Lycee Francais International De La Louisiane v. Agence Pour L'enseignement Francais A L'etranger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LYCÉE FRANÇAIS INTERNATIONAL CIVIL ACTION
DE LA LOUISIANE

VERSUS NO:
26-946

AGENCE POUR L’ENSEIGNEMENT
FRANÇAIS À L’ÉTRANGER a/k/a
AGENCY FOR FRENCH
EDUCATION ABROAD SECTION “H”

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff Lycée Français International de la
Louisiane’s Motion for Limited Jurisdictional Discovery and Continuance of
Submission Date (Doc. 31). For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Lycée Français International de la Louisiane is a bilingual New
Orleans public charter school that receives its state accreditation from the
Louisiana Department of Education. Plaintiff also receives accreditation
through the Government of France for its bilingual French education
curriculum. Defendant Agence Pour L’enseignement Français À L’étranger
a/k/a Agency for French Education Abroad (“AEFE”) is a public institution
under the supervision of the French Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs.
Plaintiff brought this action in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans
(“CDC”) seeking injunctive relief restraining Defendant from (1) taking
Case 2:26-cv-00946-JTM-DPC Document 36 Filed 08/17/26 Page 1 of 9

2
adverse action affecting its French accreditation status; (2) conducting on-site
inspections during the 2025-2026 Louisiana Educational Assessment Program
standardized testing period, and; (3) requiring Plaintiff to produce certain
documentation for a ninety-day period. The CDC granted Plaintiff’s request for
a temporary restraining order on May 1, 2026 and set a hearing on Plaintiff’s
request for a preliminary injunction. Before the CDC’s hearing on the
preliminary injunction could occur, Defendant removed this action invoking
this Court’s jurisdiction for actions against foreign states pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1330(a).
1

Defendant thereafter filed a Motion to Dismiss (“First Motion to
Dismiss”), arguing that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because
Defendant is immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
(“FSIA”).
2
The First Motion to Dismiss also argued that this matter should be
dismissed based on the doctrines of forum non conveniens and international
comity abstention. In response, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Limited
Jurisdictional Discovery and Continuance of Submission Date (“First Motion
for Jurisdictional Discovery”) wherein it requested the opportunity to conduct
discovery to support its contention that Defendant is not immune from suit
under the FSIA’s commercial activity exception.
3
Before the Court addressed

1
28 U.S.C. § 1330(a) provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction
without regard to amount in controversy of any nonjury civil action against a foreign state
as defined in section 1603(a) of this title as to any claim for relief in personam with respect
to which the foreign state is not entitled to immunity either under sections 1605–1607 of
this title or under any applicable international agreement.”
2
Doc. 6; see 28 U.S.C. § 1604 (“Subject to existing international agreements to which the
United States is a party at the time of enactment of this Act a foreign state shall be immune
from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States except as provided
in sections 1605 to 1607 of this chapter.”).
3
Doc. 9; see 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2) (providing that a foreign state is not immune under the
FSIA when “the action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States
by the foreign state; or upon an act performed in the United States in connection with a
commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere; or upon an act outside the territory of
Case 2:26-cv-00946-JTM-DPC Document 36 Filed 08/17/26 Page 2 of 9

3
either motion, Plaintiff sought leave to amend its Complaint and add a breach
of contract claim regarding a Collaboration Agreement between the parties.
The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file its Amended Complaint and denied
the pending motions in the interest of judicial efficiency.
4

On August 5, 2026, Defendant filed a new motion to dismiss (“Second
Motion to Dismiss”) wherein it re-urged the same three defenses raised in its
First Motion to Dismiss.
5
On August 11, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion
for Limited Jurisdictional Discovery and Continuance of Submission Date and
moved to expedite same. The Court granted Plaintiff’s request for expedited
briefing and consideration.

LAW AND ANALYSIS
Plaintiff moves for leave to conduct discovery regarding each defense
raised in Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss, being (1) immunity from suit
under the FSIA; (2) forum non conveniens and; (3) international comity
abstention. Plaintiff also asks to continue the submission date of the Second
Motion to Dismiss so that it may conduct its requested discovery before filing
an opposition. Defendant opposes. The Court will address whether Plaintiff is
entitled to discovery on Defendant’s jurisdictional defense before turning to
discovery on Defendant’s other two defenses.
6

the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere
and that act causes a direct effect in the United States”).
4
Doc. 27.
5
Doc. 29.
6
While Plaintiff labels each defense “jurisdictional,” the forum non conveniens doctrine
addresses forum and the international comity abstention doctrine concerns whether a
Court should restrain its own jurisdictional authority in regard for the sovereignty of
foreign courts, fairness, and efficiency. 14D. W
RIGHT & MILLER’S FEDERAL PRACTICE &
PROCEDURE § 3828 (2026); 32A AM. JUR. 2d Federal Courts § 1007 (2026).
Case 2:26-cv-00946-JTM-DPC Document 36 Filed 08/17/26 Page 3 of 9

4
I. Jurisdictional Discovery
Under the FSIA, foreign states, including their political subdivisions,
agencies, and instrumentalities, are “immune from the jurisdiction of the
courts of the United States and of the States,” subject to certain exceptions.
7
A
foreign state is not immune, however, when:
[T]he action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the
United States by the foreign state; or upon an act performed in the
United States in connection with a commercial activity of the
foreign state elsewhere; or upon an act outside the territory of the
United States in connection with a commercial activity of the
foreign state elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect in the
United States.
8

This provision of the FSIA is known as the commercial activity exception.
Plaintiff seeks discovery in support of its argument that the commercial
activity exception applies to this suit.
“[W]hile a court should determine whether it has subject matter
jurisdiction at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings, some
jurisdictional discovery may be warranted if the issue of subject matter
jurisdiction turns on a disputed fact.”
9
In such cases, “the court is given the
authority to resolve factual disputes, along with the discretion to devise a
method for making a determination with regard to the jurisdictional issue.”
10

“The court’s authority to consider evidence presented beyond the pleadings
allows it to devise a procedure which may include considering affidavits,
allowing further discovery, hearing oral testimony, [and] conducting an
evidentiary hearing.”
11
“As the party opposing dismissal and requesting

7
28 U.S.C. § 1603–04.
8
Id. at § 1605(a)(2).
9
In re MPF Holdings US LLC, 701 F.3d 449, 457 (5th Cir. 2012).
10
Moran v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 27 F.3d 169, 172 (5th Cir. 1994).
11
Id.
Case 2:26-cv-00946-JTM-DPC Document 36 Filed 08/17/26 Page 4 of 9

5
discovery, [Plaintiff] bear[s] the burden of demonstrating the necessity of
discovery.”
12

When a party claims FSIA immunity, “unlimited jurisdictional discovery
is not permitted as a matter of course” because “FSIA immunity is immunity
not only from liability, but also from the costs, in time and expense, and other
disruptions attendant to litigation.”
13
Jurisdictional discovery regarding the
FSIA should, therefore, “be ordered circumspectly and only to verify
allegations of specific facts crucial to an immunity determination.”
14
A court
abuses its broad discretion to deny FSIA discovery and grant a motion to
dismiss where the movant seeks discovery regarding “a discrete issue
conducive to limited discovery, the relevant [information] reside[s] exclusively
with the defendant, and [the plaintiff] never received an opportunity for even
narrowly tailored discovery.”
15

In the context of the FSIA’s commercial activity exception, “[t]he cases
recognized by the Fifth Circuit as warranting jurisdictional discovery involved
‘allegations of specific facts that, if proved, sustained a nexus between
particularized [non-immune] activity and the claims asserted by the
plaintiff.’”
16
Plaintiff fails on this point. Instead of making specific allegations,
Plaintiff repeatedly asks for discovery to “test,” “examine,” “explore,” and
“controvert” Defendant’s factual allegations and evidence and to determine
“whether AEFE acted like a private market participant rather than a

12
Monkton Ins. Servs., Ltd. v. Ritter, 768 F.3d 429, 434 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Davila v.
United States, 713 F.3d 248, 264 (5th Cir. 2013)).
13
Kelly v. Syria Shell Petroleum Dev. B.V., 213 F.3d 841, 849 (5th Cir. 2000).
14
Id. (citing Arriba Ltd. v. Petroleos Mexicanos, 962 F.2d 528, 534 (5th Cir. 1992).
15
Box v. Dallas Mexican Consulate Gen., 487 F. App’x 880, 885 (5th Cir. 2012).
16
First Invest. Corp. of the Marshall Islands v. Fujian Mawei Shipbuilding, Ltd. of the
People’s Republic of China, 858 F. Supp. 2d 658, 681 (E.D. La. 2012) (quoting Arriba, 962
F.2d at 534 & n.17 (emphasis in original)).
Case 2:26-cv-00946-JTM-DPC Document 36 Filed 08/17/26 Page 5 of 9

6
sovereign regulator” in relation to Plaintiff’s claims.
17
The Court cannot permit
such a fishing expedition.
Further, Plaintiff’s proposed discovery is not narrowly tailored. The
commercial activity exception to the FSIA only applies if Plaintiff’s “cause of
action [is] ‘based upon’ a certain act or activity of the foreign state, that is, the
act or activity must form the basis of at least some element of the cause of
action.”
18
The inquiry does not hinge on “whether the defendant generally
engages in a commercial enterprise or activity . . . ; rather, it [hinges] on
whether the particular conduct giving rise to the claim in question constitutes
or is in connection with commercial activity, regardless of the defendant’s
generally commercial or governmental character.”
19
Defendant’s financial
records, other contracts and relationships with other schools or third parties,
and other contacts with the United States are simply irrelevant to that inquiry.
Even assuming Plaintiff alleged specific facts and narrowly tailored its
requested discovery towards those facts, Plaintiff does not persuade the Court
that the information it seeks is exclusively within Defendant’s control. It seems
implausible to this Court that Plaintiff has no knowledge of the specific
services contemplated in the Collaboration Agreement—to which both parties
agreed—such that it could not produce evidence or credibly argue that
Defendant breached obligations that are commercial in nature. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s request for discovery bearing on the FSIA analysis is denied.

17
Doc. 31-1 passim. While Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached certain portions of the
parties’ Collaboration Agreement, Plaintiff does not allege or argue, either in its Motion or
its Amended Complaint, how the purported breaches are commercial in nature. See also
Doc. 28.
18
Voest-Alpine Trading USA Corp. v. Bank of China, 142 F.3d 887, 892 (5th Cir. 1998).
19
de Sanchez v. Banco Central De Nicaragua, 770 F.2d 1385, 1391 (5th Cir. 1985) (quoting
Arango v. Guzman Travel Advisors Corp., 621 F.2d 1371, 1379 (5th Cir. 1980)). “First, we
must define with precision the relevant activity. This requires focusing on the acts of the
named defendant, not on other acts that may have had a casual connection with the suit.”
Id. (citing Callejo v. Bancomer, S.A., 764 F.2d 1101, 1109 (5th Cir. 1985)).
Case 2:26-cv-00946-JTM-DPC Document 36 Filed 08/17/26 Page 6 of 9

7
II. Discovery Regarding Forum Non Conveniens & International
Comity Abstention
Having determined that Plaintiff is not entitled to its requested
jurisdictional discovery, Plaintiff’s request for discovery regarding the forum
non conveniens and international comity abstention issues should not be
addressed until the Court addresses the subject matter jurisdiction dispute
before it.
20
While it is permissible for a court to circumspectly order limited
jurisdictional discovery where a defendant invoked immunity under the
FSIA,
21
this Court cannot order non-jurisdictional, albeit non-merit, discovery
where addressing the jurisdictional issue is the most proper—and least
burdensome—approach.
22
The Court previously stated that it could address
the forum non conveniens and international comity abstention issues
presented in Defendant’s First Motion to Dismiss before deciding jurisdiction
under the FSIA, but addressing the non-jurisdictional issues first was the least
burdensome approach at that time.
23
The instant Motion presents the opposite

20
“[I]t is of course true that once a court determines that jurisdiction is lacking, it can proceed
no further and must dismiss the case on that account. In that scenario ‘forum non
conveniens can never apply.’” Sinochem, 549 U.S. at 434. Similarly, the Court cannot “apply
the doctrine of comity among nations unless we first determine that we have subject matter
jurisdiction.” Torres v. S. Peru Copper Corp., 113 F.3d 540, 542 (5th Cir. 1997); but see
Sinochem, 549 U.S. at 436.
21
Kelly, 213 F.3d at 849.
22
Sinochem, 549 U.S. at 436 (“In the mine run of cases, jurisdiction ‘will involve no arduous
inquiry’ and both judicial economy and the consideration ordinarily accorded the plaintiff's
choice of forum ‘should impel the federal court to dispose of [those] issue[s] first.’ But where
subject-matter or personal jurisdiction is difficult to determine, and forum non conveniens
considerations weigh heavily in favor of dismissal, the court properly takes the less
burdensome course.” (quoting Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 587–88,
(1999))).
23
Plaintiff’s First Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery did not seek discovery on those issues.
Doc. 20 (citing Sinochem, 549 U.S. at 436). The Court notes that Plaintiff’s reply to its First
Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery stated that the discovery it sought “bears directly on
[the forum non conveniens and abstention] issues as well.” Doc. 21 at 1. While there may
be some overlap in the facts that support each issue, Plaintiff’s First Motion for
Case 2:26-cv-00946-JTM-DPC Document 36 Filed 08/17/26 Page 7 of 9

8
scenario where, because the jurisdictional discovery Plaintiff requests is
unwarranted, principles of judicial efficiency and international comity demand
that jurisdiction be addressed first.
24
In the event this Court determines that
it does have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, Plaintiff may re-urge
its request for discovery as to the remaining issues.

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has not shown entitlement to preliminary discovery. Despite
this determination, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request to continue the
submission date of Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED to the extent it
seeks jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED to the extent it
seeks to continue the submission date of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

Jurisdictional Discovery raised no argument regarding the non-jurisdictional issues. See
Doc. 9; Doc. 31.
24
See Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. BB Energy USA, LLC, No. 21-20534, at *2 (5th Cir. Nov. 4,
2021) (“A district court must rule on an immunity defense properly raised in a motion to
dismiss before allowing any discovery that is not ‘ordered circumspectly and only to verify
allegations of specific facts crucial to an immunity determination.’” (emphasis added)
(quoting Kelly, 213 F.3d at 849)) (per curiam); see also Sinochem, 549 U.S. at 436. Further,
Plaintiff cites no authority where a court has ordered non-jurisdictional discovery before
addressing jurisdictional issues. The only example Plaintiff cites where a district court
allowed simultaneous discovery on FSIA jurisdiction and other non-merits issues does not
undermine this Court’s approach. See UNC Lear Servs., Inc. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
581 F.3d 210, 214 (5th Cir. 2009) (mentioning that “[t]he district court allowed
jurisdictional discovery on the FSIA and forum non conveniens issues” when describing
relevant procedural background and before addressing whether the district court properly
denied a motion to dismiss). In that case, the district court’s reasons were given orally and
are, therefore, inaccessible to this Court. See UNC Lear Servs., Inc. v. Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, No. 5:04-cv-01008-WRF, Dkt. No. 48 at 1 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2006) (“In accordance
with the Court’s statements at the December 7, 2005 hearing . . . , the Court hereby orders
as follows . . . the parties shall be allowed to conduct discovery relevant to: (i) Defendants’
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act, and (ii) Defendants’ motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non
conveniens.”). The Court sees no reason to employ that court’s course of action here.
Case 2:26-cv-00946-JTM-DPC Document 36 Filed 08/17/26 Page 8 of 9

9
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
29) is RESET for submission on September 9, 2026.

New Orleans, Louisiana this 17th day of August, 2026.

____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00946-JTM-DPC Document 36 Filed 08/17/26 Page 9 of 9