Summary of Part V

• Author: Ernesto Sanchez
• Pages: 293-293

293

SU MM A R Y O F PART V

(1) e FSIA prescribes the exclusive methods for eecting service of process on a foreign

state or political subdivision thereof, as well as an agency or instrumentality of a foreign

state or political subdivision thereof.

(2) A mere appearance by a defendant qualifying as a “foreign state” under the statute will

not confer personal jurisdiction with respect to any claim that does not fall under one of

the statute’s exceptions to immunity from subject matter jurisdiction.

(3) Copies of default judgments against foreign states and their political subdivisions must

be sent to the pertinent foreign states or their political subdivisions in the manner the

statute prescribes for service of process.

(4) In some circuits, a plainti ’s failure to properly serve a defendant in FSIA litigation may

not result in a suit’s dismissal if the plainti substantially complied with the statute’s

notice requirements and the defendant received actual notice of the suit.

(5) Courts have increasingly held that foreign states are not persons protected by the Fifth

Amendment and thus cannot invoke a lack of minimum contacts with a forum U.S.

state as a violation of due process rights and defense against courts’ exercises of personal

jurisdiction.

(A) Some courts have held that foreign states’ political subdivisions or agencies or

instrumentalities, presumably separate, can be treated as a state for due process and

personal jurisdiction purposes if the subdivision, agency, or instrumentality are so

extensively controlled by the parent state as to essentially be alter egos that recog-

nizing their separateness would facilitate fraud or injustice.

(B) One court has ruled that in light of the preexisting statutor y authority providing for

the criminal prosecution of those who carry out terrorist acts, individual defendants

who intentionally target foreign nationals at the risk of killing Americans among

them should anticipate the possibility of being “haled into court” in the United

States. Because they should anticipate as much, the court concluded, the exercise

of personal jurisdiction over these defendants in their personal capacities will not

oend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”

ForSovImmunAct_book.indb 293 4/11/13 3:32 PM