Howe v. Embassy of Italy
68 F. Supp. 3d 26
D.D.C.2014Background
- Plaintiff Howe, a Virginia resident, has worked for the Embassy of Italy in DC since 1988, alleging ERISA underfunding of her retirement benefits.
- The Plan was created in 1988 to approximate Social Security for non-US/Italy citizens, with equal contributions from Howe and the Embassy.
- Howe signed a Participation Agreement; she alleges miscalculation by Embassy admin led to 50% contributions by each party and a shortfall.
- Howe discovered the shortfall in August 2010 and requested remediation, which the Embassy allegedly failed to address or provide documents for.
- Howe filed suit on August 20, 2013, asserting ERISA §1132 claims for underfunding and a request for future benefit clarification, with motion to dismiss raised on jurisdiction and service grounds.
- The court granted dismissal under FSIA-based lack of service and lack of proper jurisdiction; dismissal was without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FSIA immunity bars the suit | Howe contends FSIA exceptions apply to permit suit. | Embassy argues immunity unless an FSIA exception applies. | Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction; FSIA immunity applies absent applicable exception. |
| Whether service was proper under FSIA §1608 | Howe asserts proper service under FSIA §1608(b). | Embassy submits service was improper under §1608(a) as a foreign state. | Service not proper under §1608(a); jurisdiction lacking. |
| Whether Embassy is a foreign state for FSIA purposes | Howe treats Embassy as instrumentality; seeks §1608(b) relief. | Embassy is a foreign state, not an agency or instrumentality. | Embassy deemed a foreign state integral to its political structure; §1608(a) required. |
| Whether the court should dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper service | Howe seeks jurisdiction notwithstanding service method. | Improper service deprives court of jurisdiction under FSIA/§1330(b). | Dismissal granted for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper service. |
Key Cases Cited
- Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 905 F.2d 438 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (sovereign immunity protects from suit, not just liability)
- Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305 (2010) (FSIA provides comprehensive standards governing immunity)
- Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. v. Arg. Republic, 488 U.S. 428 (1989) (interlocking FSIA provisions compress subject-matter and personal jurisdiction)
- Williams v. Romarm, S.A., 756 F.3d 777 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (FSIA jurisdiction requires service and an exception to immunity)
- GSS Grp. Ltd. v. Nat’l Port Auth., 680 F.3d 805 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (proper treatment of jurisdictional facts; agency vs foreign state distinctions)
- Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 30 F.3d 148 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (categorical approach to foreign state vs instrumentality for FSIA)