Villoldo v. Computershare, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)

7/25/2019 Villoldo v. Computershare, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)

1/22

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 15- 1808; 15- 2080

ALFREDO VI LLOLDO, i ndi vi dual l y; GUSTAVO E. VI LLOLDO,i ndi vi dual l y, and as Admi ni st r at or , Execut or and Per sonal

Repr esent at i ve of t he Est at e of Gust avo Vi l l ol do Ar gi l agos,

Pl ai nt i f f s - Appel l ant s/ Cr oss- Appel l ees,

v.

FI DEL CASTRO RUZ, as an i ndi vi dual , and as an of f i ci al ,empl oyee, or agent of The Republ i c of Cuba; RAUL CASTRO RUZ, as

an i ndi vi dual , and as an of f i ci al , empl oyee, or agent of TheRepubl i c of Cuba; THE MI NI STRY OF I NTERI OR, an agency ori nst r ument al i t y of The Republ i c of Cuba; THE ARMY OF THE

REPUBLI C OF CUBA, an agency or i nst r ument al i t y of The Republ i cof Cuba; THE REPUBLI C OF CUBA, a f orei gn st at e,

Def endant s - Appel l ees,

COMPUTERSHARE, I NC. ,

Tr ust ee - Appel l ee/ Cr oss- Appel l ant .

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Ti mot hy S. Hi l l man, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

Thompson, Ci r cui t J udge,Sout er , Associ at e J ust i ce, *and Bar r on, Ci r cui t J udge

* Hon. Davi d H. Sout er , Associ at e J ust i ce ( Ret . ) of t heSupr eme Cour t of t he Uni t ed St at es, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/22

Andr ew C. Hal l , wi t h whom Hal l , Lamb and Hal l , P. A. was onbr i ef , f or Pl ai nt i f f s- Appel l ant s/ Cr oss- Appel l ees.

Mi chael C. Gi l l er an, wi t h whom Bur ns & Levi nson, LLP was onbr i ef , f or Tr ust ee- Appel l ee/ Cr oss- Appel l ant .

Benj ami n M. Shul t z, At t or ney, Appel l at e St af f Ci vi l Di vi si on,Uni t ed St at es Depar t ment of J ust i ce, wi t h whom Benj ami n C. Mi zer ,Pr i nci pal Deput y Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Car men M. Or t i z,Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Shar on Swi ngl e, Appel l at e St af f , Ci vi lDi vi si on, Uni t ed St at es Depar t ment of J ust i ce, Li sa J . Gr osh,Assi st ant Legal Advi sor , Depart ment of St at e, of counsel , wer e onbr i ef , f or The Uni t ed St at es of Amer i ca, ami cus cur i ae.

May 12, 2016


3/22

- 3 -

BARRON, Circuit Judge. These cross- appeal s ar i se f r om

t he ongoi ng ef f or t s by t wo br ot her s t o sat i sf y a mul t i - bi l l i on

dol l ar j udgment t hey won agai nst t he Republ i c of Cuba and ot her

Cuban par t i es. I n t he appeal t hat t he br ot her s br i ng, t hey

chal l enge t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s r ul i ng t hat cer t ai n asset s t hey

seek t o at t ach t o sat i sf y t hat j udgment ar e not t he pr oper t y of

t he Cuban gover nment and t hus ar e not subj ect t o at t achment i n

sat i sf act i on of t hei r j udgment . The cr oss- appeal i s br ought by

t he t r ust ee who cont r ol s t he asset s i n quest i on. The t r ust ee

chal l enges t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s deni al of i t s mot i on f or at t or neys'

f ees i ncur r ed i n pr oceedi ngs concer ni ng whet her i t had t o t ur n

over t he asset s i n quest i on t o t he br ot her s. We af f i r m t he

Di st r i ct Cour t i n bot h appeal s.

I.

The pr i mar y l egal di sput e i n t hi s case concer ns how t he

l aw of f or ei gn r el at i ons af f ect s t he at t empt ed sat i sf act i on of a

j udgment . The j udgment i t sel f , however , i s not at i ssue.

Never t hel ess, because t he ci r cui t ous r out e t hat l ed f r om t hat

j udgment t o t hese cr oss- appeal s i s r el evant t o t he i ssues i n

di sput e, we begi n by br i ef l y ret r aci ng how we got f r om t her e t o

her e.

The brot hers who ar e seeki ng t o sat i sf y t he j udgment ar e

Al f r edo and Gust avo Vi l l ol do, each of whom moved f r om Cuba to the

Uni t ed St at es i n 1960. I n 2008, t hey f i l ed sui t i n Fl or i da st at e


4/22

- 4 -

cour t and named as def endant s: Fi del Cast r o Ruz; Raul Cast r o Ruz;

t he Republ i c of Cuba; t he Cuban Mi ni st r y of t he I nt er i or ; and t he

Ar my of t he Republ i c of Cuba ( t oget her , t he "Cuban def endant s" ) .

The brot hers' compl ai nt al l eged st at e- l aw causes of

act i on f or economi c l oss, i nt ent i onal i nf l i ct i on of emot i onal

di st r ess, and wr ongf ul deat h. The compl ai nt al l eged t hat af t er

Fi del Cast r o assumed power , on J anuary 1, 1959, hi s government

began t o t ar get t he Vi l l ol dos. I n par t i cul ar , t he compl ai nt

al l eged t hat t he t ar get i ng i nvol ved t he f ol l owi ng act i ons. Cuban

secur i t y f or ces t hr eat ened, beat , and ar r est ed bot h br ot her s.

Cuban of f i ci al s t hr eat ened Gust avo Vi l l ol do Ar gi l agos, t he

br ot her s' f at her , and pr omi sed t o ki l l t he ent i r e f ami l y unl ess

t he br ot her s' f at her commi t t ed sui ci de and t ur ned hi s pr oper t y

over t o t he Cuban government . The Cuban government conf i scat ed

Gust avo Vi l l ol do Ar gi l agos' s l and, company, and bank account s

af t er he was f ound dead on Febr uary 16, 1959, apparent l y havi ng

commi t t ed sui ci de. And t he Cuban gover nment cont i nued t o t hreat en

t he br ot her s wi t h assassi nat i on even af t er t hey f l ed Cuba f or t he

Uni t ed St at es i n 1960.

I n 2011, a Fl or i da cour t awarded t he br other s a $2. 79

bi l l i on j udgment agai nst t he Cuban def endant s on t hei r st at e- l aw

cl ai ms. The j udgment f ol l owed t he def endant s' def aul t and a bench

t r i al on damages.


5/22

- 5 -

Soon ther eaf t er , t he br other s sued the Cuban def endant s

i n t he Sout her n Di st r i ct of New Yor k, seeki ng r ecogni t i on of t he

Fl or i da j udgment under t he Ful l Fai t h and Cr edi t Cl ause of t he

Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on. U. S. Const . ar t . I V, 1. The Cuban

def endant s def aul t ed agai n, and t he Sout her n Di st r i ct of New Yor k

awarded t he br ot hers a f ederal j udgement i n t he amount of $2. 79

bi l l i on, pl us i nterest .

The br ot hers t hen sought t o execut e t he f eder al

j udgment , i ncl udi ng by pur sui ng asset s l ocat ed i n Massachuset t s

and al l egedl y owned by t he Cuban government . So, as par t of t hat

quest , on May 17, 2013, t he br ot hers r egi st ered t he New Yor k

f eder al j udgment i n t he Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s. And on J une 6,

2013, t he Di st r i ct Cour t aut hor i zed t he br ot her s t o seek

at t achment . The brot her s t hen ser ved a subpoena on Comput ershare,

I nc. , a t r ansf er agent l ocat ed i n Cant on, Massachuset t s.

The subpoena sought i nf or mat i on about any secur i t i es

account s cont r ol l ed by Comput ershar e t hat were bl ocked pursuant t o

t he Cuban Asset s Cont r ol Regul at i ons, 31 C. F. R. Subt . B, ch. V,

pt . 515, t he Cuba sanct i ons r egi me. The br ot her s hoped t o i dent i f y

accounts t hat Cuba owns. Comput ershare produced a char t

i dent i f yi ng 383 account s t hat had been bl ocked by t he Cuban

sanct i ons r egi me, whi ch had been opened by 70 di f f erent

i ndi vi dual s .


6/22

- 6 -

Havi ng r ecei ved t hat i nf or mat i on, t he br ot her s, i n

December of 2013, f i l ed an ex par t e mot i on i n t he Di st r i ct Cour t

f or a t ur nover or der agai nst Comput er shar e. The br ot her s' mot i on

argued t hat t he account s i dent i f i ed by Comput ershar e had been

opened i n t he 1950s by Cuban nat i onal s, but had si nce become t he

pr oper t y of Cuba by oper at i on of a Cuban conf i scat or y l aw. Thus,

t he br ot her s ar gued that t he account s ar e subj ect t o at t achment i n

l i ght of t he f eder al j udgment f r om New Yor k. The br ot her s

r equest ed t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t ( a) f i nd t he account s subj ect t o

at t achment and execut i on; ( b) al l ow t he i ssuance of a t r ust ee

summons t o Comput ershar e; and ( c) est abl i sh a pr ocedur e t o not i f y

pot ent i al par t i es i n i nt er est .

The Di st r i ct Cour t grant ed t he mot i on, est abl i shed a

det ai l ed not i ce pr ot ocol , and set J anuar y 31, 2014, as t he deadl i ne

f or any i nt er est ed par t y t o f i l e an obj ect i on. The Di st r i ct Cour t

al so ordered Comput ershar e to t ur n over t he account s of any non-

obj ect i ng par t i es by Febr uar y 7, 2014.

Fol l owi ng t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s r ul i ng, t he br ot her s

ser ved Comput ershare wi t h a t r ust ee summons. Comput ershare f i l ed

a t r ust ee answer shor t l y af t er wards. Comput ershar e cont ended t hat

t he account s at i ssue cont ai ned t hr ee di f f er ent t ypes of asset s:

shar es of common st ock hel d by physi cal st ock cer t i f i cat es

( "cer t i f i cat ed shar es" ) ; shar es of common st ock hel d

el ect r oni cal l y ( "book shar es" ) ; and cash. Comput er shar e asser t ed


7/22

- 7 -

t hat i t coul d t ur n over t he cash and t he book shar es but t hat i t

coul d hand over t he cer t i f i cat ed shar es onl y i f t he br ot her s

pr ovi ded a sur ety bond and t he Cour t made a f i ndi ng t hat t he

or i gi nal shar es wer e deemed " l ost , st ol en or wr ongf ul l y t aken. "

Fol l owi ng t he passi ng of t he J anuar y 31, 2014 obj ect i on

deadl i ne - - by whi ch t i me onl y one obj ect i on had been f i l ed - - t he

Di st r i ct Cour t , on Febr uar y 12, 2014, i ssued a f ol l ow- on t ur nover

order . Thi s or der r equi r ed Comput er shar e t o t ur n over t he book

and cash assets wi t hi n 60 days. The order di d not addr ess t he

cer t i f i cat ed shar es. The or der al so st at ed t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t

woul d set a br i ef i ng schedul e f or t he obj ect i ng par t y.

Anot her f l ur r y of mot i ons f ol l owed t he Febr uar y 12

or der . As rel evant her e, Comput er shar e at t hi s poi nt ar gued f or

t he f i r st t i me - - i n i t s br i ef i ng r egar di ng whet her i t shoul d be

gi ven ext r a t i me to compl y wi t h t he Febr uar y 12 order - - t hat t he

bl ocked account s shoul d not be consi der ed t he pr oper t y of Cuba.

The Uni t ed St at es t hen f i l ed a st at ement of i nt er est t hat al so

argued t hat t he account s shoul d not be consi der ed t he pr oper t y of

Cuba. The br ot hers responded t hat t he Febr uary 12 t ur nover order

was a f i nal j udgment and t hus t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t l acked t he

aut hor i t y t o revi s i t i t .

The Di st r i ct Cour t , however , deter mi ned t hat t he

Febr uary 12 order was not a f i nal j udgment . Then, on J ul y 7, 2015,

t he Di st r i ct Cour t r ul ed t hat - - cont r ar y t o t he concl usi on i t had


8/22

- 8 -

r eached i n i t s or i gi nal t ur nover or der - - t he bl ocked asset s wer e

not t he pr oper t y of t he Cuban gover nment , deni ed the br other s'

pendi ng mot i ons, and di smi ssed t he case.

That day, t he Di st r i ct Cour t enter ed bot h i t s memor andum

and or der as wel l as a document ent i t l ed "Or der of Di smi ssal , "

whi ch read: " I n accor dance wi t h t he Cour t s Memorandum and Or der

dat ed 7/ 7/ 15, i t i s her eby ORDERED t hat t he above- ent i t l ed act i on

be and her eby i s di smi ssed. " Thr ee days l at er , t he br ot her s

appeal ed f r om t he di smi ssal .

On J ul y 31, 2015 - - 24 days af t er t he di smi ssal - -

Comput er shar e f i l ed a mot i on seeki ng at t or neys' f ees.

Comput ershar e ar gued t hat t he mot i on was t i mel y because t he J ul y

7 "Or der of Di smi ssal " di d not sat i sf y t he separ at e document

r equi r ement set f or t h i n Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 58 and so

had not st ar t ed Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 54' s 14- day cl ock

f or movi ng f or at t or neys' f ees.

The Di st r i ct Cour t deni ed Computer share' s mot i on. The

Di st r i ct Cour t r ul ed t hat t he J ul y 7 or der was a f i nal j udgment

t hat sat i sf i ed Rul e 58' s separ at e document r ul e and t hat

"Comput ershar e ha[ d] not shown good cause or excusabl e negl ect f or

f ai l i ng t o make a f ee r equest wi t hi n t he r equi r ed per i od. "

Comput er shar e cr oss- appeal s f r om t hat deni al .


9/22

- 9 -

II.

The t hreshol d i ssue i s whether t he Di st r i ct Cour t had

t he aut hor i t y t o r evi si t i t s i ni t i al det er mi nat i on t hat Cuba owned

t he asset s subj ect t o t he Febr uar y 12 t ur nover or der . The par t i es

agr ee t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t di d have such aut hor i t y i f t he

Febr uary 12 order was not a f i nal j udgment . And so t he di sput e

t ur ns on whet her i t was. We concl ude t hat i t was not .

When "an act i on pr esent s mor e than one cl ai mf or r el i ef , "

or i nvol ves mul t i pl e par t i es, Rul e 54( b) appl i es. Fed. R. Ci v. P.

54( b) . And, under t hat Rul e, an or der " t hat adj udi cat es f ewer

t han al l t he cl ai ms or t he r i ght s and l i abi l i t i es of f ewer t han

al l t he par t i es does not end t he act i on as t o any of t he cl ai ms or

part i es and may be revi sed at any t i me bef ore t he ent r y of a

j udgment adj udi cat i ng al l t he cl ai ms and al l t he par t i es' r i ght s

and l i abi l i t i es. " I d.

The February 12 t urnover or der di d not r esol ve t he

br ot her s' cl ai ms agai nst t he cer t i f i cat ed shar es or t he cl ai m

agai nst any account s owned by t he obj ect i ng part y. Ther ef ore,

under Rul e 54( b) , t hat or der was not a f i nal j udgment .

The brot hers make onl y one ar gument agai nst t hi s

concl usi on. They ar gue t hat Rul e 54( b) shoul d not appl y t o post -

j udgment col l ect i on proceedi ngs such as t hi s one. Ot herwi se, t hey

cont end, t r ust ees may be f orced t o t ur n over asset s bef ore t hey

woul d be abl e t o appeal t he t ur nover order .


10/22

- 10 -

Not abl y, t he t r ust ee i n t hi s case does not ar gue t hat

Rul e 54( b) must be so r ead i n or der t o pr ot ect t he i nt er est s of

t r ust ees. And f or good r eason. Not hi ng i n t he t ext or hi st or y of

Rul e 54 suppor t s t he br ot her s' const r uct i on of t he Rul e. Nor , as

f ar as we are aware, does any precedent . Moreover , t he argument

f ai l s on i t s own t er ms. Under Rul e 54( b) , di st r i ct cour t s "may

di r ect ent r y of a f i nal j udgment as t o one or mor e, but f ewer t han

al l , cl ai ms or par t i es . . . i f t he cour t expr essl y det er mi nes

t hat t her e i s no j ust r eason f or del ay. " Thus, a t r ust ee f aced

wi t h a t ur nover order can move t o have t he order cer t i f i ed as

f i nal , even i f t he t ur nover of ot her asset s r emai ns t o be

adj udi cat ed. See i d.

Because t he Febr uary 12 t ur nover order was not a f i nal

j udgment , t he Di st r i ct Cour t was ent i t l ed t o r evi si t i t . We t hus

must addr ess whet her t he Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed i n di smi ssi ng t he

case on t he ground t hat t he accounts Comput ershar e possessed were

not owned by Cuba and so not subj ect t o at t achment i n sat i sf act i on

of t he New Yor k j udgment .

III.

Ther e i s no di sput e t hat i f t he account s subj ect t o t he

i ni t i al t ur nover or der ar e t he pr oper t y of Cuba, t hen t hey ar e

subj ect t o at t achment , even t hough t he Forei gn Soverei gn I mmuni t y

Act gener al l y i mmuni zes " f or ei gn st at e[ s] " i n Uni t ed St at es

cour t s, 28 U. S. C. 1604, and pr ot ect s t he pr oper t y of f or ei gn


11/22

- 11 -

st at es f r om at t achment and execut i on. I d. 1609. The r eason i s

t hat an except i on t o t he gener al r ul e regar di ng f or ei gn sover ei gn

i mmuni t y appl i es t o cases r el at ed t o ter r or i sm, see i d. 1605A;

1610( a) ( 7) ; see al so Ter r or i smRi sk I nsur ance Act of 2002 ( "TRI A") ,

Pub. L. No. 107- 297, 116 St at . 2322, 2337 ( codi f i ed i n r el evant

par t at 28 U. S. C. 1610 not e) , and t her e i s no di sput e t hat t hi s

except i on woul d appl y her e.

Thus, t he key quest i on f or us i s whether t he account s

are t he pr oper t y of Cuba. The answer depends on f orei gn r el at i ons

l aw, and, i n par t i cul ar , t he scope of what i s known as t he "act of

st at e" doct r i ne. Under t hat doct r i ne, "t he act wi t hi n i t s own

boundar i es of one sover ei gn St at e becomes a r ul e of deci si on f or

t he cour t s of t hi s count r y. " W. S. Ki r kpat r i ck & Co. , I nc. v.

Envi r . Tect oni cs Cor p. , I nt ' l . , 493 U. S. 400, 406 ( 1990) ( quot i ng

Ri caud v. Am. Met al Co. , 246 U. S. 304, 310 ( 1918) ( el l i pses

omi t t ed) ) ; see al so Banco Naci onal de Cuba v. Sabbat i no, 376 U. S.

398, 416 ( 1964) .

Ther e i s, however , "a wel l - est abl i shed cor ol l ar y t o t he

act of stat e doct r i ne, t he so- cal l ed ' ext r at er r i t or i al

except i on. ' " Tchacosh Co. , Lt d. v. Rockwel l I nt ' l Cor p. , 766 F. 2d

1333, 1336 ( 9t h Ci r . 1985) . Under t hat except i on, "when pr oper t y

conf i scat ed i s wi t hi n t he Uni t ed St at es at t he t i me of t he

at t empt ed conf i scat i on, our cour t s wi l l gi ve ef f ect t o act s of

st at e ' onl y i f t hey ar e consi st ent wi t h t he pol i cy and l aw of t he


12/22

- 12 -

Uni t ed St at es. ' " Republ i c of I r aq v. Fi r st Nat ' l Ci t y Bank, 353

F. 2d 47, 51 ( 2d Ci r . 1965) ( Fr i endl y, J . ) .

The brot hers cont end t hat t he asset s at i ssue ar e

Cuba' s - - al t hough t he account s wer e opened by i ndi vi dual Cuban

nat i onal s - - by reason of a conf i scat or y l aw t hat Cuba enact ed i n

September of 1959, Law 568. 1 The brot her s contend t hat Law 568

r equi r es Cuban nat i onal s t o r epat r i at e t o Cuba any asset s hel d

abr oad and pr ovi des t hat f ai l ur e t o r epat r i at e t hose asset s r esul t s

i n nat i onal i zat i on of t he asset s. And t he br ot her s cont end t hat ,

under t he act of st at e doct r i ne, Law 568 must be gi ven ef f ect , as

t hat l aw, by i t s t er ms, conf i scat es t he asset s i n quest i on because

t hey are l ocat ed abr oad. I n consequence, t he br ot her s argue t hat

t he bl ocked account s ar e the pr opert y of t he Cuban government .

We may assume the br ot hers' i nt erpr etat i on of Law 568 i s

sound - - al t hough t he Uni t ed St at es cont ends t hat i t i s not . And

t hat i s because we concl ude t hat , i n l i ght of t he ext r at er r i t or i al

except i on t o the act of st at e doct r i ne, Law 568 shoul d not be gi ven

ef f ect wi t h r espect t o t he asset s at i ssue.

Uni t ed St at es cour t s have of t en gi ven ef f ect under t he

act of st at e doct r i ne t o f or ei gn sover ei gns' nat i onal i zat i ons of

asset s t hat ar e l ocat ed wi t hi n t hei r own t er r i t or i es at t he t i me

of conf i scat i on. See, e. g. , Sabbat i no, 376 U. S. at 417- 18, 439.

1 The brot her s ci t e bot h Law 567 and Law 568, but Law 567appear s t o be of l i t t l e r el evance t o t hi s case.


13/22

- 13 -

I ndeed, "[ a] conf i scat i on decree . . . i s t he ver y ar chet ype of an

act of st at e. " Republ i c of I r aq, 353 F. 2d at 50. But t he r ul e i s

di f f er ent when t he nat i onal i zat i on pur por t s t o conf i scat e asset s

t hat ar e l ocat ed i n t he Uni t ed St at es at t he t i me t hat t hey ar e

put at i vel y t aken.

Nor mal l y, "our cour t s wi l l not gi ve ext r at er r i t or i al

ef f ect t o a conf i scat or y decr ee of a f or ei gn st at e, even wher e

di r ect ed agai nst i t s own nat i onal s. " Mal t i na Cor p. v. Cawy

Bot t l i ng Co. , 462 F. 2d 1021, 1025 ( 5t h Ci r . 1972) ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed, col l ect i ng cases) . Af t er al l , Uni t ed

St ates l aw and pol i cy - - as evi denced by t he Fi f t h Amendment of

t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on - - does not suppor t t he t aki ng of

pr i vat e pr oper t y wi t hout j ust compensat i on. See e. g. , Republ i c of

I r aq, 353 F. 2d at 51- 52.

Ther e mi ght be r eason t o make an except i on t o t hi s

except i on i f t hi s wer e a case i n whi ch t he execut i ve br anch was

ur gi ng us t o gi ve ext r at er r i t or i al ef f ect i n t hi s count r y t o t he

f or ei gn nat i on' s conf i scat or y l aw. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v.

Pi nk, 315 U. S. 203, 213- 14, 234 ( 1942) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Bel mont ,

301 U. S. 324 ( 1937) ; see al so Republ i c of I r aq, 353 F. 2d at 52.

But t he gover nment i s not urgi ng us t o do so. Nor i s t he execut i ve

br anch even si mpl y si l ent on t he mat t er . Compare Banco Naci onal

de Cuba v. Chem. Bank of N. Y. , 658 F. 2d 903, 909 ( 2d Ci r . 1981)

( gi vi ng ef f ect t o an ext r at er r i t or i al t aki ng when t he Uni t ed St at es


14/22

- 14 -

apparent l y di d not wei gh i n and no part y asked t he Cour t not t o

r ecogni ze t he conf i scat i on) wi t h Republ i c of I r aq, 353 F. 2d at 52

& n. 5 ( decl i ni ng t o gi ve ef f ect t o an ext r at er r i t or i al t aki ng even

when t he Uni t ed St at es expr essl y di scl ai med an i nt er est i n t he

case) . Rat her , t he Uni t ed St at es i s ur gi ng us not t o gi ve

ext r at er r i t or i al ef f ect t o Law 568, and we ar e awar e of no

pr ecedent f or gi vi ng ext r at er r i t or i al ef f ect t o a f or ei gn nat i on' s

conf i scat ory l aw when our own gover nment opposes doi ng so.

As a general mat t er , we ar e requi r ed t o accor d some

def er ence t o t he execut i ve' s posi t i on concer ni ng t he appl i cat i on

of t he act of st at e doct r i ne, see Fi r st Nat ' l Ci t y Bank v. Banco

Naci onal de Cuba, 406 U. S. 759, 764- 67 ( 1972) ( t he opi ni ons

cumul at i vel y r ef l ect i ng ei ght vot es i ndi cat e t hat t he vi ew of t he

execut i ve i s due subst ant i al wei ght ) , especi al l y gi ven "[ t ] he

Cour t ' s mor e r ecent j ust i f i cat i on f or t he doct r i ne, " whi ch

emphasi zes t hat i t i s "an expr essi on of t he domest i c separ at i on of

powers. " Est ados Uni dos Mexi canos v. DeCost er , 229 F. 3d 332, 340

n. 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( ci t i ng W. S. Ki r kpat r i ck & Co. I nc. , 493 U. S.

at 404 ( not i ng t hat t he act of st at e doct r i ne r ef l ect s "' t he st r ong

sense of t he J udi ci al Br anch t hat i t s engagement i n t he t ask of

passi ng on t he val i di t y of f or ei gn act s of st at e may hi nder ' t he

conduct of f or ei gn af f ai r s" ( quot i ng Sabbat i no, 376 U. S. at 423) ) ) .

And her e the gover nment cont ends t hat adher i ng t o the

ext r at er r i t or i al except i on t o t he act of st at e doctr i ne f ur t her s


15/22

- 15 -

Uni t ed St at es f or ei gn pol i cy i nt er est s by enabl i ng t he gover nment

t o use the bl ocked asset s at i ssue i n connect i on wi t h ongoi ng

negot i at i ons wi t h Cuba on mat t er s of f or ei gn af f ai r s. As t he

gover nment poi nt s out , i f we wer e t o decl i ne t o adher e t o t he

ext r at er r i t or i al except i on t o t he act of st at e doct r i ne, Cuba woul d

gai n the benef i t - - t hr ough t he reduct i on of t he amount Cuba owes

on t he j udgment agai nst i t - - of asset s of Cuban nat i onal s t hat

are l ocat ed i n t he Uni t ed St at es and t hat have been f r ozen by t he

execut i ve br anch pur suant t o di scr et i on gr ant ed by Congr ess t o

i mpose sanct i ons i n or der " t o cur t ai l t he f l ow of har d cur r ency t o

Cuba. " 2 See Regan v. Wal d, 468 U. S. 222, 243 ( 1984) .

The brot hers do cont end t hat TRI A - - i n maki ng an

except i on t o f or ei gn sover ei gn i mmuni t y - - embodi es a pol i cy i n

f avor of al l owi ng vi ct i ms of t er r or i sm t o col l ect on j udgment s.

But TRI A onl y t el l s us t hat t he pr oper t y that i s owned by a f or ei gn

st ate shoul d be used t o pay such j udgment s. See Hei ser v. I sl ami c

Republ i c of I r an, 735 F. 3d 934, 938- 39 ( D. C. Ci r . 2013) . Not hi ng

i n t he t ext or l egi sl at i ve hi st or y of TRI A suggest s t hat t he

ext r at er r i t or i al except i on t o the act of st at e doct r i ne shoul d be

2 The br ot hers argue t hat t he Fi f t h Amendment does not appl yt o pr event f or ei gn gover nment s f r omt aki ng t he pr oper t y of i t s ownci t i zens, but t hat i s besi de t he poi nt . See Republ i c of I r aq, 353F. 2d at 52.


16/22

- 16 -

di sr egarded so t hat cer t ai n asset s become t he pr oper t y of t he

f or ei gn count r y. 3 See i d.

We t hus decl i ne t o devi at e i n t hi s case f r om t he gener al

r ul e t hat Uni t ed St at es cour t s wi l l not gi ve ext r at er r i t or i al

ef f ect t o a f or ei gn st at e' s conf i scat or y l aw. See Wi l l i ams &

Humber t Lt d. v. W. & H. Trade Marks ( J er sey) Lt d. , 840 F. 2d 72, 75

( D. C. Ci r . 1988) ; Uni t ed Bank Lt d. v. Cosmi c I nt ' l , I nc. , 542 F. 2d

868, 872877 ( 2d Ci r . 1976) ; Menendez v. Saks & Co. , 485 F. 2d 1355,

1364 ( 2d. Ci r . 1973) , r ev' d on ot her gr ounds, Al f r ed Dunhi l l of

London, I nc. v. Republ i c of Cuba, 425 U. S. 682 ( 1976) ; Mal t i na,

462 F. 2d at 1027; Republ i c of I r aq, 353 F. 2d at 5152; Tabacal er a

Sever i ano J or ge, S. A. v. St andar d Ci gar Co. , 392 F. 2d 706, 716

3 The br ot her s' r el i ance on the Supr eme Cour t ' s r ecentdeci si on i n Bank Mar kazi v. Pet er son, 136 S. Ct . 1310 ( 2016) , i smi spl aced. I n t hat case, t he Cour t uphel d a st at ut e, 22 U. S. C. 8772, whi ch Congr ess passed i n order t o make cer t ai n speci f i casset s subj ect t o at t achment i n or der t o sat i sf y t er r or i smr el at edj udgments agai nst I r an, r egar dl ess of whet her t hose same asset swoul d have been at t achabl e under TRI A. I d. at 1317. But nei t hert he act of st at e doct r i ne, nor t he ext r at er r i t or i al except i on t oi t , wer e at i ssue i n t hat case, and not hi ng about t he Cour t ' s

deci si on uphol di ng Congr ess' s aut hor i t y t o make t hose asset sat t achabl e r emot el y suggest s t hat TRI A i t sel f r ef l ect s Congr ess' si nt ent t hat an except i on t o t he ext r at er r i t or i al except i on t o t heact of st at e doct r i ne shoul d be creat ed. I f anyt hi ng, t he f actt hat Congr ess speci f i cal l y i nt er vened t o make cer t ai n t hat t heasset s at i ssue i n Bank Mar kazi coul d be at t ached caut i ons agai nstr eadi ng TRI A i t sel f t o mani f est a si mi l ar l y speci f i c i nt ent i onr egar di ng t he asset s at i ssue i n t hi s case.


17/22

- 17 -

( 5t h Ci r . 1968) . We t her ef or e af f i r m t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s r ul i ng

and di smi ssal of t he case. 4

IV.

We t ur n now t o Comput er shar e' s cross- appeal . At i ssue

i s t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s deni al of Comput er shar e' s mot i on t o extend

i t s t i me t o f i l e a mot i on f or at t or neys' f ees.

Under Rul e 54, a mot i on seeki ng an award of at t orneys'

f ees must be made "no l at er t han 14 days af t er t he ent r y of

j udgment . " Fed. R. Ci v. P. 54( d) ( 2) ( B) ( i ) . And t hat cl ock begi ns

t o run when t he separat e document r equi r ed by Rul e 58 i s i ssued.

See Uni t ed Aut o. Worker s Local 259 Soci al Sec. Dept . v. Met r o Aut o

Ct r . , 501 F. 3d 283, 287 ( 3d Ci r . 2007) . "Al t hough Rul e 58 does

not r equi r e t hat a separate j udgment use any part i cul ar words or

f or m of wor ds . . . . t he j udgment shoul d be sel f - suf f i ci ent ,

compl et e, and descr i be t he par t i es and t he r el i ef t o whi ch t he

par t y i s ent i t l ed. " Mul l ane v. Chamber s, 333 F. 3d 322, 336 ( 1st

Ci r . 2003) .

As we have sai d, Comput er shar e f i l ed i t s mot i on f or

at t or neys' f ees on J ul y 31, 2015 - - 24 days af t er t he or der of

4 Because we deci de t he case on t hi s ground, we need notaddress t he al t ernat i ve ar gument made by Comput ershare and t heUni t ed St at es t hat t he "penal l aw r ul e" pr ovi des a separ at e gr oundf or decl i ni ng t o gi ve ef f ect t o Law 568. See Uni t ed St at es v.Feder at i ve Republ i c of Br azi l , 748 F. 3d 86, 92 ( 2d Ci r . 2014) .


18/22

- 18 -

di smi ssal was ent er ed. For t hat r eason, t he Di st r i ct Cour t deni ed

i t as unt i mel y.

Comput ershare argues on appeal t hat t hi s deni al was

err oneous, because, Comput ershar e cont ends, t he 14- day cl ock never

st art ed r unni ng. Comput er shar e cont ends t hat i s so because t he

J ul y 7 "Or der of Di smi ssal " di d not sat i sf y t he separ at e document

r ul e and t hus di d not st ar t t he cl ock f or f i l i ng a mot i on f or

at t or neys' f ees. I n t he al t er nat i ve, Comput er shar e ar gues t hat

t he Di st r i ct Cour t abused i t s di scr et i on by r ef usi ng t o gr ant

Comput er shar e a t en- day ext ensi on t o f i l e i t s mot i on f or at t or neys'

f ees. Fi nal l y, Comput er shar e separ at el y ar gues t hat i t shoul d be

abl e t o r equest at t orneys' f ees now, as i t does not have a j udgment

char gi ng or di schar gi ng i t as t r ust ee, but wi l l once t hi s Cour t

passes on t he case. We addr ess each of t hese argument s i n t ur n.

A.

Comput er shar e f i r st ar gues t hat t he J ul y 7 or der was not

a separate document under Rul e 58 - - and t hus di d not t r i gger Rul e

54' s 14- day cl ock f or seeki ng at t or neys' f ees - - because t he J ul y

7 or der was not l abel ed " j udgment . " But t hi s Cour t has pr evi ousl y

r ej ect ed t he argument t hat an order must be so l abel l ed t o

const i t ut e a separate document under Rul e 58, see Mi r pur i v. ACT

Mf g. , I nc. , 212 F. 3d 624, 628 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) , and many ot her

ci r cui t s have, t oo. See LeBoon v. Lancast er J ewi sh Communi t y

Cent er Ass' n, 503 F. 3d 217, 224 ( 3d Ci r . 2007) ; Bour g v.


19/22

- 19 -

Cont i nent al Oi l Co. , 192 F. 3d 127, 1999 WL 684161, at *2 (5t h Ci r .

1999) ( unpubl i shed) ; Gr un v. Pneumo Abex Corp. , 163 F. 3d 411, 422

& n. 8 ( 7t h Ci r . 1998) .

Comput er shar e al so ar gues t hat t he J ul y 7 "Or der of

Di smi ssal " was not a separat e document under Rul e 58 because i t

was not " sel f - cont ai ned. " Comput er shar e r est s t hi s cont ent i on on

t he f act t hat t he or der r ef er r ed t o the Di st r i ct Cour t ' s Memor andum

and Or der ent ered t he same day. But her e, one need not r ef er t o

t he Memorandum and Or der t o determi ne t he t erms of t he di smi ssal ,

as t he J ul y 7 or der on i t s f ace makes cl ear t hat t he case i s

di smi ssed. Thus, t he Sevent h Ci r cui t ' s deci si on i n Massey Fer guson

Di v. of Var i t y Cor p. v. Gur l ey, 51 F. 3d 102, 104- 05 ( 7t h Ci r .

1995) , i s of no hel p t o Comput er shar e. I n t hat case, i t was

necessar y t o r ef er t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r el at ed opi ni on t o

det er mi ne i n whi ch part t he mot i on i n quest i on was grant ed and i n

whi ch par t i t was deni ed. I d. The Di st r i ct Cour t t hus cor r ect l y

concl uded t hat t he J ul y 7 "Or der of Di smi ssal " const i t ut ed a

separ at e document under Rul e 58.

B.

We t ur n t hen t o Comput er shar e' s cont ent i on t hat - - i f

t he J ul y 7 or der was a separ at e document - - t he Di st r i ct Cour t

abused i t s di scr et i on by r ef usi ng t o al l ow Comput er shar e t o f i l e

t he mot i on f or at t or neys' f ees t en days l at e. The Di st r i ct Cour t

decl i ned t o al l ow t he l at e f i l i ng because "Comput er shar e ha[ d] not


20/22

- 20 -

shown good cause or excusabl e negl ect f or f ai l i ng to make a f ee

r equest wi t hi n t he r equi r ed per i od. "

The onl y r eason Comput er share gi ves f or i t s l at eness

her e i s t he mi sunder st andi ng of i t s counsel . But , "[ o] nl y i n ' r ar e

cases' have we f ound t hat a di st r i ct cour t abused i t s di scret i on

i n r ef usi ng t o gr ant an ext ensi on of t i me. " Cor t es- Ri ver a v. Dep' t

of Cor r s. & Rehab. of Com. of P. R. , 626 F. 3d 21, 26 ( 1st Ci r . 2010)

( quot i ng Per ez- Cor der o v. Wal - Mar t P. R. , 440 F. 3d 531, 534 ( 1st

Ci r . 2006) ) . And gener al l y t hose cases have i nvol ved ci r cumst ances

i n whi ch "a l i t i gant was ' r easonabl y sur pr i sed' by a cour t ' s

deadl i ne or ' t he event s l eadi ng t o t he cont est ed deci si on wer e

unf ai r . ' " I d. ( quot i ng Per ez- Cor der o, 440 F. 3d at 534) . We t hus

cannot say t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t abused i t s br oad di scr et i on by

r ef usi ng to excuse Comput er shar e' s l at eness on t hi s ground.

Ri ver a- Al modovar v. I nst i t ut o Soci oeconomi co Comuni t ar i o, I nc. ,

730 F. 3d 23, 27 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( "[ A] l awyer ' s ' i nat t ent i on or

car el essness, ' wi t hout mor e, ' nor mal l y does not const i t ut e

excusabl e negl ect . ' " ( quot i ng Di mmi t t v. Ockenf el s, 407 F. 3d 21,

24 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ) .

C.

Fi nal l y, Comput er shar e asks f or per mi ssi on "t o f i l e a

f ee appl i cat i on wi t h t hi s Cour t f or i t s f ees i ncur r ed i n t he

Di st r i ct Cour t . " Comput er shar e r el i es on t he Massachuset t s

t r ust ee pr ocess st at ut e. Under t hat st at ut e, a t r ust ee pr ocess


21/22

- 21 -

def endant ( such as Comput er shar e) i s ent i t l ed t o cost s, i ncl udi ng

at t or neys' f ees, when i t i s " adj udged a t r ust ee" ( when i t has

asset s subj ect t o at t achment ) or "di schar ged" ( when i t does not ) .

See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 246 69, 70.

Comput er shar e ar gues t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s di smi ssal

of t he case di d not i t sel f "di schar ge" Comput er shar e.

Comput er shar e t hus ar gues t hat , because i t has not yet been ei t her

adj udged a t r ust ee or di schar ged, i t s r equest f or at t or neys' f ees

was "pr ematur e" and t hus t hat i t shoul d be al l owed to seek

at t or neys' f ees now.

Thi s ar gument f ai l s, however , on Comput er share' s own

l ogi c. Comput er shar e has not expl ai ned how t he af f i r mance of a

j udgment i t agrees di d not di schar ge i t now woul d di schar ge i t .

Nor has Comput ershar e expl ai ned how we, as an appel l at e cour t ,

coul d consi der a r equest f or di schar ge i n t he f i r st i nst ance,

wi t hout such a r equest havi ng been pr esent ed f i r st t o t he Di st r i ct

Cour t . And, f i nal l y, Comput er shar e does not pur por t t o be

appeal i ng f r om t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s di smi ssal or der on t he gr ound

t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed i n not or der i ng di schar ge as

Comput ershare r equest ed. Nor coul d Comput ershar e do so, as i t di d

not t i mel y f i l e a not i ce of appeal f r om t he di smi ssal . See 28

U. S. C. 2107; Fed. R. App. P. 4; Bowl es v. Russel l , 551 U. S. 205

( 2007) ( "Thi s Cour t has l ong hel d t hat t he t aki ng of an appeal

wi t hi n t he pr escri bed t i me i s ' mandat or y and j ur i sdi ct i onal . ' "


22/22

( quot i ng Gr i ggs v. Pr ovi dent Consumer Di sc. Co. , 459 U. S. 56, 61

( 1982) ( per cur i um) ) ) . 5

V.

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s order and

j udgment of di smi ssal and deni al of Computer share' s mot i on f or

at t or neys' f ees ar e affirmed.

5 I n i t s cr oss- appeal r epl y br i ef Comput er shar e ar guesi n t he al t er nat i ve - - and cont r ar y t o t he posi t i on t hat i t t akesi n i t s openi ng br i ef - - t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s di smi ssal of t hecase di d " i mpl i ci t l y di schar ge[ ] Comput er shar e. " Comput er shar e

t hus ar gues t hat i t i s due at t or neys' f ees even at t hi s l at e dat e.Comput er shar e makes no argument , however , t hat , i f t he Di st r i ctCour t ' s order had di schar ged i t , i t was ent i t l ed t o mor e t han t he14 days Rul e 54 pr ovi des t o f i l e i t s mot i on f or at t or neys' f ees.And, i n any event , new argument s may not be rai sed f or t he f i r stt i me i n a r epl y br i ef . See Ri ver aMur i ent e v. Agost oAl i cea, 959F. 2d 349, 354 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) .

Documents

Villoldo v. Computershare, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)