Page 18

1

269 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting U.S. Titan, Inc.

2

v. Guangzhou Zhen Hua Shipping Co., 241 F.3d 135, 150-51 (2d

3

Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

4

standards apply to decisions on personal jurisdiction.

5

Sunward Electronics, Inc. v. McDonald, 362 F.3d 17, 22 (2d

6

Cir. 2004).

7

jurisdictional discovery for abuse of discretion.

8

Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239, 255 (2d Cir. 2007).

The same

We review a district court’s decision to deny Best Van

9 10 11

I “[T]he FSIA provides the sole basis for obtaining

12

jurisdiction over a foreign state in federal court.”

13

Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S.

14

428, 439 (1989).

15

Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 493 (1983) (stating that the FSIA

16

“must be applied by the District Courts in every action

17

against a foreign sovereign, since subject matter

18

jurisdiction in any such action depends on the existence of

19

one of the specified exceptions to foreign sovereign

20

immunity” (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a)); Cabiri v. Gov’t of

21

Republic of Ghana, 165 F.3d 193, 196 (2d Cir. 1999) (“The

22

FSIA is the sole source for subject matter jurisdiction over

See also Verlinden B.V. v. Cent. Bank of

18

In Re Terrorist Attacks  

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: In Re Terrorist Attacks

In Re Terrorist Attacks  

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: In Re Terrorist Attacks

Advertisement