NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 defen dants We have juris d iction 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, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 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 persona l jurisdiction, Love v.
Assoc iated Newspapers, Ltd. , 611 F.3d 601, 608 (9th Cir. 2010). W e may affirm

on an y basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1058

- 59 (9th Cir. 2 008). 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 jur isdiction over a foreign state); see also In re Tuli , 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999) (“ W hen entry of judgment is sought against a party who has failed to plead or otherwise def end, a district court has an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction over both the

s ubject 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) (“N o judgment by default shall be entered by a court of the United State s . . . against a foreign state

. . . unless the claimant establishes his claim or right to relief by evi dence 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 pe rso nal jurisdiction was proper because Kaldawi did n ot 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, 147 1 (9th Cir. 1986) ( standard of review). Kaldawi’ s motion to e xpedite c ase and r uling (Docket Entry No. 17) is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.