Nasrany v. The General Consulate of Kuwait in New York City
1:24-cv-07163
| S.D.N.Y. | Dec 6, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Bachir Nasrany, a pro se litigant, alleges severe and persistent workplace harassment, including sexual harassment and wage nonpayment, by the General Consulate of Kuwait in New York and Vice Consul Hadi Alsubaei during his employment from 2020 to 2023.
- Plaintiff filed complaints with NYSDHR and EEOC before suing Defendants in New York State Supreme Court in July 2024; an amended complaint was filed soon after.
- Due to difficulties in personally serving Defendants, Plaintiff obtained a state-court order allowing alternative service by various forms of mail to the Consulate’s address.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), then moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process.
- Plaintiff moved to remand to state court, arguing the case was exempt from removal and that service was valid under state-law procedures.
- The federal court determined the case was properly in federal court and found service defective under both the FSIA and applicable treaties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held (Court's Ruling) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Where should the case be heard (remand)? | FSIA doesn't allow removal for commercial activities; state court is proper forum | FSIA mandates right to remove any civil case against a foreign state to federal court | Removal was proper under FSIA; denied |
| Proper service on Consulate (FSIA standards) | Service was valid because it followed state-court authorized alternative methods | FSIA requires strict and exclusive procedures, which Plaintiff did not follow | Service defective under FSIA; dismissed |
| Proper service on Vice Consul (Alsubaei) | State-court authorized service was valid and court had long-arm jurisdiction | Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction; service on consular premises violates international treaties | State court lacked jurisdiction; service invalid |
| Effect of EEOC/NYSDHR findings on jurisdiction | EEOC/NYSDHR documents entitled him to state court litigation and support service methods | These notices don’t alter FSIA requirements or Defendants’ right to federal removal | EEOC/NYSDHR do not affect federal rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480 (FSIA channels claims against foreign sovereigns to federal courts, emphasizes uniformity)
- Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428 (FSIA provides exclusive basis for jurisdiction over foreign states in U.S. courts)
- OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, 577 U.S. 27 (FSIA applies to all claims against foreign states, regardless of legal theory)
- Bors v. Preston, 111 U.S. 252 (federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over civil suits against consuls or vice consuls of foreign states)
- Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, 587 U.S. 1 (FSIA’s service requirements must be strictly followed; service must go to foreign minister, not embassies)