Arriba Limited v. Petroleos Mexicanos, A/K/A Pemex

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that jurisdictional discovery is generally only available in the immunity context if the applicability of an immunity turns on a fact question
• observing the “tension between permitting discovery to substantiate exceptions to statutory foreign sovereign immunity and protecting a sovereign’s or sovereign agency’s legitimate claim to immunity from discovery”
• doing the same to determine whether the district court had jurisdiction to conduct a garnishment proceeding against a foreign instrumentality, where the purported basis for jurisdiction was solely the actions of the instrumentality's agents
• “the commercial activity that provides the jurisdictional nexus with the United States must also be the activity on which the lawsuit is based” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• \Isolated or unrelated commercial actions by a foreign sovereign in the United States do not authorize the exception.\
• “[B]eeause Arriba’s allegations do not satisfy Bancec, permitting discovery will not cure the FSIA jurisdictional discovery.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).