Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: January 31, 2023
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2011-1735
• Status: Published

Opinion

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