Jairo Sequeira v. the Republic of Nicaragua

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAIRO SEQUEIRA, A Citizen of the No. 15-55417
United States of America,
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-04332-DMG-
Plaintiff - Appellant, FFM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
THE REPUBLIC OF NICARAGUA, a
foreign Country; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2017**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.
Jairo Sequeira appeals pro se from the district court’s orders dismissing his
action against the sovereign defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
*
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).
dismissing his action against the individual defendants for lack of personal
jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo
subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”),
Phaneuf v. Republic of Indonesia, 106 F.3d 302, 304-05 (9th Cir. 1997), and
determinations as to personal jurisdiction, Love v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd.,
611 F.3d 601, 608 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The district court dismissed Sequiera’s first amended complaint against the
sovereign defendants with prejudice because Sequeira did not produce evidence
that an exception to immunity under the FSIA applied. However, Sequiera was not
required to produce such evidence in response to a facial attack on subject matter
jurisdiction. See Terenkian v. Republic of Iraq, 694 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir.
2012) (setting forth burden-shifting framework of the FISA and explaining that in
facial jurisdictional challenges a presumption of truthfulness attaches to allegations
in the complaint). We therefore reverse the dismissal of the claims against the
sovereign defendants and remand for further proceedings.
The district court properly dismissed the second amended complaint against
the individual defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction because the allegations
did not establish that the individual defendants purposefully availed themselves of
2 15-55417
a United States forum, see Holland Am. Line Inc. v. Wartsila N. Am., Inc., 485 F.3d
450, 458 (9th Cir. 2007) (defendants did not assent to the forum selection clause),
or purposefully directed any activities toward the United States, see Love, 611 F.3d
at 609 (defendant’s alleged intentional acts were not directed at the forum state).
Sequeira’s motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 13) is granted insofar as it
requests that we limit our review to the district court record. All other requests set
forth in that motion (Docket Entry No. 13) are denied.
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
3 15-55417