Opinion ID: 775317
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jurisdiction under the FSIA

Text: 16 The district court's jurisdiction over this litigation, if jurisdiction it had, arose under 28 U.S.C. § 1330, 4 entitled Actions against foreign states. Section 1330 provides in pertinent part: 17 The district courts shall have original jurisdiction without regard to amount in controversy of any non-jury civil action against a foreign state... as to any claim for relief in personam with respect to which the foreign state is not entitled to immunity either under sections 1605-1607 of this title or under any applicable international agreement. 18 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a). Title 28 U.S.C. § § 1604 and 1605, the latter referred to in § 1330(a), are, like § 1330 itself, a part of the FSIA. Section 1604 provides that, generally, a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States except as provided in [28 U.S.C.] sections 1605 to 1607.... Section 1605 sets forth, inter alia, various exceptions to that immunity: the circumstances in which [a] foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States or of the States. Id. § 1605(a). The FSIA 'provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in the courts of this country.' Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 355 (1993) (quoting Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 443 (1989)); see also Reiss v. Societe Centrale Du Groupe Des Assurances Nationales, 235 F.3d 738, 746 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Amerada Hess, 488 U.S. at 443). 19 Congress enacted the FSIA to define the jurisdiction of the United States courts in suits against foreign states and to codify when and how parties can maintain a lawsuit against a foreign state.... H.R. Rep. No. 94-1487, at 1, 6 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6604, 6604. Congress intended the FSIA to transfer the determination of sovereign immunity from the executive branch, id. at 7-8, 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6606, to which United States courts had theretofore traditionally deferred, see Verlinden B.V. v. Cent. Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 486 (1983), to the judicial branch in order to conform the procedure in this country to the practice in virtually every other country -- where sovereign immunity decisions are made exclusively by the courts and not by a foreign affairs agency. H.R. Rep. No. 94-1487, at 7-8, 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6606. 20 In Verlinden B.V., the Supreme Court held that the FSIA permissibly vests the federal courts with jurisdiction under the arising under clause of Article III of the United States Constitution. 5 See 461 U.S. at 497. For this reason, every suit against a foreign sovereign necessarily raises questions of substantive law at the very outset, id. at 493, 103 S. Ct. 1962, namely, whether the court possesses federal subject-matter jurisdiction under one of the FSIA's exclusive statutory bases. See id. (The statute must be applied by the District Courts in every action against a foreign sovereign, since subject matter jurisdiction depends on the existence of one of the specified exceptions to sovereign immunity....) (citation omitted); see also Cargill Int'l S.A. v. M/T Pavel Dybenko, 991 F.2d 1012, 1019 (2d Cir. 1993) (quoting Verlinden B.V.). Under the FSIA, federal courts therefore inquire at the threshold of every action against a foreign state whether the exception to sovereign immunity that the plaintiff alleges permits the exercise of federal jurisdiction. Verlinden B.V., 461 U.S. at 493. 21 Before the district court, Robinson relied solely on the non-discretionary torts exception set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5). That section reads in pertinent part: 22 (a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case-- 23 .... 24 (5)... in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his office or employment; except this paragraph shall not apply to-- 25 (A) any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function regardless of whether the discretion be abused.... 26 Id. Federal jurisdiction under this FSIA exception to immunity exists, then, only if (i) the plaintiff claims some injury caused by the tortious act or omission of a foreign state; and (ii) this act or omission was non-discretionary. 27 We conclude that Robinson's claim fails in the first respect and therefore need not determine whether it succeeds in the second.