No. 16-1756 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Congregation Jeshuat Israel, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Congregation Shearith Israel, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT CONGREGATION SHEARITH ISRAEL Louis M. Solomon John F. Farraher, Jr. Colin A. Underwood GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP Nancy L. Savitt One International Place GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP Boston, Massachusetts 02110 The MetLife Building (617) 310-3029 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 (212) 801-6500 Deming Sherman LOCKE LORD LLP 2800 Financial Plaza Providence, RI 02903 (401) 276 6443 CONGREGATION SHEARITH ISRAEL’S CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 & 28(a)(1), Defendant-Appellant Congregation Shearith Israel states that it has no parent corporation and that no publicly-traded corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. -i- TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... iv STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ORAL ARGUMENT ...................................... viii JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES............................................................................... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................ 3 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 3 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................... 8 A. Shearith Israel and Touro Synagogue, Through 1880 ..................... 8 B. Jews Return to Newport, 1881-1892 .............................................. 11 C. 1893-1903: Shearith Israel Exercises Ritual Oversight to Ensure that Building and Contents Remain in Active Use at Touro .............................................................................................. 12 D. The Indenture With Lease Remains in Effect ................................ 19 E. Shearith Israel Continues to Function as Ritual Overseer or “Trustee” ........................................................................................ 21 F. The Sanctity of the Rimonim ......................................................... 23 G. The Evidence Proved that CJI Satisfies Its Financial Needs ......... 23 III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................................................................ 25 IV. THE DECISION BELOW .................................................................. 26 STANDARD OF REVIEW ..................................................................................... 27 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 28 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 31 I. CJI CANNOT SELL THE RIMONIM ............................................................. 31 -ii- A. The Governing Instruments Bar Sale of the Rimonim: Shearith Israel’s Unrebutted Ritual Practice Prohibits Such a Sale ................................................................................................. 31 B. The Rimonim Are Encumbered by the Indenture With Lease ...... 34 C. Shearith Israel Did Not Hold the Rimonim as Bailee .................... 39 D. Shearith Israel Has a Superior Claim to Possessory Ownership of the Rimonim ............................................................ 43 II. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN REMOVING SHEARITH ISRAEL AND APPOINTING CJI TRUSTEE OF TOURO SYNAGOGUE ................................................................................................. 47 A. CJI Could Not Prosecute Trustee Removal/Appointment Claims Against Shearith Israel ...................................................... 47 1. Res Judicata Bars CJI from Raising Trust Issues ................... 48 2. The 1903 Settlement, CJI’s Public Surrender, and CJI’s Admitted Lessee Status Bar CJI from Raising Trust Issues .. 52 3. The Rhode Island Attorney General Was a Necessary Party .................................................................. 53 B. Shearith Israel Should Remain as Trustee ..................................... 54 C. The District Court Erroneously Punished Shearith Israel, and Jews in Perpetuity, for Shearith Israel’s Colorable, Good- Faith Litigation Positions ............................................................... 56 D. CJI Should Not Be the Trustee ...................................................... 60 CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION OF REASSIGNMENT .............................. 61 -iii- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases In re Albicocco, 2006 WL 2376441 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2006) ................................................... 52 Ayotte v. Johnson, 25 R.I. 403, 56 A. 110 (1903) ....................................................................... 44, 52 Barber v. Watch Hill Fire Dist., 39 R.I. 236, 89 A. 1056 (1914) ........................................................................... 31 Baxter v. Brown, 26 R.I. 381, 59 A. 73 (1904) ............................................................................... 46 Bigelow v. Huntley, 8 Vt. 151 (1836) .................................................................................................. 42 Bradshaw v. Ashley, 180 U.S. 59 (1901) .............................................................................................. 46 Brice v. Trs. of All Saints Mem’l Chapel, 31 R.I. 183, 76 A. 774 (1910) ............................................................................. 33 Carney v. Carney, 89 A.3d 772 (R.I. 2014) .................................................................... 33-34, 36, 41 Crafts v. Mechanics’ Sav. Bank, 102 A. 516 (R.I. 1918) ........................................................................................ 35 Cullum v. Bevans, 6 H.& J. 469 (Md. 1825) ..................................................................................... 44 Currier v. Gale, 91 Mass. 522 (1865) ........................................................................................... 45 Darcy v. Brown Univ., 1997 WL 839894 (R.I. Super. Ct. Feb. 20, 1997) .............................................. 53 Dennis v. Rhode Island Hosp. Tr. Nat’l Bank, 571 F. Supp. 623 (D.R.I. 1983), aff’d as modified, 744 F.2d 893 (1st Cir. 1984), abrogated by Salve Regina Coll. v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225 (1991) ............................................................................................ 57 Doe v. Urohealth Sys., Inc., 216 F.3d 157 (1st Cir. 2000) ............................................................................... 48 -iv- F.D. McKendall Lumber Co. v. Kalian, 425 A.2d 515 (R.I. 1981) .................................................................................... 36 Fatulli v. Bowen’s Wharf Co., 56 A.3d 436 (R.I. 2012) ...................................................................................... 42 FDIC v. Elio, 39 F.3d 1239 (1st Cir. 1994) ............................................................................... 28 Ferro v. Ferrante, 103 R.I. 680, 240 A.2d 722 (1968) ..................................................................... 61 Ferrucci v. Atl. City Showboat, Inc., 51 F.Supp.2d 129 (D. Conn. 1999) ..................................................................... 42 García-Monagas v. De Arellano, 674 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2012) ................................................................................. 48 Goller v. Stubenhaus, 77 Misc. 29, 134 N.Y.S. 1043 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1912) .......................................... 35 Great Clips, Inc. v. Hair Cuttery of Greater Boston, .L.L.C., 591 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2010) ................................................................................. 52 Haffenreffer v. Haffenreffer, 994 A.2d 1226 (R.I. 2010) .................................................................................. 37 Hamilton v. Colt, 14 R.I. 209 (1883) ............................................................................................... 44 Harrison v. U.S., 284 F.3d 293 (1st Cir. 2002) ............................................................................... 27 Hill v. M.S. Alper & Son, Inc., 106 R.I. 38, 256 A.2d 10 (1969) ......................................................................... 37 Hopper v. Callahan, 78 Md. 529, 28 A. 385 (1894) ............................................................................ 44 Huntley v. State, 63 A.3d 526 (R.I. 2013) ................................................................................ 50, 51 Lehr v. Brodbeck, 192 Pa. 535, 43 A. 1006 (1899) .......................................................................... 38 Leo v. Armington, 74 R.I. 124, 59 A.2d 371 (1948) ......................................................................... 53 Lucas v. Brooks, 85 U.S. 436 (1873) .............................................................................................. 52 -v- Martinelli v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 196 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 1999) ............................................................................... 32 Maulding v. U.S., 257 F.2d 56 (9th Cir. 1958) ................................................................................ 41 McCarty v. Cavanaugh, 224 Mass. 521, 113 N.E. 271 (1916) .................................................................. 35 Merkos L’Inyonei Chinuch, Inc. v. Otsar Sifrei