Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel
128 S. Ct. 2180 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a party required to be joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a) cannot be joined because it is a foreign sovereign that has asserted immunity, a court conducting the Rule 19(b) analysis must give substantial weight to the sovereign's interests and may not proceed with the case if the sovereign's claims are non-frivolous.
Facts:
- In 1972, Ferdinand Marcos, then President of the Republic of the Philippines, incorporated Arelma, S.A., which opened a brokerage account with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. (Merrill Lynch) in New York.
- By the year 2000, the assets in the Arelma account had grown to approximately $35 million.
- A class of approximately 9,539 human rights victims (the Pimentel class) obtained a judgment of nearly $2 billion against the Marcos estate.
- The Pimentel class sought to enforce its judgment by attaching the Arelma assets held by Merrill Lynch.
- The Republic of the Philippines and the Philippine Presidential Commission on Good Governance (the Commission) also asserted a right to the assets, claiming they were property forfeited to the Republic under Philippine law because they were derived from Marcos's misuse of public office.
- The Commission initiated a forfeiture action in a special Philippine court, the Sandiganbayan, which was still pending when the U.S. litigation began.
- Faced with these competing claims, Merrill Lynch was unable to determine the rightful owner of the assets in the Arelma account.
Procedural Posture:
- Merrill Lynch filed a statutory interpleader action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii.
- The Republic of the Philippines and the Commission (the Republic) were named as defendants and moved to dismiss under Rule 19, asserting foreign sovereign immunity.
- The District Court denied the Republic's motion to dismiss.
- On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with the Republic as appellant and the Pimentel class as appellee, ruled the Republic was entitled to sovereign immunity and was a required party, and it stayed the action.
- The District Court subsequently vacated the stay and entered judgment awarding the interpleaded assets to the Pimentel class.
- The Republic, Arelma, and PNB appealed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding that the action could proceed without the Republic because its claims were unlikely to succeed on the merits.
- The Republic of the Philippines, the Commission, Arelma, and PNB petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b), must an action be dismissed when a required party, a foreign sovereign with a non-frivolous claim to the property at issue, cannot be joined due to its assertion of sovereign immunity?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
Yes, the action must be dismissed. When a required party is absent due to a valid assertion of foreign sovereign immunity, the court's Rule 19(b) analysis must accord significant weight to the interests of comity and the dignity of the foreign sovereign. The Court of Appeals erred by inquiring into the merits of the Republic and Commission's non-frivolous claims, as this itself infringed upon their sovereign immunity. An analysis of the four Rule 19(b) factors compels dismissal: (1) proceeding would cause substantial prejudice to the absent sovereigns' unique interests; (2) no protective measures could lessen this prejudice; (3) any judgment rendered would be inadequate because it could not resolve the entire dispute; and (4) dismissal is a foreseen consequence of the doctrine of foreign sovereign immunity, even if it leaves other claimants without a U.S. forum.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Stevens
No, the action should not be dismissed outright. While the Court of Appeals erred in its analysis, the proper remedy is to reverse and remand for further proceedings, potentially with a stay or before a different district judge. The sovereign interests of the Republic and the Commission should be given less weight than usual because they have previously participated in U.S. litigation regarding Marcos's assets and will ultimately need to use U.S. courts to recover them. The record also suggests the Republic only invoked immunity after developing concerns about the District Judge's impartiality, a risk that could be avoided by waiving immunity if the case were reassigned.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Souter
No, the action should not be dismissed outright. The proper course is to vacate the judgment and remand for a stay of proceedings for a reasonable time to await a decision from the Sandiganbayan, the Philippine court. A ruling from that court could simplify the issues. If further proceedings are required in the U.S., they should be held before a different judge.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the high procedural barrier posed by foreign sovereign immunity in complex civil litigation, particularly in asset forfeiture and recovery cases. It establishes that a court cannot sidestep sovereign immunity by prematurely ruling on the merits of the absent sovereign's claim during a Rule 19 analysis. The ruling prioritizes international comity over the final resolution of claims for other litigants, effectively making a foreign sovereign with a non-frivolous claim an indispensable party. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for creditors or victims to recover assets located in the U.S. if a foreign government also asserts a plausible ownership claim and refuses to waive immunity.
Unlock the full brief for Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel