91 F.4th 1340
9th Cir.2024Background
- Antrix Corp. Ltd., a company wholly owned by the Republic of India, entered into an agreement with Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. including an arbitration clause.
- A foreign arbitration tribunal awarded Devas over $562 million in damages following Antrix's termination of the agreement.
- Devas petitioned to confirm the arbitration award in federal court in Washington State, invoking the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) arbitral exception.
- The district court held it had personal jurisdiction over Antrix and confirmed the award, despite Antrix's minimum contacts challenge.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit ruled that minimum contacts were required for personal jurisdiction under the FSIA, found them lacking, and reversed the district court.
- Petitions for rehearing en banc were denied, but some judges dissented, arguing that FSIA does not impose a minimum contacts requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether minimum contacts are required for personal jurisdiction over a foreign state under FSIA | FSIA's text only requires a statutory exception and proper service, not minimum contacts | Minimum contacts analysis is necessary in line with Ninth Circuit precedent | Minimum contacts are required (Ninth Circuit precedent controls) |
| Due process rights of foreign states | Foreign states are not entitled to due process protection for purposes of minimum contacts | Foreign states/corporate instrumentalities may be entitled to due process protection | Did not resolve independent due process claim; based outcome on precedent |
| Application to arbitral award exception under FSIA | Arbital exception met; personal jurisdiction should follow | Minimum contacts must be met even under new exception | Minimum contacts required regardless of which FSIA exception applies |
| Appropriateness of en banc rehearing | Ninth Circuit’s precedent is out of step with other circuits and misreads FSIA/due process | Ninth Circuit precedent should continue to apply | Denied rehearing en banc |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (Supreme Court: obligation to exercise jurisdiction)
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (Supreme Court: statutory interpretation of jurisdiction)
- Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., 573 U.S. 134 (Supreme Court: FSIA immunity defenses must be grounded in the Act’s text)
- Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428 (Supreme Court: overview of FSIA framework)
- Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607 (Supreme Court: FSIA as comprehensive framework; question of foreign state as 'person' for due process)
- South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (Supreme Court: states are not "persons" under the Due Process Clause)
- Sebelius v. Auburn Reg’l Med. Ctr., 568 U.S. 145 (Supreme Court: mandatory nature of statutory language)
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (Supreme Court: preference for statutory text over legislative history)
- City of Chicago v. Environmental Defense Fund, 511 U.S. 328 (Supreme Court: committee reports not authoritative over statutes)