Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
x
Plaintiff,
96 Civ. 8307 (DC)
- against -
JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, et al.,
Defendants. :
------- -----------------------
----X
JUDGMENT EJECTING DIANE FISHER d/b/a
Preliminary Statement
Plaintiff United States of America (the "Government") respecffully submits
this memorandum of law in support of its motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) for
partial summary judgment on its second cause of action in the second amended
complaint for an order ejecting defendants Diane Fisher a/k/a The Fisher Group ("Ms.
Fisher") and Ron Soffer ("Soffer")' from the premises known as 34 East 69th Street,
New York, New York (the "premises").
On February 2, 1998, the Government requested that the subtenants of
defendant Ivan S. Fisher, including Ms. Fisher and Ron Soffer, stipulate to the relief
sought in this motion. Apparently, as of this writing, Ms. Fisher's counsel has not been
authorized to enter into the stipulation. Soffer apparently declines to agree to the
requested relief (see Declaration of Serene K. Nakano ("Nakano Dec.") 118 & n.2; Exh.
G thereto).
SONY_GM_02742788
EFTA _00229437
EFTA01325003
A.
Government's Protection Of Premises
The premises at issue in this lawsuit were the residence of a diplomat of
the government of Iran (Declaration of Richard C. Massey ("Massey Dec."), Exh. A
thereto). As such, they were recognized as consular property by the United States
Department of State ("State Department"), Office of Foreign Missions ("OFM") (Massey
Dec., Exh. A thereto), and enjoyed the protection of the Foreign Missions Act ("FMA"),
see 22 U.S.C. §§ 4302(a)(3)-(4), the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
("VCCR"), a bilateral treaty between the United States and Iran. See 21 U.S.T. 77, 596
U.N.T.S. 261, TIAS 6820, art. 27(a)(a).
Following the severance of diplomatic ties between the United States and
Iran, OFM took custody of the premises pursuant to the FMA, the VCCR, the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. ("IEEPA"),
authorities thereunder and a license granted to OFM by the Treasury Department,
Office of Foreign Assets Control (Massey Dec., Exh. B thereto). OFM is empowered to
bring this action to seek equitable relief to protect the premises see 22 U.S.C. §§
4301(b)-(c), 4311(a), and to control any "benefit" of a foreign mission, see id. § 4307,
and "beneficial use" thereof. See id. § 4302(a)(4).
B.
Prior Proceedings
The Government originally named Jeffrey E. Epstein and Ivan S. Fisher
as defendants (the "original defendants"), seeking equitable and monetary relief
against them concerning their unpermitted uses of the premises.' In its motion served
on May 9, 1997, the Government sought, inter alia an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
2
The original complaint alleged a common law cause of action against Epstein
and Fisher. The first amended complaint added claims pursuant to the Foreign
Missions Act against these defendants.
SONY_GM_02742789
EFTA _00229438
EFTA01325004
56(a) for partial summary judgment ejecting the original defendants from the premises
(the "first motion"). (The first motion is sub judice.) In the course of discovery taken on
the Government's claims for monetary relief against the original defendants, the
Government learned that a number of persons and entities other than the original
defendants potentially asserted possessory claims to the Premises as Fishers
subtenants (see Nakano Dec. ¶ 3). The Government then sought leave to amend the
complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 to name Fishers subtenants as additional
defendants (id. ¶ 4). This Court granted the Government leave to amend its complaint
on December 17, 1997 (id.). The Government filed its second amended complaint on
December 23, 1997 and has served the additional defendants with process (i l.).
C.
The Present Motion
The second amended complaint named Ellyn Bank, Debra Elisa Cohen,
Diane Fisher d/b/a The Fisher Group, Fisher & Soffer a/k/a Fisher & Sophir, Lawrence
D. Gerzog, Robert Heilbrun, Suzanne McDermott, Christopher H. Martin, Jessie Siegel
a/k/a Jesse Siegel, Siegel, Martin & Heilbrun, Ron Soffer, Carmen Talsig, John Does 1
through 10 and X Corporations 1 through 10 as defendants (collectively, "Fishers
subtenants"). By stipulation and order signed by this Court on March 5, 1998, all of the
named subtenants except for Diane Fisher d/b/a The Fisher Group and Ron Soffer (the
"present respondents") agreed inter alia to be bound by any order by this Court
ejecting defendant Ivan S. Fisher from the Premises. Accordingly, this motion seeks
an order of ejectment against the present respondents, who, as of this writing, have
declined to execute the stipulation and order (see Nakano Dec. ¶ 8 & n.2; Exh. G
thereto).
ARGUMENT
Under the Foreign Missions Act, "[t]he United States, acting on its own
SONY_GM_02742790
EFTA _00229439
EFTA01325005
behalf or on behalf of a foreign mission, has standing to bring ... an action to obtain
compliance [with the FMA] including any action for injunctive or other equitable relief."
22 U.S.C. § 4311(a). The Secretary of State (the "Secretary") is empowered under the
FMA to determine the treatment to be accorded to a foreign mission in the United
States. Id. § 4301(c)• see § 4302(a)(5) (defining "Secretary"). The FMA provides that
"a denial by the Secretary involving a benefit of a foreign mission within the jurisdiction
of a particular State or local government shall be controlling." Id. § 4307.
Research has not disclosed any decision in which the Secretary has had
to litigate a party's claimed right to possession of a foreign mission under the FMA.
The FMA itself, however, empowers the Secretary to protect the premises, including
the benefits of their use. See 22 U.S.C. §§ 4301(b)-(c), 4302(a)(4), 4307, 4311(a).
Under general principles of federal common law, "[t]he government has, with respect to
its own lands, the rights of an ordinary proprietor, to maintain its possession and to
prosecute trespassers. It may deal with such lands precisely as a private individual
may deal with his property." United States v. Osterlund, 505 F. Supp. 165, 167 (D.
Colo. 1981), affd, 671 F.2d 1267 (10th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). Such a power
includes the "power to control their occupancy and use." Id., 505 F. Supp. at 167.
Moreover, as proprietor, the Government may seek ejectment of persons who
transgress the Government's proprietary or possessory rights. See United States v.
Burnett, 750 F. Supp. 1029, 1033 (D. Idaho 1990).
In this case, Diane Fisher d/b/a The Fisher Group occupies the premises
and apparently uses them to conduct business as a real estate salesperson (see
Nakano Dec., Exhs. C-D). Moreover, Soffer uses the premises as a business address
and has registered the premises as his office with the New York State Office of Court
Administration for attorney registration purposes (see id., Exhs. E-F). The Government
has not consented to the occupancy of the premises by any of Fisher's subtenants,
including the present respondents (Massey Dec. ¶ 2 & n.1). Accordingly, the present
SONY_GM_02742791
EFTA _00229440
EFTA01325006
respondents are mere trespassers on the premises and should be ejected. See 22
U.S.C. § 4307 (Secretary's denial of benefit of foreign mission is controlling); see also
Jones v. United States, 195 F.2d 707, 709 (9th Cir. 1952); United States v. Gardner,
903 F. Supp. 1394, 1402 (D. Nev. 1995), affd, 107 F.3d 1314 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,
118 S. Ct. 264 (1997); Osterlund, 505 F. Supp. at 167.
CONCLUSION
The Government respectfully requests that its motion for partial summary
judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) for an order of ejectment against
defendants Diane Fisher d/b/a The Fisher Group and Ron Soffer be granted.
Dated:
New York, New York
March 13, 1998
MARY JO WHITE
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
Attorney for Plaintiff
United States of America
By:
SERENE K. NAKANO (SN-9556)
Assistant United States Attorney
100 Church Street, 19th Floor
New York, New York 10007
(212) 637-2746
SONY_GM_02742792
EFTA _00229441
EFTA01325007