The parents of the Chabad Shliach gunned down during the 2008 Mumbai, India, terror attacks are suing Pakistan’s intelligence agency along with a terror organization they say are responsible for the deaths.
Rabbi Gabi Holtzberg and his pregnant wife, Rivky, co-directors of Chabad in Mumbai, were among the more than 160 people killed during the attacks.
The Pakistan-based terrorist group Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, which has been blamed for the November 2008 siege, is also named in the suit.
Holtzberg’s father Nachman Holtzberg of Crown Heights alleged that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency aided the terrorists in the attacks.
The wrongful death lawsuit filed last week in federal court in New York says the intelligence agency “provided critical planning, material support, control and coordination for the attacks.”
The Holtzbergs and Rosenbergs (parents of Rivky) are said to be seeking monetary damages but did not specify an amount.
CNN reported that the families’ lawyer is James Kreindler, who was part of a successful lawsuit against Libya in connection with the 1988 explosion on Pan Am Flight 103 that killed 270 people over Scotland.
1605A(a)(1) is a subject matter jurisdiction granting statute, not personal jurisdiction granting. You still need to meet “minimum contacts” for PJ. Additionally, as someone pointed out above, this statute does not grant SMJ over a state that is not a state-sponsor of terror. See 1605A(a)(2)(i); In re September 11, supra. Samantar does not change this analysis. It says that foreign officials do not receive statutory immunity when sued in their individual capacity. The lawsuit is brought against the state of Pakistan, its agencies, and some named officials as defendants. The state and its agencies would be knocked out by the… Read more »
1) It’s most of the american victims in killed or injured in Mumbai.
2) This case is against The ISI (The Inter Services of Pakistan), whom have a few man whom are linked directly to the Mumbai terror attack.
The lawsuit has it’s catch, the idea is to save as much money from thesse terror groups, and put it in to adding Jewish light.
Go Holtzberg’s and the rest of the terror family victims, i wish you much luck,
Notes:
CNN.
DAILY NEWS.
Kreindlers office.
I just want to point out that if you at 28 USC 1605A(a)(1), that seems to give PJ to the US courts. I also spent a couple of minutes and looked at Samantar v. Yousuf, that case seems to control here.
…that the matzeivah spells “yikkom” correctly, without the extraneous nun that people usually insist on inserting.
Expert, indeed. James Kreindler was one of the losing attorneys in the precedential September 11 case I cited above. You may be an expert (and he surely is a great attorney), but you cannot win when the law is stacked against you. Usually …
Having said that, I sincerely wish Rabbi Holtzberg hatzlocho in his case. I would like to see a win here because I am sympathetic for him, because Pakistan deserves it if they were involved, and because it would be academically interesting.
So many authorities on international law RIGHT HERE! and with so much time on their hands. Imagine! THEY TRIED AND DECIDED THE CASE PRO BONO ON THIS SITE! Ignore these “experts” Rabbi Holtzberg. You have a real expert; go for it. Hatzlacha rabbah!
Our courts will always be better than the ICJ if you want $$$.
B’H all the lawyers/law students in Lubavitch today. K’H
This case looks like a loser. See In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 538 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2008) (FSIA immunizes the Saudi Prince from suit in the United States for a terrorist act that occurred within the territory of the United States. This case is more akin to the terror exception to the FSIA than the wrongful death exception). The defendants were sued in their official capacities and are immune as “instrumentalities” of the state. See Samantar v. Yousuf, 130 S.Ct. 2278 (2010).
Dear #15, The ICJ is not an option because it is only open to state parties. The United States would have to take up Holtzberg’s claims, something they will not do. You have to understand that there are numerous terrorism cases out there and the US will not put its foreign relations on the line. Additionally, the ICJ only accepts a limited number of cases per year and I don’t think they would take a terrorism case like this. And as far as I know, the ICJ does not have jurisdiction to award monetary damages, so, assuming they would take… Read more »
this is all well and good – but…will they be able to actually realize satisfaction of a judgment being enforced?
this would ultimately come down to the USA seizing pakistani assets – risking an international incident?!
R’ Holtzberg for President!
Hope he wins!! (To Nemo. Correct me if I’m wrong. The terrorist exception to the FSIA only applies to a state designated as a “state sponsors of terror”. (Idea is that the “act of state doctrine” was a result of the Judiciary’s hesitation to mix into Executive stuff… potentially embarrassing…constitutional underpinnings…that rationale obviously doesn’t apply when the state dept declares that a specific state is a state sponsor of terror…Case in point. Not only has Pakistan not been designated as a state sponsor of terror, but on the contrary, Pakistan is our ally! Maybe ICJ is a better forum than… Read more »
omg this is so cool sock them hard
Hatzlochoh rabboh my friend!
Rabbi Holtzberg and family are such amazing people. They deserve the best and only the best.
We are with you in every step of the way, we love you, Good Luck!!
This man has suffered so much. His anguish is beyond measure. (Apparently he even went to Gedolei Yisroel in Israel for a bracha.)
This law-suit idea is a good one – lets hope that the judge has his suffering health in mind in his judgment.
I heard he has filed in an Indian Court also.
Hatzlacha.
why did they wait untill now,almost 3 years later?
The Pakistani government has consular representatives in New York on whom you may serve. They also have substantial assets in US banks. This makes general jurisdiction (as opposed to specific jurisdiction) appropriate because the contacts with New York are systematic and continuous. Besides, under Burnham, you can always serve when someone is on the territory and you do not need the defendant to have systematic and continuous contacts. You could serve the papers on nearly any Pakistani official within the United States. Subject matter jurisdiction over this case lies in both diversity jurisdiction and pursuant to the Torture Victim Protection… Read more »
I hope that they win and the amount is enuff to make them cringe big time so it never happens again
I realize that a US citizen being killed will be the sort of subject matter that a US court will be interested in hearing and not dismiss the case for forum non conviniens. Number 4 mentions the minimum contacts test. To extablish PJ under the International Shoe rubric, the contacts with the state must be related to the incident for which you are suing, unless the contacts are so pervasive (principle place of business, place of incorporation, domiciled), that general jurisdiction is supported. What sort of contacts does the Pakistani gov. have in NY that makes PJ proper here? I… Read more »
If a US citizen is killed then one can sue that country in US court. If they win, then the court can take any of their money that is in any US bank etc
There needs to be three things done to sue a foreign/person state. First is diversity jurisdiction. 28 USC 1332. the district court shall have original jurisdiction over cases where the amount in controversy exceeds 75k. and the case is between a citizen of one state and a citizen foreign state (here their probably suing the head of intelligence service). Next for venue 28 USC 1391(d) venue is proper in the judicial district where the alien (non citizen) can be found. Next is for in personam jurisdiction, under the case law of International Shoe, and McGee, for a court to have… Read more »
If a US citizen is killed then one can sue that country in US court. If they win, then the court can take any of their money that is in any US bank etc
good for him, sue the xxxx out of them.
How does a court in NY have personal jurisdiction over a foreign country (Pakistan) for commiting an act in India?
Not criticizing or doubting the lawyer’s due diligence. just wondering about the procedural elements of it.