Edumoz, LLC v. Republic of Mozambique
686 F. App'x 486
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- EduMoz, LLC sued the Republic of Mozambique and its Ministry of Education based on a contract executed by Mozambican Minister of Education Zeferino Martins.
- The district court dismissed EduMoz’s claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).
- EduMoz sought to invoke the FSIA commercial-activity exception (28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2)) to overcome sovereign immunity, arguing the contract was commercial activity attributable to Mozambique.
- Defendants argued Martins lacked the necessary authority to bind the state because he failed to comply with Mozambican procurement laws.
- The Ninth Circuit panel reviewed whether Martins had "actual authority" to bind the state for the commercial-activity exception to apply and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FSIA commercial-activity exception applies when a minister executes a contract | Martins’ contract should be attributable to Mozambique under the commercial-activity exception | Martins lacked actual authority because he failed to follow required Mozambican procurement procedures | The commercial-activity exception does not apply because Martins lacked actual authority |
| Standard for attributing an agent's act to a foreign state under the FSIA | The court should not strictly require "actual authority" (or should narrow Phaneuf) | Phaneuf precedent requires actual authority; lower court applied it correctly | Phaneuf’s actual-authority requirement controls; panel bound by circuit precedent |
| Effect of noncompliance with domestic procurement laws on authority to bind the state | Compliance was unnecessary to validate ministerial acts | Failure to follow procurement procedures shows lack of empowerment to act for the state | Failure to comply with procurement rules meant Martins was not empowered; his act cannot be attributed to Mozambique |
| Jurisdictional consequence of attribution failure | If contract is attributable, FSIA exception would permit jurisdiction | Without attribution, sovereign immunity bars jurisdiction | No attribution → FSIA immunity applies → court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Phaneuf v. Republic of Indonesia, 106 F.3d 302 (9th Cir. 1997) (agent must have acted with actual authority for the commercial-activity exception to apply)
- United States v. Orm Hieng, 679 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (panels are bound by circuit precedent unless clearly undermined)
- Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (standards for when a panel may depart from circuit precedent)