## Facts

- Minor U.S.-citizen plaintiffs domiciled in California sued Mexico for wrongful death after their parents died in an aircraft crash.
- Plaintiffs’ parents were prisoners of the Mexican government and were being transported for transfer to U.S. authorities under a prisoner exchange arrangement.
- A twin-propeller aircraft owned and operated by the Mexican government departed Monterrey for Tijuana carrying Mexican guards, Mexican Department of Justice pilots, and the prisoners.
- Because of fog and reduced visibility near Tijuana, the pilots requested an instrument landing approach that required entry into U.S. airspace.
- Under a bilateral aviation agreement, Mexican controllers could coordinate with U.S. controllers for hazardous-weather approaches.
- Tijuana’s radar and instrument-landing systems were inoperative; San Diego air-traffic controllers supplied heading, altitude, and location information, relayed by telephone to Tijuana controllers for translation and radio transmission to the pilots.
- The pilots failed to maintain proper altitude while using the instrument information; the aircraft struck a pole and crashed less than a mile inside the United States, killing all aboard.
- Mexico moved to dismiss, asserting sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and challenging jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether the FSIA’s exceptions to sovereign immunity conferred subject-matter jurisdiction over wrongful-death claims arising from a Mexican government aircraft’s crash within U.S. territory.
2. Whether U.S. courts could exercise personal jurisdiction over Mexico consistent with the FSIA and constitutional due process based on Mexico’s forum-related conduct and the location of the injury.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded.
- The court held subject-matter jurisdiction existed because Mexico was not immune under the FSIA, relying on the commercial-activity and tort exceptions.
- The court held personal jurisdiction existed and its exercise was reasonable and consistent with due process, given Mexico’s purposeful use of U.S. airspace and U.S. air-traffic control assistance and the crash within the United States.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FSIA, foreign states are presumptively immune; federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction only if a statutory exception to immunity applies.
- For FSIA analysis, courts assess the nature of the sovereign’s conduct, and tortious injury occurring in the United States may support application of the tort exception.
- Operation of a government-owned aircraft and engagement in coordinated air-traffic procedures may fall within FSIA exceptions, permitting suit when the relevant conduct and injury have a substantial U.S. territorial connection.
- Under the FSIA, personal jurisdiction generally follows from subject-matter jurisdiction and proper service, but the exercise of jurisdiction must also satisfy due process.
- Due process is satisfied where the foreign sovereign purposefully creates U.S. contacts related to the claim and exercising jurisdiction is reasonable considering burdens on the sovereign, the forum’s interest, the plaintiffs’ interest in effective relief, and international interests in efficient resolution and aviation safety.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that Mexico was subject to suit under FSIA exceptions for conduct tied to an aircraft crash within U.S. territory and that asserting personal jurisdiction was constitutionally permissible because Mexico purposefully used U.S. airspace and U.S. air-traffic control services in a way directly related to the fatal accident.


Olsen ex rel. Sheldon v. Gov’t of Mexico, 729 F.2d 641 (9th Cir. 1984)