Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:36:58.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Zedan v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Edward M. Leigh
Edward M. Leigh*
Affiliation:
Of the District of Columbia Bar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Plaintiff Zedan, an American citizen, brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for breach of a contract guaranteeing wages and profits. While performance under the contract occurred in Saudi Arabia, plaintiff alleged that the jurisdictional requirements under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (28 U.S.C. §§1330, 1602-1611 (1982)) (FSIA) were satisfied by a recruitment call in California from a representative of the royal overseer of a private Saudi company. The district court granted the Saudi motion to dismiss. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (per Silberman, J.) unanimously affirmed and held: (1) that the telephone call did not have the requisite substantiality of contact with the United States; (2) that it was not sufficient to form the basis of a cause of action; and (3) that the alleged breach did not have sufficient direct effect in the United States to satisfy the exceptions to immunity under the FSIA.

Keywords

JurisdictionForeign Sovereign Immunities Actcommercial activity exceptiondirect effect
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 82 , Issue 4 , October 1988 , pp. 828 - 830
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 849 F.2d 1511, 1513 (citing Maritime Int’l Nominees Establishment v. Guinea, 693 F.2d 1094, 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1982), cert, denied, 464 U.S. 815 (1983) (two business meetings in the United States between plaintiff and a representative of a foreign sovereign held not sufficient to satisfy the substantial contact test)).

2 Id. (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 1487, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 17 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 6604, 6615–16)).

3 Id. at 1514: the court distinguished Gilson v. Republic of Ireland, 682 F.2d 1022, 1027 n.22 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (allegation that defendants colluded in the United States to entice plaintiff to travel to Ireland where defendants stole his expertise and patent rights presents sufficiently “direct causal connection” to satisfy “based upon” requirement).

4 H.R. Rep. No. 1487, supra note 2, at 19.

5 849 F.2d at 1514 (emphasis in original).

6 Id. at 1515 (citing Transamerican S.S. v. Somali Democratic Republic, 767 F.2d 998, 1004 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (detention of ship abroad, but demand for payment in the United States by agency of Somali Government and actual U.S. bank transfers sufficient to form basis for direct effect jurisdiction); and Texas Trading & Milling Corp. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 647 F.2d 300, 312 (2d Cir. 1981), cert, denied, 454 U.S. 1148 (1982) (direct effect found from refusal to pay letters of credit issued by U.S. bank and payable in the United States to financially injured claimant)).

7 See, e.g., Zernicek v. Brown & Root, Inc., 826 F.2d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 1987) (citing cases), cert, denied, 108 S.Ct. 775 (1988).

8 849 F.2d at 1515 (citing Upton v. Empire of Iran, 459 F.Supp. 264, 266 (D.D.C. 1978), aff'd mem., 607 F.2d 494 (D.C. Cir. 1979)).

9 Id. n.2.