KROOS et al v. SBK STIFTUNG BRAUNSCHWEIGISCHER KULTURBESTIZ, No. 1:2010cv00158 - Document 4 (D.D.C. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 1/20/2010. (ls, ) (Main Document 4 replaced on 2/2/2010) (ls, ).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Silke Maria Kroos Christian Kroos, Plaintiffs, v. SBK Stiftung Braunschweigischer Kulturbesitz, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) JAN 28 20tO Clerk, u.s. District ana Bankruptcy Courts Civil Action No. 10 0158 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs' pro se complaint and applications to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant each plaintiffs in forma pauperis application and dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs are two German citizens residing in Germany and Redondo Beach, California. They have sued a company described as "a German Public Trust of the Germany Federal State of Lower Saxony," headquartered in Braunschweig, Germany. CompI. at 1. To the extent that defendant is "an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state," the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA"), 28 U.S.c. §§ 1602-1611, controls. "The FSIA provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in a United States court," Sabbithi v. Saleh, 623 F.Supp.2d 93, 97 (D.D.C. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and generally grants foreign states immunity from liability in United States courts. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 16021607. Congress has created several specific exceptions to this immunity, which are strictly applied. See Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349,355 (1993) (a "foreign state is presumptively immune from the jurisdiction of United States courts; unless a specified exception applies, a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim against a foreign state.") The complaint is based on plaintiffs' alleged long-term lease (since 1931) of property located in Schoningen, Germany, from which they were allegedly evicted in April 2000. See CompI. ~~ 8, 21. The alleged wrongdoing spanning decades, see id. ~~ 9-20, neither occurred in the United States nor is connected to any activity or property in the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (listing general exceptions to jurisdictional immunity). Therefore, the FSIA deprives this Court of jurisdiction if defendant is a foreign state entity or instrumentality. If defendant is a private entity, the alleged facts reveal absolutely no connection to the District of Columbia and, thus, provide no basis for the assertion of personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendant. See Miller v. Toyota Motor Corp., 620 F. Supp. 2d 109, 114 (D.D.C. 2009) ("A foreign corporate defendant may be subject to personal jurisdiction pursuant to either the District of Columbia's long-arm statute, D.C. Code § 13-423(a), or its provision for service of foreign corporations, D.C. Code § 13-334(a)) (citation omitted). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. d. Date: January~, 2010 dfk~-{~ United States Dist ict Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
