ZAPATA III v. HSBC HOLDINGS PLC HSBC USA HSBC SA CV (2020)

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiffs-appellants (“plaintiffs”) appeal the district court's judgment, entered September 30, 2019, dismissing their claims against defendants-appellees HSBC Holdings and its affiliates in Mexico and the United States (“defendants”). By memorandum and order also entered September 30, 2019, the district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(2), and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

Plaintiffs are American victims of horrific attacks by the Sinaloa, Juárez, and Los Zetas drug cartels in Mexico. They allege that defendants “knowingly laundered billions of dollars for [the cartels], knowing or deliberately disregarding the fact that said funds would be used to support the Mexican cartels and their terrorist acts against Mexican and U.S. citizens.” J. App'x at 38.

Plaintiffs sued under the Anti-Terrorism Act (“ATA”), which provides a cause of action for “[a]ny national of the United States,” or “his or her estate, survivors, or heirs,” “injured ․ by reason of an act of international terrorism.” 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a). “International terrorism” is defined as “activities that”: (1) are “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life”; (2) are crimes or would be crimes if committed in the United States; (3) “appear to be intended” to intimidate, coerce, or influence government or civilian conduct; and (4) occur abroad or are international in scope. 18 U.S.C. § 2331(1). Plaintiffs allege that defendants materially supported terrorists in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339A and 18 U.S.C. § 2339C.

This Court has made clear that “conduct that violates a material support statute can also satisfy the § 2331(1) definitional requirements of international terrorism in some circumstances. ․ But the provision of material support to a terrorist organization does not invariably equate to an act of international terrorism.” Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 882 F.3d 314, 326 (2d Cir. 2018). In other words, to survive defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), plaintiffs must plausibly allege that in their case, defendants' conduct satisfies each element required by the statute. For reasons substantially similar to those stated by the district court in granting this prong of defendants' motion, we hold that plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege that their claims arise from acts of international terrorism on the part of defendants.

Because we hold that defendants have failed to state a claim against defendants, we need not review the personal jurisdiction and preclusion issues decided by the district court. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.