Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Eitan Eliahu v. State of Israel
Eitan Eliahu v. State of Isr., 659 F. App'x 451 (9th Cir. 2016)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2016-11-02
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- “The 24 contours and viability of the theory of so-called ‘judicial takings’—where a court decision may be deemed to have effectively taken property rights from an individual—are unclear even in the courts of this country.”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Eitan Eliahu v. State of Israel. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 1 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.