891 F.3d 1311
11th Cir.2018Background
- Carmina Comparelli (Italian national, long-time Venezuelan resident) owned Marivelca, a Venezuelan chemical distributor; her son Julio owned a related trucking company. Venezuelan authorities conducted warrantless searches (2008) and in 2010 charged the Comparellis with illicit storage and seized Marivelca, appointing Pequiven as special administrator.
- The Comparellis sued in U.S. federal court alleging unlawful expropriation in violation of international law and invoked the FSIA expropriation exception, though the original caption also referenced the ATS; the district court struck a later amended complaint and treated the operative pleading as the original complaint.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, categorizing the claim as an ATS ‘‘foreign‑cubed’’ suit and applying the presumption against extraterritoriality.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit (overturning dismissal) held that the complaint invoked the FSIA expropriation exception and that Helmerich v. Payne (137 S. Ct. 1312) requires courts to resolve factual disputes when assessing FSIA §1605(a)(3) jurisdiction—pleadings alone are insufficient.
- The court identified key unresolved factual issues (nationality/dual‑nationality of plaintiffs, whether the taking violated international law—public purpose, discrimination, just compensation—nexus to the U.S., and exhaustion/adequacy of Venezuelan remedies) and remanded for the district court to hear evidence, allow amendment, and determine jurisdiction under Helmerich.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FSIA §1605(a)(3) jurisdiction exists | Comparellis: Takings of Marivelca violate international law and nexus to U.S. exists via Pequiven | Venezuela/Pequiven: No valid §1605(a)(3) claim; presumption against extraterritoriality bars jurisdiction absent stronger U.S. connection | Remanded: Court may hear evidence; §1605(a)(3) can apply extraterritorially if statutory nexus proved; pleadings insufficient (Helmerich) |
| Applicability of domestic‑takings rule (nationality) | Comparellis: Carmina and Julio can bring claims; Carmina is non‑Venezuelan; Julio may be dual national | Venezuela: Plaintiffs are Venezuelan nationals; domestic takings rule bars claims | Remanded: Carmina likely not Venezuelan per records (claim not barred); Julio’s dual‑nationality requires fact‑based inquiry by district court |
| Effect of presumption against extraterritoriality | Comparellis: Nexus provision of §1605(a)(3) rebuts presumption | Venezuela: Statute has no extraterritorial reach without U.S. connection | Held: Nexus requirement rebuts presumption; Congress intended extraterritorial application when nexus satisfied |
| Whether taking violated international law (public purpose, discrimination, compensation) | Comparellis: Taking was pretextual, discriminatory, without just compensation | Venezuela: Taking lawful (law‑enforcement / public purpose) and not violative of international law | Remanded: Material factual disputes (motive, discrimination, compensation, remedies) must be resolved on remand per Helmerich |
Key Cases Cited
- Helmerich & Payne Int’l Drilling Co. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 137 S. Ct. 1312 (2017) (FSIA §1605(a)(3) requires district courts to resolve factual disputes and cannot rely on mere pleadings)
- Mezerhane v. República Bolivariana de Venezuela, 785 F.3d 545 (11th Cir. 2015) (FSIA is sole basis for jurisdiction over foreign states; treatment of expropriation claims)
- FOGADE v. ENB Revocable Trust, 263 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2001) (domestic takings rule: expropriation of a state’s own nationals generally does not violate international law)
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013) (presumption against extraterritoriality for statutes lacking clear international application)
- Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. v. Argentine Republic, 488 U.S. 428 (1989) (limits of FSIA exceptions and extraterritorial application under different provisions)
- RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 136 S. Ct. 2090 (2016) (statutory nexus can rebut presumption against extraterritoriality)
- Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480 (1983) (FSIA governs jurisdiction over foreign states; extraterritorial suits permitted where statutory standards met)
- Cassirer v. Kingdom of Spain, 616 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2010) (application of §1605(a)(3) where instrumentality’s U.S. commercial activity establishes jurisdiction)
- Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Argentina, 965 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1992) (allegations of expropriation for private gain may state an international‑law violation)