Filed January 17, 2017
I submit this affidavit in suppo1t ofthe motion to dismiss the claim raised against the Republic ofBulgaria in this case. By submitting this declaration, Ido not waive any immunity for the Republic of Bulgaria, the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Bulgaria or myselfunder international law, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq.), the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and 22 U.S.C. §254a et seq., or any other applicable laws. Case 1:16-cv-09768-JFK Document 4-2
Filed October 1, 2016
For reasons explained in its separate Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, AGCS SE is not a proper defendant in the Lawsuits and cannot be held liable for the loss of Flight MH370. However, in the event that this Court accepts the Plaintiffs’ unprecedented contentions, which AGCS SE expressly denies, AGCS SE contends that it stands in the shoes of MAS and therefore adopts and incorporates by reference each and every argument asserted by MAS in its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq. Even if the Court concludes that it has statutory authority to assert jurisdiction over AGCS SE pursuant to an exception to foreign sovereign immunity, see 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b), Plaintiffs still must show that the exercise of such jurisdiction would be consistent with the constitutional requirements of due process.
Filed May 14, 2010
THE REPUBLIC HAS FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. 1602, et seq. (“FSIA”) “contains a comprehensive set of legal standards governing claims of immunity in every civil action against a foreign state or its political subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities.” Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 488 (1983).
Filed June 9, 2008
On May 1, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a motion for assignment of rights, pursuant to California state law, to collect Iranian funds purportedly held by certain “financial institutions,” including IFC. As addressed below, all of these collection efforts—whether based on federal or state law—are barred by IFC’s immunity under the IOIA, as well as the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq. On May 28, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (“World Bank”) filed a motion with the Northern District of California to stay Plaintiffs’ motion for assignment of rights until this Court has ruled on the present Motion.
Filed June 9, 2008
510(a), which only allows for the assignment of "a right to payment due or to become due." Second, as a "foreign state" -- as that term is defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1603(a) (2006) -- KEXIM enjoys sovereign immunity and thus is not subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1602, et seq. ("FSIA"), the Court has no jurisdiction to order any assignment of property held by KEXIM or to require KEXIM to participate further in these proceedings. See Randolph v. Budget Rent-A-Car, 97 F.3d 319, 323-24 (9th Cir. 1996); Stena Rederi AB v. Comision de Contratos del Comite Ejecutivo General del Sindicato Revolucionario de Trabajadores Petroleros de la Republica Mexicana, S.C., 923 F.2d 380, 392 (5th Cir. 1991).
Filed March 26, 2008
Members of the United States Navy and United States Army were present at the site of the occurrence in support of the 24th Marine Amphibious Unit, either on a regular assigned basis or temporarily on the date of the occurrence below set forth. The term “estate” as hereinafter used refers not only to the estate of any member of the Armed Forces of the United States above referred to, but also to all persons now deceased whose estates are beneficiaries entitled to Case 1:07-cv-01302-RCL Document 5-3 Filed 03/26/2008 Page 21 of 222 22 compensation and/or punitive damages in accordance with any statute of the United States, the District of Columbia, or their state of residence or domicile at the time of death, including 28 United States Code Section 1602 through 1611, District of Columbia Code, Title 16, Section 16-2701 or District of Columbia Code, Title 12, Section 12-301. (4)The Defendant, The Islamic Republic of Iran, is a foreign state which was as a result of the acts hereinafter complained of, and is to the present, designated as a state sponsor of terrorism pursuant to Section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 United States Code Appendix, Section 2405(j)).
Filed May 31, 2005
COMMONWEALTH SCllNTIFIC AND INDUSTRIL RESEARCH ORGANISATION'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDUR 12(b)(4) AND (b)(5)Case No. C05 01886 MJJ - 4- Case3:05-cv-01886-MJJ Document4 Filed05/31/05 Page9 of 13 1 iv. 2 ARGUMENT CSIRO Is An Agency Of The Australian Government And Thus The FSIA Applies The FSIA applies to lawsuits against "foreign states." 28 U.S.C. § 1602. The statute defines A. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 "foreign state" as including an "agency or instrmentality of a foreign state."
Filed March 27, 2017
................................................................. 1, 17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)........................................................................................................... 1, 7, 8 Legislative History H.R. Rep. No. 94-1487, (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6604) ............................................................................... 13, 18 Case 1:16-cv-00904-LPS Document 24-2 Filed 03/27/17 Page 6 of 26 PageID #: 305 Defendant Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (“PDVSA”) respectfully submits this memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss the Complaint filed by ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V., Phillips Petroleum Company Venezuela Limited, ConocoPhillips Gulf of Paria B.V. and ConocoPhillips Hamaca B.V. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), (2) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U.S.C. § 1602, et seq. (“FSIA”), and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Filed January 6, 2017
II. The FSIA Bars Plaintiffs’ Claims In their opening brief, the CITGO Defendants contended that to the extent Plaintiffs claim that the transferred assets belonged to PDVSA, Plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-1611. Plaintiffs argue that the FSIA’s attachment immunity provisions are not implicated by their claims in this suit because attachment immunity only applies to protect foreign sovereign property from in rem remedies.
Filed September 29, 2016
B. This Court Has No Jurisdiction over the Claims Against Canada and the Government Defendants Under the FSIA. The Complaint does not specifically identify any basis for jurisdiction under the FSIA, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-11 (2012). In fact, no basis for FSIA jurisdiction exists.