Whether the strong presumption in favor of a plaintiff's choice of forum under Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno applies with equal force when a suit includes both United States-resident and foreign-resident plaintiffs, or whether courts may apply a diminished standard of deference based on the proportion of foreign plaintiffs

No question identified. : TO THE HONORABLE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AND CIRCUIT JUSTICE FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT: Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 13.5, James Owens and all other plaintiffs in the district court in this case (appellants in the court of appeals)—hundreds of victims of terrorist attacks or surviving family members (collectively, Applicants)— respectfully request a 30-day extension of time, to and including August 30, 2023, within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in this case. The court of appeals entered its judgment on May 2, 2023. App. 1a-23a. Unless extended, the time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari will expire on July 31, 2023. The jurisdiction of this Court would be invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). 1. This case presents an important and recurring question concerning the legal standard for dismissing suits filed in U.S. federal court under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. This Court made clear in Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981), that a defendant invoking that doctrine to dismiss a U.S. suit in favor of a foreign venue must “overcome” a “strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff's choice of forum,” and the plaintiff's choice deserves even “greater deference when the plaintiff has chosen [his or her] home forum.” Jd. at 255. But the courts of appeals disagree over whether that strong presumption dissipates when both U.S.-resident and non-U.S.-resident plaintiffs join together in one suit. At least three circuits hold that Piper’s well-established general principle continues to apply. But the Second Circuit has long and repeatedly applied an exception to that presumption and affords “minimal deference to plaintiffs’ choice of forum” if most of the plaintiffs reside in foreign countries. App., infra, 16a. The Second Circuit again applied that exception here to affirm the dismissal of a suit by hundreds of terrorism victims seeking to enforce U.S. judgments in U.S. court. a. Applicants are hundreds of U.S.-government employees (or surviving family members) who were injured or killed by six terrorist attacks. App., infra, 12a. They brought 18 suits against Iran in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for its role in materially supporting these attacks and secured default judgments totaling more than $10 billion, which Iran refuses to pay. Id. at 18a. Applicants brought this action in the Southern District of New York against respondent Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. (Halkbank) for fraudulently conveying proceeds of Iranian oil sales through U.S. banks, in violation of U.S. sanctions, blocking Applicants’ efforts to recover those funds. App., infra, 13a. (Halkbank and various officials have been or are being criminally prosecuted for their role in that scheme. E.g., Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, 143 S. Ct. 940, 944 (2023).) Applicants’ claims seek rescission and turnover of those proceeds under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, 28 U.S.C. § 1610 note—which creates a federal-law remedy designed to help terrorism victims vindicate judgments against state sponsors of terrorism—and under New York law. App., infra, 13a. b. The district court granted Halkbank’s motion to dismiss the action on forum non conveniens grounds, App., infra, 13a, and the court of appeals affirmed, id. at 14a-23a. The Second Circuit recognized that, under this Court’s precedent, “there is generally a ‘strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Id. at 15a (quoting Piper, 454 U.S. at 255). But it stated that the “degree of deference” owed to a plaintiff’s preferred forum “moves on a sliding scale” and may be diminished by various “considerations.” bid. (citation omitted). Applying that “sliding scale” approach here, App., infra, 15a, the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s holding that