Suedrohrbau Saudi Co., LTD. v. Bazzi

21-2307-cv Suedrohrbau Saudi Co., LTD., et al. v. Bazzi, et al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007 IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 8th day of February, two thousand twenty-three. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, RICHARD C. WESLEY, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. Suedrohrbau Saudi Co., Ltd., NACAP Pipeline & Energy Beteiligungs GmbH (NPLE), Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. 21-2307-cv Riad Bazzi, Souad Bazzi, Defendants-Appellees, Lama Bazzi, Dana Bazzi, Maha Bazzi, Defendants. * FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS: ADAM FORD, Ford O’Brien, LLP, New York, NY. * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: PAUL M. KRIEGER (Katherine Cheng, on the brief), Krieger Kim & Lewin LLP, New York, NY. Appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Komitee, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs-appellants Suedrohrbau Saudi Co., Ltd. (“SRB”), a Saudi pipeline contractor, and NACAP Pipeline & Energy Beteiligungs GmbH (NPLE) (“NACAP”), its five-percent shareholder (collectively, “plaintiffs”), appeal from the district court’s judgment, entered on September 8, 2021, dismissing plaintiffs’ state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. Plaintiffs commenced this action on September 9, 2019, against Riad Bazzi, a former SRB employee in Saudi Arabia, as well as his wife Souad Bazzi (collectively, the “Bazzis”) and their adult children. At its core, the complaint asserts that the Bazzis engaged in a pattern of fraudulent conduct that harmed SRB’s finances, in violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and New York state law. On March 16, 2021, the district court dismissed NACAP’s claims based on its lack of standing to sue and SRB’s sole federal claim under RICO for failure to allege a domestic injury. Before addressing SRB’s remaining state law claims, however, the district court sua sponte raised the issue of whether diversity jurisdiction existed over those claims because it was not inclined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction given the dismissal of the federal claim. The district court …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals