28 U.S.C. § 1351

Consuls, vice consuls, and members of a diplomatic mission as defendant

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all civil actions and proceedings against—(1) consuls or vice consuls of foreign states; or(2) members of a mission or members of their families (as such terms are defined in section 2 of the Diplomatic Relations Act).(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 934; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 80(c), 63 Stat. 101; Pub. L. 95–393, § 8(a)(1), Sept. 30, 1978, 92 Stat. 810.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 41(18), 371(8) (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§ 24, par. 18, 256, par. 8, 36 Stat. 1093, 1160).

Words “civil action” were substituted for “suits,” and “all suits and proceedings” in view of Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Changes were made in phraseology.

Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 2 of the Diplomatic Relations Act, referred to in par. (2), is classified to section 254a of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.

Amendments

1978—Pub. L. 95–393 substituted “Consuls, vice consuls, and members of a diplomatic mission as defendant” for “Consuls and vice consuls as defendants” in section catchline, designated existing provisions as introductory provision preceding par. (1), and in such introductory provision as so designated, substituted “civil actions and proceedings against—” for “actions and proceedings against consuls or vice consuls of foreign states”, and added pars. (1) and (2).

1949—Act May 24, 1949, substituted “of all actions and proceedings” for “of any civil action”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–393 effective at end of ninety-day period beginning on Sept. 30, 1978, see section 9 of Pub. L. 95–393, set out as an Effective Date note under section 254a of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 49 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1956–2024 · leading case: Slater v. Biehl, 793 A.2d 1268 (D.C. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Slater v. Biehl, 793 A.2d 1268 (D.C. 2002). · cites it 21× “The trial court dismissed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1351 (2) (1994 & Supp. IV 1998), which provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the states, of all civil actions and proceedings against .”

Raymond Foxgord, Individually & as Tr. of the Foxgord Trust, Cecilia Foxgord v. Baron Herbert Hischemoeller, 820 F.2d 1030 (9th Cir. 1987). · cites it 18× “Does a district court have exclusive subject matter jurisdiction in an action against the honorary consul general of another country under 28 U.S.C. § 1351 (1) (1982), which gives federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over actions against “consuls or vice consuls,” where the…”

Medellin v. Dretke, 544 U.S. 660 (2005). · cites it 2× “2d 393, 397 (CA9 1991) (deciding whether Article 43 of the Vienna Convention defeated jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1351 over defendant consular officials), and Gerritsen v.”

Bonime v. Avaya, Inc., 547 F.3d 497 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “§§ 1345 , 1346 (suits, respectively, by and against the United States)), diplomats ( 28 U.S.C. § 1351 (suits against consuls, vice consuls, and members of diplomatic missions)), or corporations organized under federal law ( 28 U.”

Irene R. Lacks v. Youssef Fahmi & Janet F. Cotton, 623 F.2d 254 (2d Cir. 1980). · cites it 3× “The New York Supreme Court dismissed her complaint on three grounds: (1) the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1351 3 conferred on the United States courts exclusive jurisdiction over all actions and proceedings against consuls or vice-consuls; (2) the provisions of a treaty then in…”

Gerritsen v. De La Madrid Hurtado, 819 F.2d 1511 (9th Cir. 1987). · cites it 5× “Therefore, we will consider jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1351 (granting subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions against consuls, vice consuls, and members of a diplomatic mission) and 28 U.”

Sabbithi v. Al Saleh, 605 F. Supp. 2d 122 (D.D.C. 2009). · cites it 2× “Diplomatic Immunity This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1351 , which states that district courts “have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all civil actions and proceedings against .”

Rupp v. United Sec. Bank (In Re Kunz), 489 F.3d 1072 (10th Cir. 2007). “In a considerably different context, it was held that an “honorary consul” is not a “consul” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1351 (1). Foxgord v. Hischemoeller, 820 F.”

Jack Gerritsen v. Consulado Gen. De Mexico, 989 F.2d 340 (9th Cir. 1993). “5 Gerritsen claimed jurisdiction over Escobar and Silva under 28 U.S.C. § 1351 . The district court went on, however, to dismiss these defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that they were immune under the Vienna Convention.”

In Re South African Apartheid Litig., 346 F. Supp. 2d 538 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). “, 28 U.S.C. § 1351 (giving jurisdiction to federal courts for all civil actions against consuls of foreign nations); id.”

Alf Key v. Mrs. Louise P. Wise, 629 F.2d 1049 (5th Cir. 1980). “121-22 (1975); but see 28 U.S.C. § 1351 (actions against consuls and vice consuls in exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts).”

MHM Sponsors Co. v. Permanent Mission of Pakistan to the United Nations, 672 F. Supp. 752 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). · cites it 3× “” 6 The occupants of the apartment have been granted diplomatic recognition by the United States Department of State, thus, they are “members of the mission” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1351 . Accordingly, under 28 U.”

Show all 49 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.