s operations ....................................................5 B. IFC AMC is immune under IFC’s Articles of Agreement and neither IFC nor IFC AMC have waived that immunity .........................................7 C. IFC AMC is also immune under the IOIA and Plaintiffs have failed to establish any applicable exception to IOIA immunity ...........................11 II. PLAINTIFFS LACK ARTICLE III STANDING ............................................................15 A. Plaintiff’s injuries are not fairly traceable to IFC and IFC AMC’s conduct .................................................................................................................15 B. Plaintiffs failed to establish third party standing for the unjust enrichment claim ..................................................................................................17 III. THIS COURT MUST DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO JOIN INDISPENSABLE THIRD PARTIES ...................................................................17 A. At least four necessary parties are absent from this case .....................................18 B. This court lacks jurisdiction to join the absent parties to this case ......................20 C. Dismissal is warranted ..........................................................................................21 i Case 1:17-cv-01494-VAC-SRF Document 35 Filed 02/16/18 Page 3 of 51 PageID #: 1033 IV. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO STATE ANY PLAUSIBLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF ....................................................................................................................23 A. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for aiding and abetting liability ..................................................................................................................24 B. Plaintiff’s claims related to IFC and IFC AMC’s alleged negligence fail to sufficiently allege duty or causation ........................................27 C. IFC and IFC AMC are not liable for unjust enrichment ......................................29 V. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................31 VI. THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS THE COMPLAINT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS ..............................................................32 A. The Honduran courts provide and adequate, alternate forum ..............................32 B. Plaintiffs’ choice of forum is not entitled to deference, and the balance of factors highly favors Honduras as an alternative forum .....................37 C. The private interest factors weight strongly in favor of dismissal .......................38 D. The public interest factors weigh strongly in favor of dismissal .........................39 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................40 ii Case 1:17-cv-01494-VAC-SRF Document 35 Filed 02/16/18 Page 4 of 51 PageID #: 1034 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Acierno v. Preit-Rubin, Inc., 199 F.R.D. 157 (D. Del. 2001) ................................................................................................20 Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Leahey Constr. Co., 219 F.3d 519 (6th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................26 Allegheny Gen. Hosp. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 228 F.3d 429 (3d Cir. 2000).....................................................................................................16 Anderson v. Airco, Inc., No. CIV.A. 02C-12-091HDR, 2004 WL 2827887 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 30, 2004) ........................................................................................................................................26 Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428 (1989) .................................................................................................................20 Ashford Int’l, Inc. v. World Bank Grp., No. 1:04-CV-3822-JOF, 2006 WL 783357 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 24, 2006) .....................................9 Askir v. Brown & Root Servs. Corp., No. 95 CIV. 11008 (JGK), 1997 WL 598587 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 1997) .................................7 Atkinson v. Inter-Am. Dev. Bank, 156 F.3d 1335 (D.C. Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................9 B. Fernandez & Hnos, Inc. v. Kellogg USA, Inc., 516 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2008) ......................................................................................................19 Bakerman v. Sidney Frank Importing Co., No. 1844, 2006 WL 3927242 (Del. Ch. Oct. 10, 2006) ...........................................................31 Banco de Seguros del Estado v. Int’l Fin. Corp., No. 06 CIV. 2427 LAP, 2007 WL 2746808 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2007) ...................................9 Base Metal Trading Ltd. v. Russian Aluminum, 98 F. App’x 47 (2d Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................36 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................................................................23 BFI Grp. Divino Corp. v. JSC Russian Aluminum, 298 Fed. Appx. 87 (2d Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................36 iii Case 1:17-cv-01494-VAC-SRF Document 35 Filed 02/16/18 Page 5 of 51 PageID #: 1035 Boimah v. United Nations Gen. Assembly, 664 F. Supp. 69 (E.D.N.Y. 1987) ..............................................................................................6 Bro Tech Corp. v. European Bank for Reconstruction & Dev., No. CIV.A. 00-2160, 2000 WL 1751094 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2000) .......................................10