U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2016

Eitan Eliahu v. State of Israel

Eitan Eliahu v. State of Israel
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided November 2, 2016 · Leavy, Graber, Christen
659 F. App'x 451

Counsel

Eitan Ovadia Eliahu, Pro Se, Daniel B. Asimow, Attorney, Arnold & .Porter LLP, San Francisco, CA, Robert Reeves Anderson, Arnold & Porter LLP, Denver, CO, John B. Bellinger, III, Arnold & Porter LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee

Eitan Eliahu v. State of Israel

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Eitan Ovadia Eliahu appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Gupta v. Thai Airways Int’l, Ltd., 487 F.3d 759, 765 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed El-iahu’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Eliahu failed to establish an exception to Israel’s immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). See Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 443, 109 S.Ct. 683, 102 L.Ed.2d 818 (1989) (statutory exceptions to FSIA provide sole basis for jurisdiction oyer a foreign state).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Eliahu’s request for jurisdictional discovery because Eliahu did not identify any discovery supporting his claim that a FSIA exception applied. See Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of review and affirming denial of a request that “was based on little more than a hunch that it might yield jurisdictionally relevant facts”).

Eliahu’s request for oral argument, filed on September 12,2016, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.