Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Heroth ex rel. Heroth v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Citation: 331 F. App'x 1Docket: No. 08-7078
Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; April 24, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
The appeal reviewed the case of fifteen former employees of Vinnell Corporation, who were injured or had family members killed in a 2003 suicide bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, attributed to al-Qaeda. The plaintiffs sued the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG) for inadequate security and failure to warn about security risks during the hiring process in the U.S. Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), the defendants claimed immunity unless exceptions applied. The plaintiffs invoked two exceptions: one related to commercial activity in the U.S. and another concerning acts performed in the U.S. connected to foreign commercial activity. The district court ruled that neither exception applied. It found that Vinnell was not acting as an agent of the defendants when hiring the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs' claims arose post-bombing, failing to meet the criteria for "commercial activity." On appeal, the plaintiffs contested the district court's conclusions and its denial of jurisdictional discovery regarding Vinnell's agency status. However, the appellate court upheld the district court's decision, affirming the dismissal due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiffs did not provide sufficient factual support to demonstrate an agency relationship between Vinnell and Saudi Arabia, as the allegations did not show control by the defendants over Vinnell's hiring practices. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' claims did not satisfy the FSIA exceptions, and the judgment was affirmed without publication. The issuance of the mandate will be withheld pending any timely petitions for rehearing. A district court has discretion to deny discovery if the plaintiff fails to demonstrate that it would impact the jurisdictional analysis, as established in El-Fadl v. Cent. Bank of Jordan. In this case, the plaintiffs' claims of agency lack specific factual support and are deemed conclusory, indicating that discovery would undermine the benefits of immunity from suit. Additionally, the plaintiffs argue that the defendants’ activities in Saudi Arabia, related to the Saudi Arabian National Guard and the Foreign Military Sales program, qualify as commercial activities under the relevant statute. However, the court correctly determined these actions do not constitute commercial activities as they do not reflect the type of trade or commerce typical of private parties. Instead, they are recognized as sovereign activities. The court referenced previous rulings indicating that interactions between governments, even if related to commercial activities of their citizens, do not equate to marketplace transactions.