Opinion ID: 767269
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Subject matter jurisdiction, Count IV

Text: 52 In the final count of the complaint the plaintiffs allege that Venezuela caused CAVN to breach its contracts with them by failing to restore CAVN's accumulated deficits and by refusing to allow CAVN to fully perform its obligations under the Equipment Lease Agreements and the restructuring and repayment plans. Venezuelacontends both that the FSIA and the act of state doctrine protect it from suit upon this count. The district court did not address either assertion. 53 In light of our dismissal of the first three counts of the complaint, and of the district court's failure to discuss the final count, we leave to the district court in the first instance the question whether Venezuela and the FIV are, by reason of the FSIA, immune from suit upon the final count. We do not reach Venezuela's act of state defense because it is not properly subject to interlocutory appeal. See Walter Fuller Aircraft Sales, Inc. v. Republic of the Philippines, 965 F.2d 1375, 1387 (5th Cir. 1992). The act of state doctrine is a substantive rule of law that precludes the district court from inquiring into the legality of a sovereign's public acts; it is not strictly an immunity from suit. See id. 54 Although the plaintiffs have asked this court to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the act of state issue, we decline to do so. We exercise such jurisdiction sparingly and not so as to reach[ ] an issue that might be mooted or altered by subsequent district court proceedings. Gilda Marx, Inc. v. Wildwood Exercise, Inc., 85 F.3d 675, 678, 679 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Because the district court is yet to determine whether Venezuela is immune from suit upon count four pursuant to the FSIA, we will not rush in to resolve the act of state issue at this juncture.