Eitan Eliahu v. State of Israel , 659 F. App'x 451 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EITAN OVADIA ELIAHU, No. 15-15487
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:14-cv-01636-BLF
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STATE OF ISRAEL,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
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.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court properly dismissed Eliahu’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 (1989) (statutory
exceptions to FSIA provide sole basis for jurisdiction over 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.
2 15-15487