Khokhar v. Government of Pakistan Through Its Ministries et al

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

N.D. Cal.July 3, 2017

Active/45849189.2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Richard Mooney (SBN 176486) richard.mooney@rimonlaw.com Rimon, P.C. One Embarcadero Center #400 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 539-0443 Facsimile: (800) 930-7271 David B. Wilson (CO 16266; admitted pro hac vice) dwilson@shermanhoward.com Sherman & Howard L.L.C. 633 17th Street, Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 299-8382 Facsimile: (303) 298-0940 Attorneys for Defendants Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resource Development, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Law & Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Secretariat Prime Minister UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION MOHAMMAD MINHAJ KHOKHAR, Plaintiff, vs. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH ITS MINISTRIES, et al. Defendant(s). Case Number: 4:17-cv-01769-SBA Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Date: September 13, 2017 Time: 1:00 p.m. Courtroom 210: Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendants, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, its Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resource Development, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Law & Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Secretariat Prime Minister (together, the “Pakistan Movants”) will, and hereby do, move this Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(1) to dismiss all claims against the Pakistan Case 4:17-cv-01769-SBA Document 43 Filed 07/03/17 Page 1 of 10 2 Khokhar v. Government of Pakistan (Case No. 4:17-cv-01769-SBA) Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Active/45849189.2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Movants because the Pakistan Movants, as a matter of law, are immune from suit and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U.S.C. Section 1604 and related sections. The motion will be heard in Courtroom 210 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Second Floor, Oakland, CA 94612) at 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 13, 2017, or at such other date and time as the Court may direct. As a matter of law, the Pakistan Movants are a “foreign state” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. Section 1603(a). As such, they are immune from suit in this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1604. Therefore, the Pakistan Movants should be dismissed from this action with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the attached memorandum of points and authorities, the declaration filed herewith, plaintiff’s Complaint, and any other oral or written evidence or argument presented at or before the hearing. Certificate of Compliance. Pursuant to the Court’s standing order, undersigned counsel certifies that he conferred with the plaintiff, who confirms that he opposes this motion. Dated: July _3, 2017 /s/ David Bruce Wilson David Bruce Wilson Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Richard Mooney Rimon P.C. Attorneys for Defendants Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resource Development, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Law & Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Secretariat Prime Minister Case 4:17-cv-01769-SBA Document 43 Filed 07/03/17 Page 2 of 10 Active/45846569.3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Richard Mooney (SBN 176486) richard.mooney@rimonlaw.com Rimon, P.C. One Embarcadero Center #400 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 539-0443 Facsimile: (800) 930-7271 David B. Wilson (CO 16266; admitted pro hac vice) dwilson@shermanhoward.com Sherman & Howard L.L.C. 633 17th Street, Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 299-8382 Facsimile: (303) 298-0940 Attorneys for Defendants Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resource Development, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Law & Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Secretariat Prime Minister UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION MOHAMMAD MINHAJ KNOKHAR, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH ITS MINISTRIES, et al., Defendant. Case No. 4:17-cv-01769-SBA MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION UNDER THE FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT Date: September 13, 2017 Time: 1:00 p.m. Courtroom 210: Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong Case 4:17-cv-01769-SBA Document 43 Filed 07/03/17 Page 3 of 10 i Khokhar v. Government of Pakistan (Case No. 4:17-cv-01769-SBA) Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Active/45846569.3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. ISSUE PRESENTED ............................................................................................................... 1 II. UNDER THE FSIA, THE COURT LACKS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THE PAKISTAN MOVANTS. ............................................................................................... 1 A. This Court must determine sovereign immunity as a threshold issue. .............................. 1 B. Each Pakistan Movant is a “foreign state” and thus immune from suit in this Court. ................................................................................................................................. 2 C. No FSIA exception applies. ............................................................................................... 3 III. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 4 Case 4:17-cv-01769-SBA Document 43 Filed 07/03/17 Page 4 of 10 ii Khokhar v. Government of Pakistan (Case No. 4:17-cv-01769-SBA) Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Active/45846569.3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Af-Cap, Inc. v. Chevron Overseas (Congo) Ltd., 475 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2007) ..................................................................................................... 1 Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428 (1989) ............................... 1 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................................................................... 2 In re Papandreou, 139 F.3d 247 (D.C. Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................... 1 Khokhar v. Yousuf, Case No. 15-cv-06043-SBA ....................................................................................................... 3 Peterson v. Islamic Republic Of Iran, 627 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................. 1, 2, 3 Phaneuf v. Republic of Indonesia, 106 F.3d 302 (9th Cir. 1997) ............................................... 1, 3 Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305 (2010) .................................................................................................................... 4 Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349 (1993) .............................................................................. 1 Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) ...................................................................................................................... 1 Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250 (1897) .................................................................................................................... 4 Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480 (1983) .................................................................................................................... 1 Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 1603(a) ........................................................................................................................ 2 28 U.S.C. § 1603(b) ........................................................................................................................ 2 28 U.S.C. § 1604 ............................................................................................................................. 1 28 U.S.C. § 1605 ............................................................................................................................. 3 Case 4:17-cv-01769-SBA Document 43 Filed 07/03/17 Page 5 of 10 1 Khokhar v. Government of Pakistan (Case No. 4:17-cv-01769-SBA) Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Personal Jurisdiction Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Active/45846569.3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS I. ISSUE PRESENTED Under the FSIA, foreign states generally enjoy sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction of United States courts. No dispute exists that the Pakistan Movants qualify as a “foreign state” within the meaning of the FSIA, and no exception to the FSIA applies. Shouldn’t the Court dismiss the claims against the Pakistan Movants based on sovereign immunity under the FSIA? II. UNDER THE FSIA, THE COURT LACKS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THE PAKISTAN MOVANTS. A. This Court must determine sovereign immunity as a threshold issue. 1. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides “the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in our courts.”1 Under the FSIA, “a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States,” unless one of the narrow exceptions to the Act applies.2 The existence of sovereign immunity and subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA are questions of law.3 2. When a party asserts sovereign immunity, the Court must decide the sovereign immunity question first, and may not consider any other matter unless the Court finds that an exception to sovereign immunity applies.4 This is consistent with the principle that a court must determine subject matter jurisdiction first and before proceeding to any other matter.5 3. As the Supreme Court explained: “At the threshold of every action in a District Court against a foreign state . . . the court must satisfy itself that one of the exceptions [to sovereign immunity under the FSIA] applies – and in doing so it must apply the detailed federal law standards set forth in the Act.”6 1 Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 627 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 434 (1989)). 2 28 U.S.C. § 1604; Peterson, 627 F.3d at 1122 (citing Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 355 (1993)). 3 Af-Cap, Inc. v. Chevron Overseas (Congo) Ltd., 475 F.3d 1080, 1085 (9th Cir. 2007). 4 See Phaneuf v. Republic of Indonesia, 106 F.3d 302, 305 (9th Cir. 1997); In re Papandreou, 139 F.3d 247, 254 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (“We think the primacy accorded to immunity values entirely correct; merely deciding other issues may irreparably impair the benefits of immunity”). 5 See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). 6 Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 493-94 (1983). Case 4:17-cv-01769-SBA Document 43 Filed 07/03/17 Page 6 of 10 2 Khokhar v. Government of Pakistan (Case No. 4:17-cv-01769-SBA) Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Active/45846569.3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. Each Pakistan Movant is a “foreign state” and thus immune from suit in this Court. 4. The FSIA shields foreign states not only from liability, but from all of the burdens of litigation, including disclosure, discovery, other pre-trial proceedings and trial.7 5. Under Section 1603(a) of the FSIA8, a “‘foreign state’. . .includes a political subdivision of a foreign state or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state as defined in subsection (b).” Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1603(b), “[a]n ‘agency or instrumentality of a foreign state’” includes “a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise,” that is an “organ of a foreign or political subdivision thereof, or a majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is owned by a foreign state or political subdivision thereof” and is not a U.S. citizen or organized under a third country’s laws. 6. Here, based on plaintiff’s Complaint [Dkt. 1], no dispute exists that each of the Pakistan Movants is a “foreign state” under the FSIA. Plaintiff concedes that Pakistan is a sovereign state.9 To the extent that his Complaint mentions them at all, he also acknowledges that other Pakistan Movants are Pakistani governmental agencies.10 As a review of the Complaint demonstrates, however, his allegations against the Pakistan Movants fall far short of the pleading standard required under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,11 and most (if not the only) references to the Pakistan Movants are found within the Complaint’s prayer for relief, rather than in well-pleaded factual allegations.12 Other than to name it as a defendant in the caption, the Complaint nowhere mentions the “Secretariat Prime Minister,” which is the official residence and office of the Prime Minister of Pakistan.13 7 See, e.g., Peterson, 627 F.3d at 1127 (“The FSIA was meant to spare foreign states not only from liability on the merits but also from the cost and inconvenience of trial.”); Af-Cap, Inc., 475 F.3d at 1095-96 (“discovery against a foreign sovereign should be ordered ‘circumspectly and only to verify allegations of specific facts crucial to the immunity determination.’”) (internal citation omitted). 8 28 U.S.C. § 1603(a). 9 See, e.g., Complaint at 35:6-27, 39:1-3, 62:17-27. 10 Id. at 30:14-24, 83:26-84:7, 94:6-11, 95:12-20. 11 550 U.S. 544 (2007). 12 See Complaint at 62:7-22; 94:6-10; 95:12-15. 13 Declaration of Ahmad Irfan Aslam at ¶ 2. Case 4:17-cv-01769-SBA Document 43 Filed 07/03/17 Page 7 of 10 3 Khokhar v. Government of Pakistan (Case No. 4:17-cv-01769-SBA) Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Active/45846569.3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C. No FSIA exception applies. 7. “Once the court has determined that the defendant is a foreign state, ‘the burden of production shifts to the plaintiff to offer evidence that an exception applies’ . . . [because] federal jurisdiction does not exist unless one of the exceptions to immunity from suit applies.” 14. The FSIA “does not require the defendants to prove a public act to establish a prima facie case of immunity. Instead, they are entitled to a presumption of immunity if they are foreign states within the meaning of the Act.”15 8. Principally, the FSIA’s exceptions apply only in cases (a) where the foreign state has waived its immunity; (b) where the action is based on a foreign state’s commercial activity removed from its governmental function; (c) tortious acts of a foreign state occurring within the United States; or (d) an agreement to arbitrate.16 In his Complaint, plaintiff fails to allege facts to support any of these exceptions. 9. To the contrary, plaintiff’s Complaint establishes that he is trying to use U.S. courts as a vehicle to complain about Pakistan’s judicial system17 and Pakistan’s performance of other law enforcement and governmental functions in Pakistan.18 For example, he complains that the Pakistani government failed to take action to address his grievances with the non-governmental defendants to this action, including the failure to recognize and enforce as a court judgment in Pakistan the Clerk’s entry of default in a separate lawsuit that is also pending in this Court, Khokhar v. Yousuf, Case No. 15-cv-06043-SBA.19 Based on this alleged affront, plaintiff complains that the Pakistani judicial system is flawed and that the courts of the United States thus should step in to provide a remedy.20 10. Under the FSIA, the conduct of which plaintiff complains falls squarely within the scope of sovereign immunity. Indeed, separate from the FSIA, United States courts, 14 Peterson, 627 F.3d at 1125. 15 Phaneuf, 106 F.3d at 306. 16 28 U.S.C. § 1605. 17 See Complaint at 40:24-41:9; 45:18-24; 69:1-10. 18 Id. at 69:1-10; 98:8-99:3. 19 Id. at 20:15-19; 30:1-9. 20 Id. at 31:17-24; 101:23-102:8. Case 4:17-cv-01769-SBA Document 43 Filed 07/03/17 Page 8 of 10 4 Khokhar v. Government of Pakistan (Case No. 4:17-cv-01769-SBA) Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Active/45846569.3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 under the Act of State doctrine, refuse to hear cases (such as this one) concerning the acts of a foreign government within its territory.21 III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Pakistan Movants are immune from suit. Thus, the 21 “[I]n the context of the act of state doctrine, . . . an official’s acts can be considered the acts of the foreign state, and . . . ‘the courts of one country will not sit in judgment’ of those acts when done within the territory of the foreign state.” Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305, 322 (2010) (quoting Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250, 252 (1897)). Case 4:17-cv-01769-SBA Document 43 Filed 07/03/17 Page 9 of 10 5 Khokhar v. Government of Pakistan (Case No. 4:17-cv-01769-SBA) Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Active/45846569.3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Court should dismiss plaintiff’s claims against them with prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dated: July 3, 2017 By: /s/ David Bruce Wilson David Bruce Wilson Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Richard Mooney Rimon P.C. Case 4:17-cv-01769-SBA Document 43 Filed 07/03/17 Page 10 of 10 Case 4:17-cv-01769-SBA Document 43-1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 1 of 2 Case 4:17-cv-01769-SBA Document 43-1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 2 of 2 Active/45826300.1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION MOHAMMAD MINHAJ KHOKHAR, Plaintiff, vs. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH ITS MINISTRIES, et al. Defendant(s). ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case Number: 3:17-cv-01769-SBA [Proposed] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION BASED ON SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the motion of defendants Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resource Development, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Law & Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Secretariat Prime Minister1 (together, the “Pakistan Movants”) to dismiss the claims against them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, based on sovereign immunity. The motion came before me for a hearing on September 13, 2017, with the plaintiff appearing pro se and with David B. Wilson and Richard Mooney appearing on behalf of the Pakistan Movants. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that plaintiff’s claims against the Pakistan Movants are dismissed with prejudice: 1. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) provides “the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in our courts.” Peterson v. Islamic Republic Of Iran, 627 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 434 (1989). Unless a specified exception to foreign sovereign immunity 1 The “Secretariat Prime Minister” refers to the official offices and residence of the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Case 4:17-cv-01769-SBA Document 43-2 Filed 07/03/17 Page 1 of 3 - 2 - Active/45826300.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 applies, this court lacks jurisdiction. Peterson, 627 F.3d at 1122 (citing Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 355 (1993). 2. Under Section 1604 of the FSIA (28 U.S.C. Section 1604), “a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States,” subject to exceptions specified in Sections 1605 to 1608 of the FSIA. Under Section 1603(a) of the FSIA (28 U.S.C. §1603(a)), a “‘foreign state’. . .includes a political subdivision of a foreign state or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state as defined in subsection (b). Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1603(b), “[a]n ‘agency or instrumentality of a foreign state’” includes “a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise,” that is an “organ of a foreign or political subdivision thereof, or a majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is owned by a foreign state or political subdivision thereof” and is not a U.S. citizen or organized under a third country’s laws. 3. Here, no dispute exists that each of the Pakistan Movants fall within the definition of a “foreign state” under FSIA. Thus, the Pakistan Movants are immune from suit in this Court unless the plaintiff could provide evidence that an exception applies. Plaintiff has provided no such evidence. 4. To the contrary, according to his Complaint, plaintiff sues the Pakistan Movants because he is unhappy with various alleged actions that the Pakistan Movants took or failed to take in connection with their performance of governmental functions in Pakistan. In substance, he complains that the Pakistani government failed to take action to address his grievances with the non-governmental defendants in this action, including the failure to recognize and enforce as a court judgment in Pakistan the Clerk’s entry of default in a separate lawsuit that is also pending in this Court, Khokhar v. Yousuf, Case No. 15-cv-06043-SBA. Based on this alleged affront, plaintiff complains that the Pakistani judicial system is inadequate and that the courts of the United States thus should step in to provide a remedy. 5. Under the FSIA, the Pakistan Movants are immune from suit for these claims. Moreover, separate from immunity under the FSIA, the Act of State Doctrine precludes United States courts from assuming jurisdiction over matters pertaining to the acts of a foreign state within its borders. See Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305, 322 (2010) Case 4:17-cv-01769-SBA Document 43-2 Filed 07/03/17 Page 2 of 3 - 3 - Active/45826300.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6. For all of these reasons, plaintiffs’ claims against the Pakistan Movants fail, as a matter of law, and those claims are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. DONE this ___ day of _____ 2017. BY THE COURT: ________________________ Saundra Brown Armstrong United States District Judge Case 4:17-cv-01769-SBA Document 43-2 Filed 07/03/17 Page 3 of 3 Active/45863622.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Richard Mooney (SBN 176486) richard.mooney@rimonlaw.com Rimon, P.C. One Embarcadero Center #400 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 539-0443 Facsimile: (800) 930-7271 David B. Wilson (CO 16266; admitted pro hac vice) dwilson@shermanhoward.com Sherman & Howard L.L.C. 633 17th Street, Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 299-8382 Facsimile: (303) 298-0940 Attorneys for Defendants Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resource Development, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Law & Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Secretariat Prime Minister UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION MOHAMMAD MINHAJ KHOKHAR, Plaintiff, vs. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH ITS MINISTRIES, et al. Defendant(s). Case Number: 4:17-cv-01769-SBA Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on Mon, Jul 3, 2017, I electronically filed the following: 1) Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; 2) Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; Case 4:17-cv-01769-SBA Document 43-3 Filed 07/03/17 Page 1 of 2 2 Khokhar v. Government of Pakistan (Case No. 4:17-cv-01769-SBA) Certificate of Service Active/45863622.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3) Declaration of Ahmad Irfan Aslam in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; and 4) Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Based on Sovereign Immunity with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of the filing to the following email addresses: Mohammad Minhaj Khokhar 25300 Loma Prieta Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95033 Email: minhajk@hotmail.com Dated: July _3, 2017 /s/ David Bruce Wilson David Bruce Wilson Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Richard Mooney Rimon P.C. Rimon, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resource Development, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Law & Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Secretariat Prime Minister Case 4:17-cv-01769-SBA Document 43-3 Filed 07/03/17 Page 2 of 2