Epstein Secrets

be incompatible with the purpose of the FSIA, which is to grant governmental, not private corporate immunity, and ... would reflect infidelity to the Supreme Court's reasoning in Dole Food" Id. at 218. Accordingly, it reiterated that "'a subsidiary of an instrumentality is not it- self entitled to instrumentalit

l discovery regarding potentially sovereign alter ego co-defendant without further im- pinging that defendant's immunity) (quot- ing Arriba Ltd. v. Petroleos Mexicanos, 962 F.2d 528, 534 (5th Cir.1992) ("At the very least, discovery should be ordered 783 circumspectly and only to verify allega- tions of specific

ious banks are not identical. In Bush, following the Supreme Court’s instructions in Steel Co., the district court dis

other Saudi banks’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions cannot apply to NCB because the allegations against the various banks are not identical. In Bush, following the Supreme Court’s instructions in Steel Co., the district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after finding plaintiffs lacked standing to

Court is hesitant to do unnecessarily. See First City, Texas—Houston, N.A. v. Rafidain Bank, 150 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir.1998); see also Arriba Ltd. v. Petroleos Mexicanos, 962 F.2d 528, 534 (Sth Cir.1992) (recommending that “discovery should be ordered circumspectly and only to verify allegations of specific facts cruc

nal discovery regarding potentially sovereign alter ego co-defendant without further im- pinging that defendant’s immunity) (quot- ing Arriba Ltd. v. Petroleos Mexicanos, 962 F.2d 528, 534 (th Cir.1992) (“At the very least, discovery should be ordered circumspectly and only to verify allega- tions of specific facts c

upport of this argument, the Federal Plaintiffs cite Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468, 480, 123 S.Ct. 1655, 155 L.Ed.2d 643 (2003), in which the Supreme Court held that instrumentality status is determined at the time of the filing of the complaint. has specifically addressed the issue. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_01