709 F. App'x 452
9th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Victoria Elia Kaldawi sued several foreign sovereigns and named individual defendants in California federal court.
- Kaldawi sought default judgments against defendants who did not appear.
- District court dismissed claims against sovereign defendants for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).
- District court dismissed claims against individual defendants Al‑Fahed, Al‑Suheil, and Al‑Fares for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- District court denied Kaldawi’s motions for entry of default judgment and to expedite proceedings.
- Kaldawi appealed pro se; the Ninth Circuit reviewed FSIA jurisdiction de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over claims against foreign sovereigns under the FSIA | Kaldawi contended an exception to sovereign immunity applied, permitting jurisdiction | Sovereign defendants argued FSIA bars suit absent a statutory exception | No jurisdiction — Kaldawi failed to establish any FSIA exception; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether default judgment could be entered against foreign sovereigns who did not appear | Kaldawi sought default judgment based on defendants' nonappearance | Sovereigns (and statute) required claim to be proved to court before default judgment | Denied — default against foreign states improper without satisfactory proof and FSIA jurisdiction |
| Whether the district court had personal jurisdiction over individual defendants (Al‑Fahed, Al‑Suheil, Al‑Fares) | Kaldawi argued facts supported California contacts sufficient for jurisdiction | Defendants argued they lacked the minimum contacts with California required by due process | No personal jurisdiction — Kaldawi did not establish minimum contacts; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether default judgment could be entered against individual defendants who did not appear | Kaldawi sought default judgment for nonappearance | Defendants argued court lacked personal jurisdiction, so default improper | Denied — default inappropriate where court lacks personal jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428 (statutory exceptions are the sole basis for jurisdiction over a foreign state)
- In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707 (district court must assure jurisdiction before entering default judgment)
- Phaneuf v. Republic of Indonesia, 106 F.3d 302 (FSIA subject‑matter jurisdiction reviewed de novo)
- Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc., 648 F.3d 779 (standard for review of denial of default against foreign sovereigns)
- Love v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd., 611 F.3d 601 (personal jurisdiction requires minimum contacts analysis)
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (standards governing entry of default judgment)
- Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055 (appellate courts may affirm on any basis supported by the record)