UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
HELMERICH & PAYNE
INTERNATIONAL DRILLING CO.,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 11-cv-01735 (CRC)
BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF
VENEZUELA, PETRÓLEOS DE
VENEZUELA, S.A., and PDVSA
PETRÓLEO, S.A.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Defendant Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (“Venezuela”) moves to dismiss the
Complaint—which alleges that Venezuela and one of its instrumentalities illegally nationalized
property of Plaintiff Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Company (“H&P”) during the
Hugo Chavez regime—for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Venezuela’s Mot. Dismiss,
ECF No. 148. The Court will grant the motion.
H&P asserts jurisdiction in this Court via the expropriation exception to the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3). As this Court recently explained in another
FSIA expropriation case:
[T]he FSIA's expropriation exception has two clauses. The first clause
grants federal courts jurisdiction over cases “in which rights in property
taken in violation of international law are in issue and that property or any
property exchanged for such property is present in the United States in
connection with a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the
foreign state.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3) (emphases added). The second
clause provides jurisdiction where the expropriated “property or any
property exchanged for such property is owned or operated by an agency or
instrumentality of the foreign state and that agency or instrumentality is
engaged in a commercial activity in the United States.” Id. (emphasis
added).
In de Csepel v. Republic of Hungary (“de Csepel II”), the D.C.
Circuit clarified that these clauses provide two separate tests for
expropriation-based jurisdiction—one for foreign states, and one for
agencies and instrumentalities. 859 F.3d 1094, 1106-07 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
“[C]laims against foreign states must satisfy the first nexus requirement,
and claims against agencies and instrumentalities must satisfy the second.”
Id. at 1107. The Circuit thus held, in categorical terms, that “a foreign
state retains its immunity unless the first clause of the commercial-activity
nexus requirement is met.” Id.
Schubarth v. Fed. Republic of Germany, No. 14-cv-2140 (CRC), 2021 WL 7889662, at 5
(D.D.C. Jan. 25, 2021)
H&P acknowledges that Venezuela is a “foreign state.” H&P’s Opp’n at 2, ECF No.
150. And it concedes that the property at issue here is not “present in the United States,” as
required to satisfy the expropriation exception’s first clause. Id. The Court is therefore bound by
the D.C. Circuit’s holding in de Csepel to decline jurisdiction over Venezuela.
H&P has suggested that subject matter jurisdiction over Venezuela might exist despite de
Csepel, on the theory that the defendant instrumentality was the Venezuela’s “alter ego.” But the
Court has previously rejected that general argument, Schubarth, 2021 WL 7889662 at 5–7, and
H&P does not elaborate on it in its briefing in this case.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that [148] Defendant Venezuela’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction is GRANTED; it is further
ORDERED that the Complaint is dismissed as to Venezuela.
SO ORDERED.
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
United States District Judge
Date: January 31, 2023
2