Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer

BENNETT v. << (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Michael BENNETT, Co-Administrators of the Estate of Marla Ann Bennett; Linda Bennett, as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Maria Ann Bennett, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.

The ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN; The Iranian Ministry of Information and Security, Defendants, v.

Franklin Resources, Inc.; Visa Inc., Third-party-plaintiffs-appellees, v. Bank Melli, Third-party-defendant-Appellant, Estate of Meir Kahane; et al., Third-party-defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-15101

Decided: September 30, 2019

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and GRABER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Dale K. Cathell, DLA Piper US, LLP, Baltimore, MD, Curtis Campbell Mechling, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, New York, NY, Amanda L. Morgan, Jesse Medlong, DLA Piper LLP (US), San Francisco, CA, Jane Carol Norman, Esquire, Bond & Norman PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs-Appellees Anne Marilyn Kelts, Ethan Miller, Baker & McKenzie LLP, San Francisco, CA, Jesse Medlong, DLA Piper LLP (US), San Francisco, CA, for Third-party-plaintiffs-Appellees Franklin Resources, Inc., Visa Inc. Lisa W. Bohl, MoloLamken LLP, Chicago, IL, Robert Kelsey Kry, Jeffrey A. Lamken, MoloLamken LLP, Washington, DC, for Third-party-defendant-Appellant Bank Melli Dale K. Cathell, DLA Piper US, LLP, Patrick Petrocelli, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, New York, NY, Amanda L. Morgan, Jesse Medlong, DLA Piper LLP (US), San Francisco, CA, for Third-party-defendants-Appellees Estate of Meir Kahane, Estate of Judith Greenbaum James Bernard, Attorney, Curtis Campbell Mechling, Patrick Petrocelli, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, New York, NY, Amanda L. Morgan, Jesse Medlong, DLA Piper LLP (US), San Francisco, CA, for Third-party-defendants-Appellees Carlos Acosta, Maria Acosta, Irving Franklin, Estate of Irma Franklin, Libby Kahane, Estate of Sonya Kahane, Cipporah Kaplan, Tova Ettinger, Baruch Kahane, Ethel Griffin, Norman Kahane, Steven Greenbaum, Alan Hayman, Shirlee Hayman Dale K. Cathell, DLA Piper US, LLP, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, New York, NY, Amanda L. Morgan, Jesse Medlong, DLA Piper LLP (US), San Francisco, CA, for Third-party-defendants-Appellees The Estate of Michael Heiser, Gary Heiser, Francis Heiser, The Estate of Leland Timothy Haun, Ibis S. Haun, Milagritos Perez-Dalis, Senator Haun, The Estate of Justin R. Wood, Richard W. Wood, Kathleen M. Wood, Shawn M. Wood, The Estate of Earl F. Cartrette, Jr., Denise M. Eichstaedt, Anthony W. Cartrette, Lewis W. Cartrette, The Estate of Brian Mcveigh, Sandra M. Wetmore, James V. Wetmore, The Estate of Millard D. Campbell, Marie R. Campbell, Bessie A. Campbell, The Estate of Kevin J. Johnson, Shyrl L. Johnson, Che G. Colson, Kevin Johnson, Nicholas A. Johnson, Laura E. Johnson, Bruce Johnson, The Estate of Joseph E. Rimkus, Bridget Brooks, James R. Rimkus, Anne M. Rimkus, The Estate of Brent E. Marthaler, Katie L. Marthaler, Sharon Marthaler, Herman C. Marthaler, Matthew Marthaler, Kirk Marthaler, The Estate of Thanh Van Nguyen, Christopher R. Nguyen, The Estate of Joshua E. Woody, Dawn Woody, Beekman R. Bernadine, George M. Beekman, Tracy M. Smith, Jonica L. Woody, Timothy Woody, The Estate of Peter J. Morgera, Michael Morgera, Thomas Morgera, The Estate of Kendall Kitson, Jr., Nancy R. Kitson, Kendall K. Kitson, Steven K. Kitson, Nancy A. Kitson, The Estate of Christopher Adams, Catherine Adams, John E. Adams, Patrick D. Adams, Michael T. Adams, Daniel Adams, Mary Young, Elizabeth Wolf, William Adams, The Estate of Christopher Lester, Cecil H. Lester, Judy Lester, Cecil H. Lester, Jr., Jessica F. Lester, The Estate of Jeremy A. Taylor, Lawrence E. Taylor, Vickie L. Taylor, Starlina D. Taylor, The Estate of Patrick P. Fennig, Thadeus C. Fennig, Catherine Fennig, Paul D. Fennig, Mark Fennig

MEMORANDUM *

This case comes before us for the second time. We previously affirmed the denial of Bank Melli’s motion to dismiss. We recognized that, for blocked assets “to be subject to execution or attachment” under § 201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (“TRIA”), “the blocked assets must be ‘assets of’ the instrumentality.” Bennett v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 825 F.3d 949, 963 (9th Cir. 2016), abrogated on other grounds by Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 816, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– (2018). As relevant here, we then held that, on the facts alleged, the blocked assets in dispute are property of Bank Melli and so may be assigned to judgment creditors. Id. at 963–64.

Subsequently, the district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, holding that the funds that Visa deposited in the district court’s registry are Bank Melli’s property and, therefore, are subject to attachment under TRIA § 201(a). On Bank Melli’s timely appeal from the resulting judgment, we affirm.

Bank Melli argues that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether it “owns” the funds, because two of Visa’s regulatory filings listed Visa as “owner” of the funds. That argument is unavailing for two reasons.

First, that issue of fact is not material. Bank Melli does not dispute any of the facts alleged in the complaint, on which we rested our holding that the blocked assets are property of Bank Melli. For example, Bank Melli has a contractual right to obtain payments from Visa. Bank Melli concedes that it has “an interest in the funds” and a “right to receive payment of the debt that Visa owes.” Our previous holding is now the law of the circuit, and it controls here. See Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383, 389 n.4 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (holding that exceptions to the law of the case doctrine do not apply when the prior decision was a published opinion from this circuit, “which must be followed unless and until overruled by a body competent to do so” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Second, even if we were to consider the “ownership” facts to be material, the documents on which Bank Melli relies do not create a genuine issue of fact. Reading the documents as a whole and in context, they describe the accounts as “hold[ing] Bank Melli funds.”

Given our disposition of this issue, we need not reach the remaining arguments.

AFFIRMED.

Was this helpful?

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law

BENNETT v. << (2019)

Docket No: No. 19-15101

Decided: September 30, 2019

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Need to Find an Attorney?

Search our directory by legal issue

Enter information in one or both fields (Required)

For Legal Professionals

Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.

Sign Up

Learn About the Law

Get help with your legal needs

FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.

Go to Learn About The Law

Need to Find an Attorney?

Search our directory by legal issue

Enter information in one or both fields (Required)

Copied to clipboard