Opinion ID: 672302
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Foreign Sovereign Immunity Under the Circuit Law of 1942-45

Text: 57 What, then, if the FSIA does not apply retroactively to bar this case? In that event, Germany argues (albeit for the first time on appeal) that it is entitled to absolute sovereign immunity under the case law of this circuit as it stood during the period 1942-45, i.e. prior to the Tate Letter and to adoption of the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity. To this end Germany cites United States ex rel. Cardashian v. Snyder, 44 F.2d 895 (D.C.Cir.1930) and Matthews, United States Marshal v. Walton Rice Mill, Inc., 176 F.2d 69 (D.C.Cir.1949). 58 Because subject matter jurisdiction cannot be created by consent, waiver, or even estoppel, Insurance Corp. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 2104, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982), we would consider this belated argument if it were of any consequence to federal jurisdiction of this case. It is immaterial, however, because there is no present basis for subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Princz's claims in the district court regardless of the state of the circuit law concerning immunity in the period 1942-1945. 59 Until the passage of the FSIA in 1976, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332 provided for federal diversity jurisdiction over a case brought by a United States citizen against a foreign state. When the Congress passed the FSIA, however, it deleted that grant of jurisdiction from Sec. 1332. As noted above, the House Report on the FSIA states that [s]ince jurisdiction in actions against foreign states is comprehensively treated by the new section 1330, a similar jurisdictional basis under section 1332 becomes superfluous. H.R.Rep. No. 94-1487, 94th Cong.2d Sess., 14 (1976). New Sec. 1330(a), in turn, asserts federal jurisdiction over a suit against a foreign state only insofar as the foreign state is not entitled to immunity under the FSIA; and as we have already held, no exception to immunity under the FSIA covers this case. 60 Nor is this case within the federal question jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, because Mr. Princz's claims against Germany sound in tort and quasi contract, not in federal law. Regardless whether Germany is entitled to sovereign immunity apart from the FSIA, therefore, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Princz's claims.