Opinion ID: 543051
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Conclusory Allegations

Text: 39 The District Court found on the face of Foremost's complaint allegations which, although conclusory, would amount to the degree of control necessary to attribute the actions of the co-defendants to the Government of Iran. Foremost III, slip op. at 6 n. 8, reprinted in App. 8 n. 8. Where such conclusory allegations are challenged by the sovereign, the plaintiff must provide further proof of government involvement in order to overcome the presumption of juridical separateness. Determination of who is and is not an agent of whom will be in great part factual, Gilson, 682 F.2d at 1029, and the fact-finding should be explicit, id. at 1026. In the instant case, the fact-findings were not sufficiently explicit. 40 In Gilson, this court determined that dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction was premature in light of the dearth of fact-finding done by the district court thus far, id., and the court remanded for further development of the facts. Here, we conclude that the District Court's denial of Iran's motion to dismiss was premature in light of the dearth of fact-finding and we remand for further development of the facts as to the relationship between Iran and Pak Dairy. 41 Where, as with foreign sovereigns, immunity involves protection from suit, not merely a defense to liability, more than the usual is required of trial courts in making pretrial factual and legal determinations. In such circumstances, it is particularly important that the court satisfy itself of its authority to hear the case, Prakash v. American University, 727 F.2d 1174, 1179 (D.C.Cir.1984), before trial. [P]ostponing the determination of subject matter jurisdiction until some point during or after trial would frustrate the significance and benefit of entitlement to immunity from suit. Gould, Inc. v. Pechiney Ugine Kuhlmann, 853 F.2d 445, 451 (6th Cir.1988). Thus, [i]n many cases a resolution of the substantive immunity law issues will be required in order to reach a decision on subject matter jurisdiction.... [A] court may have to interpret the substantive principles embodied in Secs. 1605-1607 before deciding whether to take jurisdiction. Corporacion Venezolana de Fomento v. Vintero Sales Corp., 629 F.2d 786, 790-91 n. 4 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1080, 101 S.Ct. 863, 66 L.Ed.2d 804 (1981); see also First Fidelity Bank v. Government of Antigua & Barbuda, 877 F.2d 189, 195 (2d Cir.1989) (quoting same passage). 42 [S]ince entitlement of a party to immunity from suit is such a critical preliminary determination, the parties have the responsibility, and must be afforded a fair opportunity, to define issues of fact and law, and to submit evidence necessary to the resolution of the issues. Gould, 853 F.2d at 451. Thus, to address a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) where the suit involves a foreign sovereign and the court's jurisdiction over the sovereign is contested, the district court must do more than just look to the pleadings to ascertain whether to grant the motion to dismiss. The district court has considerable latitude in devising the procedures it will follow to ferret out the facts pertinent to jurisdiction. Prakash, 727 F.2d at 1179. Further fact-finding is clearly needed in the instant case; but in making the necessary preliminary determinations the District Court should closely control and limit the discovery and fact-finding so as to avoid frustrat[ing] the significance and benefit of ... immunity from suit. Gould, 853 F.2d at 451. 43