NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICTORIA ELIA KALDAWI, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

THE STATE OF KUWAIT; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-55389 

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-07316-JAK-JPR 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 18, 2017**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. 

Victoria Elia Kaldawi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing her claims against the sovereign defendants for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction and denying her motion to enter default judgment and dismissing her 

claims against the individual defendants We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 26 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-55389 

§ 1291. We review de novo subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign 

Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), Phaneuf v. Republic of Indonesia, 106 F.3d 

302, 304-05 (9th Cir. 1997), and determinations as to personal jurisdiction, Love v. 

Associated Newspapers, Ltd., 611 F.3d 601, 608 (9th Cir. 2010). We may affirm 

on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 

(9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Kaldawi’s claims against the sovereign 

defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Kaldawi failed to 

establish an exception to the sovereign defendants’ immunity under the FSIA. See 

Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 443 (1989) 

(statutory exceptions to FSIA provide sole basis for jurisdiction over a foreign 

state); see also In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999) (“When entry of 

judgment is sought against a party who has failed to plead or otherwise defend, a 

district court has an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction over both the 

subject matter and the parties.”). The district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying Kaldawi’s motion to enter default against these defendants for the same

reason. See 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e) (“No judgment by default shall be entered by a 

court of the United States . . . against a foreign state . . . unless the claimant 

establishes his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court.”); 

Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc., 648 F.3d 779, 786 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard of review). 
3 17-55389 

Dismissal of Kaldawi’s claims against Al-Fahed, Al-Suheil and Al-Fares for 

lack of personal jurisdiction was proper because Kaldawi did not establish that 

these defendants had “certain minimum contacts” with California “such that the 

maintenance of the suit d[id] not offend the traditional notions of fair play and 

substantial justice.” Love, 611 F.3d at 609 (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kaldawi’s 

motion to enter default judgment against these defendants for the same reason. See 

Tuli, 172 F.3d at 712 (it is proper to avoid entry of default judgment if there is no 

personal jurisdiction over a defendant); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th 

Cir. 1986) (standard of review).

Kaldawi’s motion to expedite case and ruling (Docket Entry No. 17) is 

denied as unnecessary. 

AFFIRMED.