FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 66 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cv -2 05 33 -PAS JULIO CESAR

LUBIAN, M.D., ILEANA MASTRAPA, M.D., et al ., Plai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us
REPUBLIC OF CUBA, St at e sp on so r of

terro ris m , BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZ UELA, St at e in co ll ab or at io n wi th su chSta te s s po ns or s o f te rro ris m as C ub a an d Ir an , PETROLEOUS DE VENEZU ELA, S.A. (PDVSA), co m m erci al ag en cy

own edby the Vene zu el anst at e, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Sep te m be r 21 , 20 11 )Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: Pl ai nt iff s, Cuba n m ed ic al pro fes si on al s wh o a ll eg e th ey were k ep t i n po si ti on s o f fo rcedlab orinVene zu el a, ap pe al th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f th ei r cl ai m s o n t he ba si s tha t i t l ack edsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti onbe cau se Pla in ti ffs are fo rei gncit iz en s an d Def

en da nt s ar e fo rei gn so ve rei gn ti es . On ap pe al , Pla in ti ffs
co nt en d t ha t the di st ric t co urt h as juri sd ic ti on pu rs uantto th e Fo rei gn So ve rei gn ti es Im

m un it y Act (“ FSIA”)
. The d is tri ctco urt was co rrec t i n i ts fin di ng 1 th atno ne of t he FSIA ex cep ti on s ap pl y to Pla in ti ffs cla im s an d t ha t the FSIA i s the
so le so ur ce o f juri sd ic ti on forcla im s b etweenfor ei gn cit iz en s an d fo rei gn so ve rei gn ti es . Thu s, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is mis sa l o f al l o f Pl ai nt iff s’ cl ai m s. The FSIA en ti tl es for ei gn st at es imm un it y fro m th e juri sd ic ti on of Un it ed St at es co urts un le ss a st atut ory ex cep ti on ap pl ie s. 2 8 U.S.C. § 16 04 ; Saud i Arabi a
Plaintiffs also argue that the c ourt has jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Claims Act 1 (“A TCA”), the laws of the state of F lorida, the law s of both Vene zuela and Cuba, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Be cause the FSIA is the sole source of jurisdiction over a fore ign state in our cour

ts, we nee d not addre ss these other a rguments. See Arg entine Republic v. Amere da He ss Shippi ngCorp., 488 U.S. 428, 435–38, 109 S. C t. 683, 688–90 (1989). F urther, the Supreme Court ha s expl icitly reje cted the a

rgument that the ATCA provide s a basis for jurisdiction over a f

oreign state. I d. Plaintiffs raise a dditional arguments in their brief that are , at their cor e, additional arguments that jurisdiction ex isted. Be cause we c onclude that no F SIA statutory exception is met, we nee d not addre ss those arg uments either. 2v. Nel so n, 5 07 U.S. 34 9, 3 51 , 11 3 S . Ct. 1 47 1, 1 47 4 (1 99 3) . The ac t d efi ne s

“ fo rei gn st at es ” to in cl ud e ag en ci es an d i ns tru m en ta li ti es of s uc h s ta te s. 2 8 U.S.C. § 1 60 3( a). Itis th e so le so ur ce o f juri sd ic ti on ov er a fo rei gn st at e in ou r co urts . Arg en ti ne Rep ub li c v . Am ered a Hes s Sh ip pi ng Co rp ., 48 8 U.S. 4 28 , 43 5– 38 , 10 9 S. Ct . 68 3, 6 88 –9 0 (1 98 9) . Vene zu el a is a fo rei gn st at e an d P la in ti ffs co nc ed e th at Petró le os de Vene zu el a, S.A. (“ PDVSA”), i s an “ ag en cy or i ns tru m en ta li ty” of Ven ezu el a, an d the refo re a “ fo rei gn st at e” wi th in th e m ean in g o f th e FSIA. Se e 2 8 U.S.C. § 1 60 3( a), (b ). Thu s, b ot h a re en ti tl edto imm un it y un le ss on e o f th e FSIA’s s ta tu to ry

ex cep ti on s ap pl ie s. Pl ai nt iff s ar gu e th atth e co urt h as juri sd ic ti on be cau se two st atut ory ex cep ti on s t o t he FSIA—th e co m m erci al act iv it y

ex cep ti on , 28 U.S.C. § 1 60 5( a)(2 ), th e te rro ris m ex cep ti on , § 2 8 U.S.C. 1 60 5A— ap pl y . The co m m erci al act iv it ie s ex cep ti on of t he FSIA d oe s n otap pl y , bo th be cau se th e act io ns co m pl ai ne d o f are no t co m

m erci al inna tu re an d b ecau se th ey do no t h av e a d ire ct effe cton th e Uni te d S ta te s. Th e te rro ris m ex cep ti ondo es no t ap pl y be cau se no ne of it s re qu ire m en ts are m etinth is cas e. Co urts ha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er a fo rei gn st at e an d i ts ag en ci es or in st ru m en ta li ti es if the cau se of a ct io n i s “ ba se d . . . up on anactou ts id e th e te rri to ry of t he Uni te d S ta te s i n c on ne ct io n wi th a co m m erci al act iv ity

of t he
3fo rei gnst at e el se whe re an d t ha t ac t caus es a di recteffe ctinth e Uni te d S ta te s.” 2 8

U.S.C. § 1 60 5( a)(2 ). Pla in ti ffs ’ un de rlyin g c la im s ar e fo r fal se im pr is on m en t an d fo rcedlab or

—ac ti vi ti es rel at edto th e ex erci se of p ol ic e p owe rs —an d a re n ot co m m erci al inna tu re. See Nels on , 50 7 U.S. at36 1– 62 , 11 3 S . Ct. at14 79 –8 0 (“ The co nduc t b oi ls do wn t o abu se of t he po wer o f it s p ol ic e b y th e Sau di Gov ern m en t, an d h owe ve r m on st ro us su chab us e und oubt ed ly m ay be , a fo rei gn st at e’s ex erci se of t he po wer o f it s p ol ic e h as lo ng be enun de rs to odforpurp os es of th e res tri ct iv e th eo ry

as p ecu li arl y

so ve rei gninna tu re. Exe rci se of t he po wers of po li ce an d p en al off

ic ers is no t the so rt o f act io n b y whi chpri va te pa rti es can en ga ge inco m

m erce .”) (i nt ern al cit at io ns om it te d)
. Add it io na ll y , th e act s al le ge d h ere h av e n o d ire cteffe ctinth e Uni te d S ta te s. A di recteffe ctwithi n t he m ean in g o f th e FSIA i s o ne th atfol lo ws “ as an imm ed ia te co ns eque nc e o f th e d efen da nt ’s . . . act iv it y .” Rep ub li c o f Arg en ti nav. W el to ve r, In c., 50 4 U.S. 6 07 , 61 8, 1 12 S. Ct. 2 16 0, 2 16 8 (1 99 2) (qu ot at io ns an d ci ta ti on om it te d) . Pla in ti ffs cla im th ere i s a d ire cteffe cton th e Uni te d S ta te s be cau se th e work o f th e Cuba n m ed ic al pro fes si on al s cr eat es anin flo w of o il an d
m on ey to Cuba , whi chis intu rnus edto fin an ce an arm y th atis a di rectth reatto th e Uni te d S ta te s. Th ey

als o a rg ue th atan y

act io ns of P DVSA hav e aneffe cton th e Uni te d S ta te s b ecau se th ey sel l p etro le um

he re an d b ecau se Am eri can
4co ns um ers pa y a hi gh er p ric e fo r ga s as a res ul t o f th e ag reem en t b etweenCuba
an d Ven ezu el a. Non e o f th es e al le ga ti on s p le adth e type o f di recteffe cton th e Uni te d S ta te s re qu ire d b y § 1 60 5( a)(2 ). It i s n otcle ar wh ethe r Pl ai nt iff s i nt en d t o app eal th e ru li ng th atth e te rro ris m ex cep ti on of t he FSIA was no t m et , bec au se th ey m ak e o nl y

pa ss in g m en ti on of i t in th ei r br ie f on ap pe al . Howev er, ev enif t hi s cl ai m is rai se d o n app eal , itis
unpe rs ua si ve . The d is tri ctco urt was co rrec t i n i ts co nc lu si on th at“ [n ]one of the requi rem en ts of t he terro ris m ex cep ti on ” p ert ai n. Se ct io n 1 60 5A ap pl ie s o nl y to cl ai m s fo r “pe rs on al in

jury or de ath” ari si ng fro m act s o f “ to rtu re, ex tra

jud ic ia l ki ll in g, ai rcra ft s ab ot ag e, ho st ag e ta ki ng , or t he pro vi si on of m at eri al supp ort o r res ou rces forsu chanact ” p erp etrat edby agen ts of afor ei gnst at e. 28 U.S.C. § 1 60 5A( a)(1 ). Pla in ti ffs do no t as se rt a ny “pe rs on al in jury or de ath” cla im s. Fu rth erm or e, ev enif p la in ti ffs ’ cl ai m fel l wi th in § 1 60 5A, the di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y fou ndth atth ree o f 16 05 ’s add it io na l re qu ire m en ts were n otm et : (1 ) th e fo rei gnst at e m

us t h av e b eende si gn at eda “ st at e sp on so r of terro ris m ” whe n t he pr ed ic at e actoc cu rred , 28 U.S.C. 16 05 A(a)(2 )(A)(i )(I); (2) th e cl ai m an t o r vi ct im
m us t, atth e ti m e th e p red ic at e actoc curred , hav e b eena ci ti zen , so ld ie r, or em pl oyee of th e Uni te d S ta te s, 2 8 U.S.C. 1 60 5A( a)(2 )(i i); an d (3 ) th e cl ai m an t
m us t h av e aff

or de d t he for ei gn st at e a rea so nabl e o pp ortu ni ty to arbi tra te be fo re
5br in gi ng su it , 28 U.S.C. 16 05 A(a)(2 )(i ii ). The d is tri ctco urt was co rrec t i n fi nd in g

th atno ne of t he se requi rem en ts was s at is fie d. The di stric t co urt was co rrec t i n i ts de te rm in at io n t ha t n o s ta tu to ry ex cep ti on to th e FSIA i s ap pl ic ab le an d t ha t, the refo re, o urco urts lac k s ub ject m atte r juri sd ic ti on ov er Pl ai nt iff s’ cla im s. Acc or di ng ly, we affi rm . AFFIRMED
.

6