HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017853.jpg

788 purposes of the FSIA. A “foreign state” is statutorily defined: (a) A “foreign state” ... includes a po- litical subdivision of a foreign state or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state as defined in subsection (b). (b) An “agency or instrumentality of a foreign state” means any entity - (1) which is a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise, and (2) which is an organ of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, or a majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is owned by a for- eign state or political subdivision thereof, and (8) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States ... nor created under the laws of any third country. 28 U.S.C. § 1603. There is no dispute that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a foreign state. The status of each of the Princes and NCB are discussed below. 1. Prince Sultan and Prince Turki Several courts have recognized that “lilmmunity under the FSIA extends also to agents of a foreign state acting in their official capacities [since] ‘i]t is generally recognized that a suit against an individual acting in his official capacity is the prac- tical equivalent of a suit against the sover- eign directly’”™ Bryks v. Canadian Broad. Corp. 906 F.Supp. 204, 210 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (quoting Chuidian v. Phil- ippine Natl Bank, 912 F.2d 1095, 1101 (9th Cir.1990) (“Nowhere in the text or legislative history does Congress state that individuals are not encompassed within 28 U.S.C. § 1603(b).”)); see also Velasco v. Gov't of Indonesia, 370 F.8d 392, 398-99 (4th Cir.2004) (collecting cases extending 23. The FSIA is silent on the subject. Neither the Supreme Court nor the Second Circuit 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES FSIA immunity to individuals sued in their official capacities); Byrd v. Corporacion Forestal y Industrial de Olancho S.A., 182 F.3d 380, 388 (th Cir.1999) (acknowl- edging the FSIA protects individuals to the extent they act within their official duties); El-Fadl v. Cent. Bank of Jordan, 75 F.3d 668, 671 (D.C.Cir.1996) (dismissing claims against government officials since they were sued in their official capacities); Leutwyler, 184 F.Supp.2d at 286-87 “(I]t has been generally recognized that individ- uals employed by a foreign state’s agencies or instrumentalities are deemed ‘foreign states’ when they are sued for actions un- dertaken within the scope of their official capacities.”) (citing Bryks, 906 F.Supp. at 210); Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 999 F.Supp. 1, 11 n. 3 (D.D.C.1998) (noting favorable practice of applying FSIA to in- dividuals). Thus, this Court finds that im- munity may be available to Prince Sultan, as the third-highest ranking member of the Saudi government, and to Prince Turki, as the Director of Saudi Arabia’s Department of General Intelligence, to the extent their alleged actions were per- formed in their official capacities. [10] The Federal Plaintiffs argue that the FSIA cannot apply to Prince Turki because, as of September 10, 2003 when the complaint was filed, Prince Turki was the Saudi ambassador to the United King- dom, a position the Federal Plaintiffs al- lege is not entitled to immunity under the FSIA. In support 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_017853