No. 08-16060

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT____________________EMIL ALPERIN, et al.,Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.VATICAN BANK, aka “INSTITUTE OF RELIGIOUS WORKS” or“ISTITUTO PER LE OPERE DI RELIGIONE” (IOR); et al.,Defendant-Appellee.__________________Appeal from Final Judgment of the United States District Court,Northern District of California, Honorable Maxine M. ChesneyDistrict Court No. CV-99-04941 MMC__________________PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONCIRCUIT RULE 27-10(a)(1)__________________

THOMAS EASTONCSB #109218967 Sunset DrSpringfield, Oregon 97477Tel/Fax: 541-746-1335easton3535@gmail.comJONATHAN H. LEVYCSB #15803237 Royale Pointe DrHilton Head, South Carolina 29926Tel/Fax: 202-318-2406 jonlevy@hargray.comWINDLE TURLEYTX.SB #20304000Turley Law Firm1000 Turley Law Center6440 N. Central ExpresswayDallas, Texas 75206Tel: 214-691-4025Fax: 214-361-5802turley@wturley.comANTHONY D’AMATONY #4039671P

ROFESSOR OF

ORTHWESTERN

NIVERSITY

CHOOL OF

357 East Chicago Avenue,Chicago, Illinois 60611Tel: 312- 503-8474Fax: 312- 587-9969a-damato@northwestern.edu

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Case: 08-16060 02/23/2010 Page: 1 of 8 ID: 7241257 DktEntry: 68

PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION

FOR

RECONSIDERATIONUNDER

CIRCUIT

RULE

27(10)(

)(1)

Plaintiffs respectfully request under Circuit Rule 27 that this Panelreconsider its termination order of February 10, 2010, because the order ispredicated upon substantive errors of law and fact.The Panel addressed the question whether the district court has or lackssubject-matter jurisdiction. If an Article III court has subject-matter jurisdiction,then (assuming jurisdiction over persons and things) it has a duty to hear the case.Objections to subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, including suasponte by the court. The parties may neither fabricate nor waive subject-matter jurisdiction, whether individually or by mutual consent. Artful pleading cannotcreate subject-matter jurisdiction, nor is the court confined by the pleadings: anyrelevant facts that are external to the pleadings and brought to the court’s attentionmay be considered. In short, jurisdiction over the subject matter either exists or itdoes not exist.These considerations do not relieve plaintiffs from pleading the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction. For example, in the case the Panel cited,

Phaneuf v. Republic of Indonesia

, 106 F.3d 302, 307 (9

Cir. 1997), the appellate court foundthat the defendant’s plea of sovereign immunity shifted the burden of production to

Case: 08-16060 02/23/2010 Page: 2 of 8 ID: 7241257 DktEntry: 68

the plaintiff to offer evidence that an exception applies. Plaintiff argued that the“commercial activity” exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act appliedbecause of the defendant’s issuance of sovereign debt. The court thereupon heldthat the issuance of sovereign debt is indeed a commercial act, and thus there was aprima facie showing of subject-matter jurisdiction. In the event, the case wasremanded to the district court to evaluate an affirmative defense that the sovereigndebt was issued without the defendant’s actual authority.Similarly, in the present case the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Actdetermines the existence or non-existence of subject-matter jurisdiction. Theapplicable section of the F.S.I.A., quoted by the Panel, is:A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the courtsof the United States . . . in any case . . . (3) in which rights in propertytaken in violation of international law are in issue and . . . thatproperty or any property exchanged for such property is owned oroperated by an agency or instrumentality of the foreign state and thatagency or instrumentality is engaged in a commercial activity in theUnited States.28 U.S.C. § 1605(a).The Panel chooses to examine the Complaint with strict scrutiny instead of just as a guide to see whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists in fact. Thus if theComplaint contains an infelicitous word or expression, the Panel sees it as anexcuse to defeat subject-matter jurisdiction entirely and thereby relieve itself of itsArticle III obligation to give the plaintiffs their day in court. But even assuming

Case: 08-16060 02/23/2010 Page: 3 of 8 ID: 7241257 DktEntry: 68