ÿWPC‰#  2^“â!Þ<ÿ!’ ûg‹ùž6Ïÿ^:ic‚ñr"®äÉ%ë‰'~8ê)‹Ò,‡ßMï“ÓCd¸ÓAÎ3dpØ 5ögäuÊ[kDÑ'b¢+ÎmƇ™£­>Z+GÓv+‡ós\ð­•œÈ>­°+¦¾ òÏy£óØ3ïCb¾§fÞÂ9äÓ»Ý w$‡Óä JV’Bî‡] øA`û9èÛy_ê·µvF)ΧÓüáÂStY\Ð[Í~f3’Žï.‹â åÔ°ˆ­ûŸ§¥.Æô3õ^ G±8,•x:Ø.T”Ã’JœéÀâ]ÿL-q¹™VlûGõ<ƒø"i‹ïJƲÎÄÑñ¬é¿«‹z¯f„Êhh±kú-’ ENi·ãn¸ªÔàñMÒã÷7 º¼ƒ—bÿ ˆK®Ö“…Ç‘|Yˆ,¼‰Y Mÿ¡û—Ï““)e²²€Ô„Y;²-T_}ïÆ*[‰ƒÊQÈ":¥àF3ò«ÎÒÑÖ©ZÒô‹5X‹ºÀ’ ;‹ÃbrûÏ@Âï’KTnö\Äzž’Í«)vÇ–k:FqÙçžVçæGaÓ„™»ÊqÐcx¶}†ÌÕÅ]ÅÅ„‘ G&7ð6#Áô %µ 0 D» 0(ÿU:' 0 ÆaUN'UFu^ »wÇ4Ëßî mðN U> EG fI aK UB_ b¡ „© 1‡- 1u´ 0c) 72Œ+¾6é€U0ŸŸŸŸÏEæææ+ B3 @P *!!!!!!!! 1‡º" 72A#A#A#s#˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0X(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($¡¡<þ6X9`("Courier NewTT(d:2^X$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€21XÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóvÖr Z‹6Times New Roman Regular´¾½Q 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular†ï,s ŒyÜ,Æ¢Ø+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ<è\( 9Z+&Courier RegularøÀTABLE A<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- ù- zÝ ƒ^X$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€8áXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Puerto€Rico's€Civil€Code€states:Ð ° Ðà8  àWhen€an€agent€acts€in€his€own€name€the€principal€shallÐ xÈ Ðhave€no€action€against€the€person€with€whom€the€agent€hasÐ @ Ðcontracted,€nor€the€said€persons€against€the€principal.€Ð X ÐIn€such€case,€the€agent€is€directly€liable€to€the€personÐ Ð  Ðwith€whom€he€has€contracted,€as€if€the€transaction€wereÐ ˜è Ðhis€own.Ð` °Ð Ð  ÐLaws€of€P.R.€Ann.€tit.€31,€ðð4429.€€Relying€on€that€provision,€theÐ ( x Ðdistrict€could€held€that€Costa€Rica€was€not€liable€for€theÐ ð @ ÐFourniers'€breach€of€the€original€lease€agreement,€since€theyÐ ¸   Ðsigned€that€contract€"in€[their]€own€Ô_Ôname[sÔ_Ô],"€òòid.óó,€rather€than€asÐ € Ð  Ðagents€of€Costa€Rica.òòóó€€òòSeeóó€òòFagot€Rodriguez€IVóó,€139€F.€Supp.€2d€atÐ H ˜  Ð186.(Š½CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  ài) !Ý ƒ^X$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€8áXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô‡X8áXXXÔ€The€Fagots'€claim€of€an€implied„in„law€contract€was€poorlyÐ ° Ðdeveloped€both€before€the€district€court€and€on€appeal.€Ô#†X8áXXX8á¯#Ô€NotÐ xÈ Ðsurprisingly,€therefore,€the€district€court€did€not€mention€thatÐ @ Ðclaim€in€any€of€its€four€published€opinions€in€this€case.€ ,Ý ƒ^X$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€8áXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Specifically,€the€House€Report€stated€that€such€suits€"seemÐ ° Ðto€be€permitted"€under€the€Vienna€Convention€on€DiplomaticÐ xÈ ÐRelations,€which€exempts€diplomatic€or€consular€property€fromÐ @ Ð"search,€requisition,€attachment€or€execution."€€House€Report,Ð X Ðòòsupraóó,€at€*20€(internal€quotation€marks€omitted).€€ vÝ ƒ^X$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€8áXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€It€is€unclear€from€the€record€when,€exactly,€the€FagotsÐ ° Ðlearned€that€the€Consulate€was€located€on€the€property.€€However,Ð xÈ Ðin€a€memorandum€supporting€their€motion€for€summary€judgment,€theÐ @ ÐFagots€represented€that€the€August€letter€"was€specificallyÐ X Ðaddressed€to€the€Fourniers"€because€"at€that€particular€point€inÐ Ð  Ðtime€(August€1993),€the€Fagots€were€unaware€that€Costa€Rica€and€theÐ ˜è ÐConsulate€occupied€the€Property."€€Accordingly,€we€view€it€asÐ ` ° Ðsettled€that€the€Fagots€were€unaware€of€the€Consulate's€presenceÐ ( x Ðwhen€they€mailed€the€August€demand€letter.€<è\( 9Z+Courier  Ý ƒ^X$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€8áXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô‡X8áXXXÔThe€Fagots€also€argue€that,€under€the€Foreign€Missions€ActÐ ° Ð("FMA"),€22€U.S.C.€ððò òó ó4304(b),€Costa€Rica€was€obligated€to€acquireÐ xÈ Ðany€"benefits"€in€the€United€States€„„€including€"the€acquisitionÐ h¸ Ðof€real€property€by€purchase€[or]€lease"€„„€only€through€theÐ 0€ ÐSecretary€of€State.€€They€point€out€that€there€is€no€evidence€thatÐ øH Ðthe€Fourniers€complied€with€that€provision.€€However,€ðð4304(b)Ð À Ðprovides€only€that€"òò[Ô_Ôi]fÔ_Ôóó€the€Secretary€determines€that€such€€actionÐ ˆ Ø Ðis€reasonably€necessary€on€the€basis€of€reciprocity€orÐ P   Ðotherwise...òòthenóó€the€Secretary€òòmayóó€require€a€foreignÐ  h Ðmission...to€obtain€benefits€from€or€through€the€Secretary."Ð à 0  Ð(Emphasis€added.)€€Thus,€if€the€Secretary€of€State€has€notÐ ¨ ø  Ðexercised€his€authority€under€ðð4304€„„€and€the€Fagots€do€not€argueÐ p À  Ðthat€he€has€„„€then€there€is€no€basis€for€the€claim€that€theÐ 8ˆ  ÐFourniers€violated€the€Ô_ÔFMAÔ_Ô€by€failing€to€obtain€the€Secretary'sÐ P  Ðconsent€before€entering€into€the€lease€agreement.€€Ô#†X8áXXX8á¯#Ô ;Ý ƒ^X$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€8áXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€lease€agreement€provided€that,€"[Ô_Ôi]fÔ_Ô€the€LESSEES€[do]Ð ° Ðnot€pay€any€monthly€lease€payment€on€the€date€the€same€is€due,€thenÐ xÈ Ðthe€lease€contract€will€be€considered€to€be€totally€due€and€theÐ @ ÐLESSORS€have€the€right€to€collect€from€the€LESSEES€the€rent€for€theÐ X Ðduration€of€the€contract."  d 6Ý ƒ^X$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€8áXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€At€the€same€time,€the€court€entered€a€default€judgmentÐ ° Ðagainst€the€Fourniers.€€That€judgment€has€not€been€appealed. Ý ƒ^X$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€8áXÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€For€ease€of€reference,€we€omit€any€further€mention€of€theÐ ° ÐConsulate€in€its€role€as€defendant.(š½CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.1A. Ñ ° ÑÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRY,3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ ? ÑÙ*ƒ !ÙÔ€XyYXXXÔÔ€°¨±°XXyYÔò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÑ€5OY ÑUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÔ€„ ü„°°¨±ÔÐ ° ÐFor€the€First€Circuitó óÔ€„5l„„„ üÔÔ€X•X„„5lÔÐ „Ô ÐÓ÷ÓÌÌßA€') °°` dE< ` AßÐ  à ÐÌÌNo.€01„1713Ð K › ÐÌà@l l ìàGABRIEL€FAGOT€RODRIGUEZ,€ET€AL.,ˆÐ ÷ G  ÐÌà@ˆˆìàPlaintiffs,€Appellants,ˆÐ £ó  ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ OŸ  ÐÌà@¸ ¸ ìàTHE€REPUBLIC€OF€COSTA€RICA,€ET€AL.,ˆÐ ûK  ÐÌà@ÄÄìàDefendants,€Appellees.ˆÐ §÷ ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<R` AßÐ S£ ÐÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ 8ˆ ÐÌà@¨ ¨ ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€PUERTO€RICOˆÐ ä4 ÐÌà@èèìà[Hon.€Daniel€R.€Domnguez,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ à ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<;` AßÐ <Œ ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ !q ÐÌÓ  Óà@@((ìà€Selya,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó,€Ð Í ÐCoffin,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgeóó,€Ð £ó  Ðand€Lipez,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.Ð yÉ! ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<$!` AßÐ %!u# ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòJos€G.€Fagot„Dazóó,€with€whom€òòFagot€&€Castalóó€was€on€brief,€forÐ  "Z% Ðappellants.Ð à"0& ÐÌà  àòòVerð;ðnica€Ferraiuoli„Hornedoóó,€with€whom€òòMcConnell€Valdsóó€was€onÐ Œ$Ü( Ðbrief,€for€appellees.Ð b%² ) ÐÌÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ ä'4#,ä'4# ‹‹ÐÓ”ÓÐ SIH(˜#- `Iâ@37451„„‰`Iâ@‰‹‹SÐÌJuly€15,€2002Ð )n$/ ÐÐ RHCô)D%0" `Iâ@37451 `Iâ@ ‹‹RÐÐ(H(˜#1  (ÐÓ  ÓÙ* !ÙÌÌâ âÓ  ÓÐ ¦,ö'3? ÐÑ  ÑÓÓÑ8€8áXXdÈdÈ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*ÓÝ ƒÿÝÝ  ÝÔ€X8áXXX•Ôà ` àò òòòóóLIPEZ,€òòCircuit€Judgeó óóó.€â â€This€case€raises€several€questionsÐ ° Ðof€first€impression€for€this€circuit€regarding€the€scope€of€theÐ à ÐForeign€Sovereign€Immunities€Act€("FSIA"),€28€U.S.C.€ðððð1330,€1602„Ð  p Ð1611ò òó ó.€€The€FSIA€provides€the€exclusive€basis€for€acquiring€subjectÐ °  Ðmatter€jurisdiction€over€foreign€states€and€their€agencies€andÐ @  Ðinstrumentalities.€€òòId.óó€ðððð1330,€1604.€Under€the€statute,€"aÐ Ð   Ðforeign€state€shall€be€immune€from€the€jurisdiction€of€the€courtsÐ `°  Ðof€the€United€States,"€òòid.óó€ðð1604,€unless€the€case€falls€within€oneÐ ð@  Ðof€the€exceptions€to€immunity€set€out€in€ðð1605.€€At€issue€here€areÐ €Ð  Ðthe€exceptions€for€actions€arising€out€of€a€foreign€state'sÐ ` Ðcommercial€or€tortious€activity,€òòid.óó€ðððð1605(a)(2)€&€(5),€orÐ  ð Ðinvolving€rights€in€immovable€property,€òòid.óó€ðð1605(a)(4).€€TheÐ 0€ Ðdistrict€court€concluded€that€none€of€the€exceptions€applied.€€WeÐ À Ðaffirm.€€Ð P  ÐÓ  Óò òI.Ð à0 ÐÓ  Óó óà ` àThe€relevant€facts€are€not€disputed.€€Appellants,€GabrielÐ À ÐFagot€Rodriguez€and€Angeles€Diaz€Rivera€("the€Fagots"),€own€a€houseÐ P   Ðand€surrounding€property€in€San€Juan,€Puerto€Rico.€€In€September,Ð à0" Ð1991,€the€Fagots€agreed€to€lease€the€property€to€Hilda€Fournier€andÐ p!À$ ÐAngelo€Greco€Fournier€("the€Fourniers")€for€two€years,€at€a€rate€ofÐ #P& Ð$2,500€per€month.€€Although€the€Fourniers€were€then€the€Consul€andÐ $à( ÐVice„Consul€of€the€Republic€of€Costa€Rica,€they€signed€the€lease€inÐ  &p!* Ðtheir€individual€capacities.€€The€lease€agreement€provided€that€theÐ °'#, ÐFourniers€were€to€use€the€property€for€residential€purposes€onlyÐ @)$. Ðand€prohibited€them€from€subleasing€to€third€parties€without€theÐ Ð* &0 ÐFagots'€prior€written€consent.€€Ð `,°'2 Ðà ` àNotwithstanding€the€restrictions€in€the€lease€agreement,Ð ° Ðthe€Fourniers€began€to€operate€the€Costa€Rican€Consulate€("theÐ @ ÐConsulate")€from€the€property.€€The€Fagots€were€unaware€of€theirÐ Ð  Ðactions,€however,€and€the€Fourniers€remained€on€the€propertyÐ ` ° Ðwithout€conflict€for€most€of€the€two„year€lease€term.€€The€troubleÐ ð @ Ðbegan€in€June€of€1993,€when€„„€following€a€dispute€over€an€airÐ € Ð  Ðconditioner€„„€the€Fourniers€failed€to€pay€the€monthly€rent.€€OnÐ `  ÐJune€16,€1993,€the€Fagots€notified€the€Fourniers€by€letter€that€theÐ  ð  Ðlease€was€terminated€effective€immediately,€and€that€the€FourniersÐ 0€  Ðhad€to€vacate€the€premises€by€July€16,€1993.€€The€Fagots€alsoÐ À Ðdemanded€that€the€Fourniers€pay€them€$10,000€„„€the€total€rent€dueÐ P  Ðfor€the€balance€of€the€lease€term.׃#×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð à0 Ðà ` àTwo€months€passed,€and€the€Fourniers€neither€vacated€theÐ pÀ Ðproperty,€nor€paid€the€requested€amount.€€On€August€19,€1993,€theÐ P ÐFagots€sent€another€letter€informing€the€Fourniers€that€"since€aÐ à Ðlease€contract€no€longer€exists€that€stipulates€the€rent€to€be€paidÐ  p Ðfor€the€use€and€enjoyment€of€the€property,€you€will€pay€monthly,Ð °  Ðretroactively€to€July€16,€1993,€the€sum€of€$5,000.00,€that€is€fromÐ @" Ðthe€date€you€should€have€vacated€the€property."€€The€letterÐ Ð $ Ðspecified€that€the€new€$5,000€rental€charge€was€to€be€paid€"for€theÐ `"°& Ðmonths€of€July,€August€and€September€1993."€€Ð ð#@( Ðà ` àSome€time€after€mailing€the€August€demand€letter,€theÐ €%Ð * ÐFagots€learned€that€the€Fourniers€had€been€operating€the€ConsulateÐ '`", Ðfrom€the€property.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€September€30,€1993€„„€the€last€day€of€theÐ ° Ðoriginal€lease€term€„„€they€filed€suit€against€the€Fourniers,€theÐ @ ÐConsulate,€and€the€Republic€of€Costa€Rica€("Costa€Rica"),€allegingÐ Ð  Ðbreach€of€contract,€personal€injury,€and€damage€to€or€loss€ofÐ ` ° Ðproperty.€€The€complaint€sought€eviction€as€well€as€monetaryÐ ð @ Ðdamages.€€Ð € Ð  Ðà ` àThe€parties€quickly€filed€a€flurry€of€motions.€€TheÐ `  ÐFagots€sought€immediate€eviction.€€Costa€Rica€and€the€ConsulateÐ  ð  Ðrejoined€with€claims€of€sovereign€immunity€and€inadequate€service.Ð 0€  ÐIn€the€meantime,€the€Fourniers€and€the€Consulate€remained€on€theÐ À Ðproperty,€still€without€paying€rent.€€They€finally€vacated€theÐ P  Ðproperty€in€October€of€1994,€16€months€after€the€Fagots€terminatedÐ à0 Ðthe€lease.Ð pÀ Ðà ` àIn€December€of€1994,€Costa€Rica€and€the€Consulate€movedÐ P Ðfor€summary€judgment€on€the€ground€that€they€were€immune€from€suitÐ à Ðunder€the€FSIA.€€The€Fagots€responded€that€the€case€fell€into€theÐ  p Ðexceptions€to€immunity€for€actions€involving€rights€in€immovableÐ °  Ðproperty,€or€arising€out€of€commercial€or€tortious€activity€by€aÐ @" Ðforeign€state.€€The€district€court€initially€concluded€that€none€ofÐ Ð $ Ðthose€exceptions€applied€and€entered€summary€judgment€for€CostaÐ `"°& ÐRica.€€€òòFagot€Rodriguezóó€v.€òòRepublic€of€Costa€Ricaóó,€934€F.€Supp.€493Ð ð#@( Ð(D.P.R.€1996)€(òòFagot€Rodriguez€Ióó).׃(×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€Fagots€moved€forÐ ° Ðreconsideration€and€for€additional€discovery.€€The€court€grantedÐ @ Ðtheir€requests€and€vacated€its€judgment.€€Eventually,€the€FagotsÐ Ð  Ðfiled€their€own€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€the€question€ofÐ ` ° Ðjurisdiction€under€the€FSIA.€€This€time,€the€court€determined€thatÐ ð @ Ðthe€case€could€proceed€under€the€commercial€activity€and€tortiousÐ € Ð  Ðactivity€exceptions.€€Ô‡X8áXXX8áÔòòFagot€Rodriguezóó€v.€òòRepublic€of€Costa€Ricaóó,€99Ð `  ÐF.€Supp.€2d€157€(D.P.R.€1999)€(òòFagot€Rodriguez€IIóó).€€After€holdingÐ  ð  Ða€hearing€on€the€question€of€damages,€it€entered€an€order€holdingÐ 0€  ÐCosta€Rica€and€the€Consulate€jointly€liable€with€the€Fourniers€forÐ À Ðnon„payment€of€rent€between€August,€1993€and€October,€1994.€€TheÐ P  Ðcourt€concluded€that€the€Fourniers€„„€but€not€Costa€Rica€and€theÐ à0 ÐConsulate€„„€also€were€liable€for€rent€due€prior€to€August,€1993,Ð pÀ Ðand€for€property€damage€and€mental€distress.€€òòFagot€Rodriguezóó€v.Ð P ÐòòRepublic€of€Costa€Ricaóó,€99€F.€Supp.€2d€170€(D.P.R.€1999)€(òòFagotÐ à ÐRodriguez€IIIóó).€€The€Fagots€again€moved€for€reconsideration,Ð  p Ðarguing€that€Costa€Rica€and€the€Consulate€were€jointly€liable€forÐ °  Ðall€damages.€€Again,€the€district€court€agreed€to€reconsider€itsÐ @" Ðjudgment.€€However,€instead€of€holding€Costa€Rica€and€the€ConsulateÐ Ð $ Ðliable€for€more€damages,€it€reverted€to€its€earlier€view€that€noneÐ `"°& Ðof€the€exceptions€provided€a€basis€for€jurisdiction€under€the€FSIA,Ð ð#@( Ðand€dismissed€the€claims€against€Costa€Rica€and€the€Consulate.€Ð €%Ð * ÐòòFagot€Rodriguezóó€v.€òòRepublic€of€Costa€Ricaóó,€139€F.€Supp.€2d€173Ð '`", Ð(D.P.R.€2001)€(òòFagot€Rodriguez€IVóó).Ô#†X8áXXX8á®%#Ô€€This€appeal€followed.Ð  (ð#. ÐÓ  Óò òII.Ð ° ÐÓ  Óà ` àó óWe€review€de€novo€the€district€court's€conclusion€that€itÐ à Ðlacked€jurisdiction€under€the€FSIA.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ‡X8áXXX8áÔHonduras€AircraftÐ  p ÐRegistry,€Ltd.óó€v.€òòGov't€of€Hondurasóó,€129€F.3d€543,€546€(11th€Cir.Ð °  Ð1997)€(conducting€de€novo€review€of€FSIA€jurisdictional€question);Ð @  ÐòòExport€Groupóó€v.€òòReef€Indus.,€Inc.óó,€54€F.3d€1466,€1469€(9th€Cir.Ð Ð   Ð1995)€("[T]he€existence€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction€under€theÐ `°  ÐFSIA€is€a€question€of€law€subject€to€de€novo€review.");€òòcf.óó€òòIrvingóóÐ ð@  Ðv.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€162€F.3d€154,€162€(1st€Cir.€1998)€(en€banc)Ð €Ð  Ð(applying€"plenary€review"€to€the€question€of€jurisdiction€over€theÐ ` ÐUnited€States€government€under€the€Federal€Tort€Claims€Act).€€AsÐ  ð Ðnoted,€the€Fagots€assert€several€bases€for€jurisdiction.€€First,Ð 0€ Ðthey€argue€that€Costa€Rica׃)×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€can€be€held€liable€for€non„payment€ofÐ À Ðrent€under€the€commercial€activity€exception,€28€U.S.C.Ð P  Ððð1605(a)(2),€based€on€an€implied€lease€contract€created€by€theÐ à0 ÐAugust,€1993,€demand€letter.€€Second,€they€maintain€that€CostaÐ pÀ ÐRica's€use€of€the€property€amounted€to€a€trespass,€thus€supportingÐ P  Ðjurisdiction€under€the€tortious€activity€exception,€òòid.óóÐ à" Ððð1605(a)(5).€€Finally,€the€Fagots€argue€that€they€can€recover€forÐ  !p$ Ðnonpayment€of€rent€(or,€in€the€alternative,€damages€for€trespass)Ð °"& Ðunder€the€exception€for€actions€involving€"rights€in€immovableÐ @$( Ðproperty,"€òòid.óó,€ðð1605(a)(4).Ô#†X8áXXX8áÐ,#Ô€€We€address€those€claims€in€turn.Ð Ð% !* ÐÌÐ ð(@$. ÐÓ€ (Š½83ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýò òÝ‚3£ž4ÝÔ2Š½ÔÚ  ÚAÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝCommercial€Activity݃3£ž4Î4݌а` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  Ýà ` àó óÔ‡X8áXXX8áÔUnder€ðð1605(a)(2),€a€foreign€state€is€subject€toÐ à Ðjurisdiction€in€any€case€"in€which€the€action€is€based€upon€aÐ  p Ðcommercial€activity€carried€on€in€the€United€States€by€the€foreignÐ °  Ðstate."€€The€term€"commercial€activity"€encompasses€both€"a€regularÐ @  Ðcourse€of€commercial€conduct"€and€"a€particular€commercialÐ Ð   Ðtransaction€or€act."€€òòId.óó€ðð1603(d).€€In€assessing€whether€aÐ `°  Ðcertain€transaction€or€course€of€conduct€is€commercial€inÐ ð@  Ðcharacter,€courts€must€look€to€the€"nature"€of€the€activity€ratherÐ €Ð  Ðthan€its€"purpose."€€òòId.óóò òó ó€€Thus,€Ð ` ÐÓÓà8 ` àthe€question€is€not€whether€the€foreignÐ  ð Ðgovernment€[was]€acting€with€a€profit€motiveÐ h¸ Ðor€instead€with€the€aim€of€fulfilling€uniquelyÐ 0€ Ðsovereign€objectives.€€Rather,€the€issue€isÐ øH Ðwhether€the€particular€actions€that€theÐ À Ðforeign€state€perform[ed]€(whatever€the€motiveÐ ˆØ Ðbehind€them)€[were]€the€òòtypeóó€of€actions€byÐ P  Ðwhich€a€private€party€engages€in€"trade€andÐ h Ðtraffic€or€commerce."€€òòÐà0` x` x ÐÌÓ„8ÓRep.€of€Argentinaóó€v.€òòWeltover,€Inc.óó,€504€U.S.€607,€614€(1992).Ô#†X8áXXX8áŒ5#ÔÐ pÀ Ðà ` àIn€order€to€qualify€for€the€commercial€activityÐ P  Ðexception,€an€action€must€be€"based€upon"€commercial€activity€byÐ à" Ðthe€defendant€foreign€state.€€28€U.S.C.€ðð1605(a)(2).€€The€SupremeÐ  !p$ ÐCourt€has€explained€that€a€claim€is€"based"€on€"thoseÐ °"& Ðelements...that,€if€proven,€would€entitle€[the]€plaintiff€toÐ @$( Ðrelief€under€his€theory€of€the€case."€€òòSaudi€Arabiaóó€v.€òòNelsonóó,€507Ð Ð% !* ÐU.S.€349,€357€(1993).€€Here,€the€Fagots€seek€damages€for,€òòinteróóÐ `'°", Ðòòaliaóó,€breach€of€contract.€€There€is€no€dispute€that€contractÐ ð(@$. Ðformation€is€an€essential€element€of€that€claim,€and€that€enteringÐ €*Ð%0 Ðinto€a€contract€for€lease€of€property€constitutes€"commercialÐ ,`'2 Ðactivity."€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòJosephóó€v.€òòOffice€of€the€Consulate€General€ofÐ ° ÐNigeriaóó,€830€F.2d€1018,€1024€(9th€Cir.€1987);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòWalterÐ @ ÐFuller€Aircraft€Sales,€Inc.óó€v.€òòRep.€of€the€Philippinesóó,€965€F.2dÐ Ð  Ð1375,€1386€(5th€Cir.€1992)€(noting€the€commercial€nature€of€theÐ ` ° Ðmaking€or€breaching€of€a€contract);€òòRush„Presbyterian„St.€Luke'sÐ ð @ ÐMed.€Ctr.óó€v.€òòHellenic€Rep.óó,€877€F.2d€574,€578€(7th€Cir.€1989)Ð € Ð  Ð(noting€that€"contracts€for€the€purchase€or€sale€of€goods€orÐ `  Ðservices€are€presumptively€'commercial€activities'").€€TheÐ  ð  Ðimportant€question€is€whether€Costa€Rica€in€fact€contracted€withÐ 0€  Ðthe€Fagots€for€use€of€the€property.Ð À Ðà ` àIn€the€district€court,€the€parties€argued€extensivelyÐ P  Ðover€whether€Costa€Rica€was€bound€by€the€original€lease€agreementÐ à0 Ðbetween€the€Fourniers€and€the€Fagots.€€The€Fagots€insisted€that,Ð pÀ Ðalthough€the€Fourniers€signed€the€lease€in€their€individualÐ P Ðcapacities,€Costa€Rica€could€be€held€liable€under€agencyÐ à Ðprinciples.€€They€do€not€press€that€claim€on€appeal.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Instead,€theÐ  p ÐFagots€argue€that€the€events€in€the€summer€of€1993€gave€rise€to€anÐ °  Ðâ âòòimpliedóólease€contract€between€themselves€and€Costa€Rica.€€Ð @" Ðà ` àThe€Fagots€offer€two€versions€of€an€implied€contractÐ ° Ðâ âtheory.€€On€the€first€theory,€the€August,€1993,€demand€letter€„„Ð @ Ðstating€that,€in€the€absence€of€a€lease€agreement,€the€FourniersÐ Ð  Ðwould€be€charged€$5,000€for€each€month€they€remained€on€theÐ ` ° Ðproperty€„„€constituted€an€offer€for€a€month„to„month€lease,€at€aÐ ð @ Ðrate€of€$5,000.€€By€remaining€on€the€property,€the€argument€goes,Ð € Ð  ÐCosta€Rica€accepted€the€offer€and€created€a€contract€implied€inÐ `  Ðfact.€€Ð  ð  Ðà ` àThe€Fagots€recognize€that€an€implied„in„fact€contractÐ 0€  Ðrequires€a€"mutual€intent€to€contract."€€Nevertheless,€they€haveÐ À Ðnot€even€attempted€to€show€such€mutual€intent€here.€€To€begin€with,Ð P  Ðthe€Fagots€have€not€argued€„„€much€less€established€„„€that€theyÐ à0 Ðintended€to€enter€into€a€month„to„month€lease€agreement€with€CostaÐ pÀ ÐRica.€€The€August€demand€letter€was€addressed€to€the€Fourniers,€notÐ P ÐCosta€Rica.€€In€the€course€of€the€proceedings€before€the€districtÐ à Ðcourt,€the€Fagots€explained€that€"at€that€particular€point€in€timeÐ  p Ð(August,€1993),€the€Fagots€were€unaware€that€Costa€Rica€and€theÐ °  ÐConsulate€occupied€the€property."€€They€argued€that€"[s]uch€lack€ofÐ @" Ðknowledge€should€not€operate€against€them."€€That€generalization€isÐ Ð $ Ðnot€helpful.€€On€the€issue€of€an€implied„in„fact€contract,€theÐ `"°& ÐFagots'€lack€of€knowledge€about€the€involvement€of€Costa€RicaÐ ð#@( Ðundermines€their€claim€that€the€demand€letter€was€an€offer€òòto€CostaÐ €%Ð * ÐRicaóó.€€Ð '`", Ðà ` àMoreover,€whatever€the€Fagots'€intent,€there€is€noÐ  (ð#. Ðsuggestion€in€the€record€that€Costa€Rica€agreed€to€pay€the€FagotsÐ 0*€%0 Ð$5,000€per€month€for€its€use€of€the€property.€€Thus,€even€if€weÐ À+'2 Ðtreat€the€Fagots'€demand€letter€as€an€offer€to€Costa€Rica,€there€isÐ ° Ðno€evidence€that€Costa€Rica€accepted€it.€€Given€the€absence€of€anyÐ @ Ðevidence€showing€a€mutual€intent€to€contract,€we€conclude€thatÐ Ð  ÐCosta€Rica€did€not€enter€into€an€implied„in„fact€lease€for€theÐ ` ° Ðproperty.Ð ð @ Ðà ` àThe€Fagots'€second€theory€posits€a€contract€implied€inÐ € Ð  Ðlaw,€or€"quasi€contract."׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€They€point€out€correctly€that€a€quasiÐ `  Ðcontract€does€not€depend€on€the€consent€of€the€parties€but€isÐ  ð  Ð"implied€in€law€to€prevent€unjust€enrichment€of€one€party€at€theÐ 0€  Ðexpense€of€another."€€However,€the€Fagots€have€made€no€effort€toÐ À Ðapply€the€general€principles€of€quasi€contract€to€the€facts€of€thisÐ P  Ðcase.€€Their€sole€authority€is€òòInternational€General€Electricóó€v.Ð à0 ÐòòConcrete€Builders€of€Puerto€Rico,€Inc.óó,€104€P.R.R.€1221€(1976),€inÐ pÀ Ðwhich€the€Puerto€Rico€Supreme€Court€found€a€contract€implied€in€lawÐ P Ðwhere€the€plaintiff€reasonably€relied€on€the€defendant's€assuranceÐ à Ðthat€it€would€pay€for€certain€services.€€The€court€noted€that€itÐ  p Ðwas€immaterial€that€the€defendant€did€not€òòactuallyóó€intend€to€payÐ °  Ðfor€the€services;€it€was€enough€that€"the€terms€of€[the€defendant'sÐ @" Ðcorrespondence]€were€worthy€of€the€trust€of€the€[plaintiff]€whichÐ Ð $ Ðhad€no€reason€to€doubt€of€the€good€faith€of€the€representation€itÐ `"°& Ðwas€given."€€òòId.óó€at€1228„29.€€Thus,€the€court€concluded,€becauseÐ ð#@( Ðthe€defendant€"caused€a€legal€situation€upon€which€[plaintiff]Ð €%Ð * Ðrelied,€it€cannot€assume€now€a€conduct€contradictory€to€the€oneÐ '`", Ðwhich€gained€[plaintiff's]€trust."€€òòId.óó€at€1229€(citationsÐ ° Ðomitted).Ð @ Ðà ` àNotwithstanding€their€reliance€on€òòConcrete€Buildersóó,€theÐ Ð  ÐFagots€did€not€attempt€to€show€before€the€district€court€that€CostaÐ ` ° ÐRica's€conduct€reasonably€led€them€to€believe€that€$5,000€in€rentÐ ð @ Ðper€month€would€be€forthcoming,€such€that€Costa€Rica€should€beÐ € Ð  Ðestopped€from€resisting€such€payment.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€1231€(explainingÐ `  Ðthat€the€defendant's€behavior€must€"be€the€basis€of€the€trust€ofÐ  ð  Ð[the€plaintiff€who]€has€acted€in€good€faith€and...in€a€mannerÐ 0€  Ðwhich€would€cause€him€prejudice€if€his€trust€was€defrauded").€€TheÐ À ÐFagots'€only€interaction€with€Costa€Rica€was€through€its€agents,Ð P  Ðthe€Fourniers,€who€refused€to€pay€òòanyóó€rent€after€the€dispute€overÐ à0 Ðthe€air€conditioner€in€June€of€1993,€and€who€stubbornly€ignored€theÐ pÀ ÐFagots'€repeated€requests€that€they€vacate€the€property.€€SuchÐ P Ðactions€would€not€reasonably€inspire€trust.Ð à Ðà ` àMoreover,€the€Fagots'€own€conduct€in€the€summer€of€1993Ð  p Ðbelies€any€suggestion€of€detrimental€reliance.€€The€FagotsÐ °  Ðinstructed€the€Fourniers€to€vacate€the€property€by€July€16,€1993.€Ð @" ÐWhen€the€Fourniers€did€not€comply,€the€Fagots€mailed€them€a€letterÐ Ð $ Ðdemanding€$5,000€for€every€month€they€remained€on€the€propertyÐ `"°& Ðwithout€a€lease€agreement.€€The€Fagots€then€learned€that€theÐ ð#@( ÐFourniers€had€been€operating€the€Consulate€from€the€property.€Ð €%Ð * ÐRoughly€one€month€later,€they€filed€suit€against€Costa€Rica,€theÐ '`", ÐConsulate,€and€the€Fourniers,€alleging€that€the€lease€agreement€wasÐ  (ð#. Ðâ âterminated€in€June€of€1993,€and€that€the€defendants€had€since€beenÐ 0*€%0 Ðin€"adverse€possession."€€Their€complaint€sought,€among€otherÐ ° Ðthings,€to€evict€the€defendants€from€the€property.€€Ð @ Ðâ âà ` àGiven€the€Fagots'€repeated€attempts€to€terminate€theirÐ Ð  Ðrelationship€with€Costa€Rica€and€the€Fourniers,€they€cannot€now€beÐ ` ° Ðheard€to€argue€that€they€were€lulled€into€inaction€by€Costa€Rica'sÐ ð @ Ðpurported€willingness€to€compensate€them€fully€for€its€use€of€theÐ € Ð  Ðproperty.€€Accordingly,€òòóówe€conclude€that€there€was€no€implied„in„Ð `  Ðlaw€contract€between€Costa€Rica€and€the€Fagots€under€the€principlesÐ  ð  Ðdescribed€in€òòConcrete€Buildersóó.€€Ð 0€  Ðò òB.à ` àTortious€ActivityÐ À Ðó óà ` àÔ‡X8áXXX8áÔWe€turn,€then,€to€the€tortious€activity€exception€toÐ  ð Ðforeign€sovereign€immunity.€€Section€1605(a)(5)€removes€sovereignÐ 0€ Ðimmunity€for€actions€in€whichÐ À ÐÓÓà8 ` àmoney€damages€are€sought€against€a€foreignÐ P  Ðstate€for...damage€to€or€loss€of€property,Ð h Ðoccurring€in€the€United€States€and€caused€byÐ à0 Ðthe€tortious€act€or€omission€of€that€foreignÐ ¨ø Ðstate€or€of€any€official€or€employee€of€thatÐ pÀ Ðforeign€state€while€acting€within€the€scope€ofÐ 8ˆ Ðhis€office€or€employment.ÐP ` x` x ÐÌÓ²aÓThat€exception€extends€only€to€non„discretionary€torts;€it€does€notÐ à" Ðapply€to€"any€claim€based€upon€the€exercise€or€performance€or€theÐ  !p$ Ðfailure€to€exercise€or€perform€a€discretionary€function€regardlessÐ °"& Ðof€whether€the€discretion€be€abused."€€28€U.S.C.€ðð1605(a)(5)(A).€Ô#†X8áXXX8áÂ`#ÔÔ‡X8áXXX8áÔÐ @$( Ðà ` àHere,€the€Fagots€seek€damages€for€tortious€trespass.€Ð Ð% !* ÐThey€argue,€first,€that€both€Costa€Rica€and€the€Fourniers€wereÐ `'°", Ðtrespassing€at€least€from€July€of€1993€„„€the€date€by€which€theyÐ ð(@$. Ðhad€been€instructed€to€leave€„„€until€they€vacated€the€property€inÐ €*Ð%0 ÐOctober€of€1994.€€Ô#†X8áXXX8áe#ÔÔ‡X8áXXX8áÔSecond,€they€maintain€that€Costa€Rica€wasÐ ,`'2 ÐÑ5OY Ñâ 5âÑ°°Ñâ 5âÑ  Ñtrespassing€on€the€property€from€the€beginning€of€the€lease€periodÐ ° Ðin€September,€1991.€€In€support€of€that€more€expansive€claim,€theÐ @ ÐFagots€argue€that€the€lease€agreement€prohibited€the€Fourniers€fromÐ Ð  Ðsubletting€the€property€or€using€it€for€non„residential€purposes;Ð ` ° Ðthat€the€Consulate€is€a€separate€legal€entity€from€the€Fourniers;Ð ð @ Ðand,€therefore,€that€Costa€Rica€(through€the€Consulate)€wasÐ € Ð  Ðtrespassing€on€the€property€even€when€the€Fourniers€were€not.€€Ð `  Ðà ` àWe€assume,€without€deciding,€that€the€Fagots€have€statedÐ  ð  Ða€claim€for€tortious€trespass€for€the€entire€period€of€tenancy€„„Ð 0€  Ðthat€is,€from€September€of€1991€until€October€of€1994.€€Ô#†X8áXXX8áÒf#ÔÔ‡X8áXXX8áÔ€We€furtherÐ À Ðassume€that€Ô#†X8áXXX8áÓj#ÔÔ‡X8áXXX8áÔthe€Fourniers€were€acting€within€the€scope€of€theirÐ P  Ðemployment€when€they€committed€the€alleged€trespass.€€òòSeeóó€28€U.S.C.Ð à0 Ððð1605(a)(5).Ô#†X8áXXX8áAk#ÔÔ‡X8áXXX8áÔ€€We€need€not€dwell€on€such€questions€because€weÐ pÀ Ðconclude€that€the€Fagots'€trespass€claims€are€"based€upon€theÐ P Ðexercise€or€performance€.€.€.€[of]€a€discretionary€function,"€òòid.óóÐ à Ððð1605(a)(5)(A),€and€therefore€are€outside€the€scope€ofÐ  p Ððð1605(a)(5).€Ð °  Ðà ` àThe€so„called€"discretionary€function"€limitation€set€outÐ @" Ðin€ðð1605(a)(5)(A)€of€the€FSIA€is€modeled€on€a€similar€exception€toÐ Ð $ Ðjurisdiction€under€the€Federal€Tort€Claims€Act€("FTCA"),€28€U.S.C.Ð `"°& Ððð2680(a).€€òòSeeóó€H.R.€Rep.€No.€94„1487,€at€21€(1976),€òòreprintedóó€òòinóóÐ ð#@( Ð1976€U.S.S.C.A.N.€6604,€6620€(hereafter€"House€Report").€€TheÐ €%Ð * Ðlatter€statute€has€received€extensive€judicial€treatment,€andÐ '`", Ðdecisions€construing€its€discretionary€function€exception€areÐ  (ð#. Ðuseful€in€applying€the€parallel€provision€in€the€FSIA.€€The€SupremeÐ 0*€%0 ÐCourt€has€crafted€a€two-part€test€for€determining€whether€aÐ À+'2 Ðchallenged€government€action€is€protected€as€"discretionary"€underÐ ° Ðthe€FTCA.€€The€first€question€is€whether€the€conduct€in€questionÐ @ Ð"is€a€matter€of€choice€for€the€acting€employee."€€òòBerkovitzóó€v.Ð Ð  ÐòòUnited€Statesóó,€486€U.S.€531,€536€(1988).€€If€a€"federal€statute,Ð ` ° Ðregulation€or€policy€specifically€prescribes€a€course€of€action€forÐ ð @ Ðan€employee€to€follow,"€then€there€is€no€room€for€choice€and€theÐ € Ð  Ðdiscretionary€function€exception€does€not€apply.€€òòId.Ð `  ÐóóÔ#†X8áXXX8á9l#ÔÔ‡X8áXXX8áÔà ` àSecond,€assuming€that€the€challenged€conduct€"involves€anÐ  ð  Ðelement€of€judgment,"€that€judgment€must€be€"of€the€kind€that€theÐ 0€  Ðdiscretionary€function€exception€was€designed€to€shield."€€òòId.óó€€TheÐ À Ðpurpose€of€the€exception€is€to€"prevent€judicial€'second€guessing'Ð P  Ðof€legislative€and€administrative€decisions€grounded€in€social,Ð à0 Ðeconomic€and€political€policy€through€the€medium€of€an€action€inÐ pÀ Ðtort."€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòS.A.€Empresa€de€Viacao€Aerea€Rio€GrandenseÐ P Ð(Varig€Airlines)óó,€467€U.S.€797,€814€(1984)Ô#†X8áXXX8áUs#ÔÔ‡X8áXXX8áÔ.€€Thus,€it€"protectsÐ à Ðonly€governmental€actions€and€decisions€based€on€considerations€ofÐ  p Ðpublic€policy."€€òòBerkovitzóó,€486€U.S.€at€537€(citing€òòDalehiteóó€v.Ð °  ÐòòUnited€Statesóó,€346€U.S.€15,€36€(1953)€("Where€there€is€room€forÐ @" Ðpolicy€judgment€and€decision€there€is€discretion.")).Ô#†X8áXXX8á3v#Ôò òÐ Ð $ Ðó óà ` àWith€respect€to€the€first€prong€of€the€test,€the€FagotsÐ `"°& Ðdo€not€dispute€that€the€Fourniers€had€authority€to€set€up€aÐ ð#@( Ðconsulate€in€Puerto€Rico,€and€that,€generally€speaking,€that€taskÐ €%Ð * Ðinvolved€an€element€of€choice€or€judgment.€€However,€they€maintainÐ '`", Ðthat€the€particular€choices€the€Fourniers€made€„„€namely,€toÐ  (ð#. Ðinstall€the€Consulate€on€the€property€in€violation€of€the€terms€ofÐ 0*€%0 Ðthe€lease€agreement,€and€to€remain€on€the€property€without€payingÐ À+'2 Ðrent€after€the€lease€was€terminated€„„€were€impermissible€ones.€€InÐ ° Ðother€words,€although€the€Fourniers'€authority€was€essentiallyÐ @ Ðdiscretionary,€they€acted€outside€that€authority€when€they€set€upÐ Ð  Ðthe€Consulate€in€violation€of€Puerto€Rico€landlord„tenant€andÐ ` ° Ðtrespass€law.€€Ð ð @ Ðà ` àThe€Fagots'€primary€support€for€that€argument€is€a€1948Ð € Ð  Ðtreaty€between€the€United€States€and€Costa€Rica,€which€providesÐ `  Ðthat€either€country€may€establish€consulates€in€the€other,€and€mayÐ  ð  Ðbuy€or€lease€land€for€that€purpose€"in€accordance€with€suchÐ 0€  Ðconditions€as€may€be€prescribed€by€the€laws€of€the€receivingÐ À Ðstate."€€Consular€Convention,€Jan.€12,€1948,€U.S.„Costa€Rica,Ð P  Ðart.V,€para.€1,€1€U.S.T.€247.€€The€Fagots€argue€that€"it€isÐ à0 Ðaxiomatic€that€the€laws€of€Puerto€Rico€and€the€United€States,€asÐ pÀ Ðthe€receiving€state,€require€the€landowners'€consent€for€the€use€ofÐ P Ðproperty."€€Under€the€treaty,€therefore,€the€Fourniers€had€noÐ à Ðdiscretion€to€use€the€property€in€a€manner€proscribed€by€the€leaseÐ  p Ðagreement.€€Ð °  Ðà ` àWe€note€that€it€is€unclear€whether€the€phrase€"the€lawsÐ @" Ðof€the€receiving€state"€is€meant€to€refer€to€local€Puerto€Rican€lawÐ Ð $ Ðas€well€as€federal€law.€€Moreover,€it€is€unlikely€that€the€draftersÐ `"°& Ðof€the€treaty€intended€that€every€violation€of€local€or€federal€lawÐ ð#@( Ðwould€translate€into€a€breach€of€the€treaty€itself.€€We€need€notÐ €%Ð * Ðresolve€those€questions,€however,€because€even€if€we€adopt€theÐ '`", ÐFagots'€reading€of€the€treaty,€it€does€not€follow€that€theÐ  (ð#. Ðâ âFourniers'€actions€were€non„discretionary.€€Ð 0*€%0 Ðà ` àTreaty€or€no€treaty,€the€Fourniers€were€bound€to€complyÐ ° Ðâ âwith€United€States€law,€both€local€and€federal.€€The€treaty€doesÐ @ Ðnot€impose€any€special€obligations€on€foreign€officials;€nor€doesÐ Ð  Ðit€"specifically€prescribe[]€a€course€of€action"€for€such€officialsÐ ` ° Ðto€follow€when€setting€up€a€Consulate€in€the€United€States.€Ð ð @ ÐòòBerkovitzóó,€486€U.S.€at€536.€€A€general€obligation€to€avoid€unlawfulÐ € Ð  Ðactivity€„„€applicable€to€everyone€in€the€United€States€„„€isÐ `  Ðhardly€sufficient€to€remove€all€room€for€choice.€€òòSeeóó€òòShanskyóó€v.Ð  ð  ÐòòUnited€Statesóó,€164€F.3d€688,€691€(1st€Cir.€1999)€(concluding€thatÐ 0€  Ð"statements€at€[a€high]€level€of€generality€do€notÐ À Ðsatisfyòòóó...òòBerkovitzóó's€specific€prescription€requirement")òòóó.€€AÐ P  Ðmore€specific€directive€is€required€before€we€can€conclude€that€theÐ à0 ÐFourniers'€conduct€was€non„discretionary€in€the€sense€that€it€wasÐ pÀ Ðnot€"the€product€of€judgment€or€choice."€€òòBerkovitzóó,€486€U.S.€atÐ P Ð536.׃"×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð à Ðòòà ` àóóThe€Fagots'€argument€suffers€from€a€still€more€basicÐ  p Ðflaw.€€Although€they€acknowledge€that€the€Fourniers€hadÐ °  Ðdiscretionary€authority€in€general,€they€maintain€that€the€FagotsÐ ° Ðhad€no€discretion€to€violate€Puerto€Rican€landlord„tenant€orÐ @ Ðtrespass€law.€€The€crux€of€their€claim,€therefore,€is€that€theÐ Ð  ÐFourniers'€actions€were€non„discretionary€òòbecauseóó€they€wereÐ ` ° Ðwrongful.€€Ð ð @ Ðà ` àThat€argument€conflates€an€abuse€of€discretion€with€anÐ € Ð  Ðabsence€of€discretion.€€The€discretionary€function€exceptionÐ `  Ðexplicitly€extends€to€abuses€of€discretionary€authority.€€òòSeeóóÐ  ð  Ð28U.S.C.ðð1605(a)(5)(A)€(excepting€claims€based€on€the€exerciseÐ 0€  Ðof€discretion€"regardless€of€whether€the€discretion€be€abused").€Ð À Ð"The€exercise€of€discretion€could€not€be€abused€without€negligenceÐ P  Ðor€a€wrongful€act."€€òòDalehiteóó,€346€U.S.€at€33òòóó.€€Accordingly,€theÐ à0 Ðfact€that€the€Fourniers'€actions€may€have€been€wrongful€underÐ pÀ ÐPuerto€Rican€law€governing€landlord€and€tenant€relationshipsÐ P Ðcannot,€by€itself,€render€those€actions€non„discretionary.€€Ð à Ðà ` àIndeed,€the€Fagots'€interpretation€reads€theÐ  p Ðdiscretionary€function€exception€out€of€the€statute€entirely.€€AsÐ °  Ðexplained€above,€the€exception€functions€as€a€limitation€on€theÐ @" Ðgeneral€rule€that€a€foreign€sovereign€is€susceptible€to€suit€forÐ Ð $ Ðthe€tortious€acts€of€its€employees.€€The€only€cases€in€which€theÐ `"°& Ðexception€can€òòpossiblyóó€apply€are€those€in€which€a€foreign€sovereignÐ ð#@( Ðor€one€of€its€agents€or€employees€is€accused€of€a€wrongful,Ð €%Ð * Ðtortious€act.€€Thus,€if€a€tortious€act€were,€by€definition,€non„Ð '`", Ðdiscretionary,€the€discretionary€functions€exception€would€be€aÐ  (ð#. Ðdead€letter.€€òòSeeóó€òòFagot€Rodriguez€IVóó,€139€F.€Supp.€2d€at€190€n.16Ð 0*€%0 Ð(noting€that€the€Fagots'€argument€"effectively€means€that€CostaÐ À+'2 ÐRica,€as€a€result€of€that€innocuous€clause€[in€the€treaty],€mayÐ ° Ðnever€enjoy€sovereign€immunity€in€any€claim€dealing€with€embassyÐ @ Ðproperty€and€real€estate€since€any€claim€for€money€damages€underÐ Ð  Ðthe€FSIA€would€obviously€be€founded€on€a€violation€of€the€law").€Ð ` ° ÐWe€reject€such€a€reading€of€the€statute,€and€conclude€that€theÐ ð @ ÐFourniers'€conduct€was€"discretionary"€in€the€sense€that€itÐ € Ð  Ðinvolved€an€element€of€judgment€or€choice.€Ð `  Ðà ` àWe€turn,€therefore,€to€the€second€prong€of€the€test,€andÐ  ð  Ðask€whether€the€Fourniers'€choices€were€the€type€that€theÐ 0€  Ðdiscretionary€function€exception€was€designed€to€protect.€€As€weÐ À Ðhave€explained€in€the€context€of€the€FTCA,€the€critical€questionÐ P  Ðhere€is€"whether€the€acts€or€omissions€that€form€the€basis€of€theÐ à0 Ðsuit€are€susceptible€to€a€policy„driven€analysis"€or,€putÐ pÀ Ðdifferently,€"whether€some€plausible€policy€justification€couldÐ P Ðhave€undergirded€the€challenged€conduct."€òòShanskyóó,€164€F.3d€at€692;Ð à Ðòòaccordóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòGaubertóó,€499€U.S.€315,€325€(1991)Ð  p Ð(explaining€that€"[t]he€focus€of€the€inquiry€is€not€on€the€agent'sÐ °  Ðsubjective€intent€in€exercising€the€discretion...,€but€on€theÐ @" Ðnature€of€the€actions€taken€and€on€whether€they€are€susceptible€toÐ Ð $ Ðpolicy€analysis").€€The€Fourniers'€decisions€regarding€theÐ `"°& ÐConsulate€satisfy€that€standard.€€The€initial€choices€as€toÐ ð#@( Ðwhether,€where,€and€how€to€set€up€the€Consulate€clearly€implicatedÐ €%Ð * Ðpolicy€issues.€€òòSeeóó€òòMacArthur€Area€Citizens€Ass'nóó€v.€òòRep.€of€Peruóó,Ð '`", Ð809€F.2d€918,€922€(D.C.€Cir.€1987)€("It€is€beyond€serious€questionÐ  (ð#. Ðthat€establishing€a€chancery€in€the€District€of€Columbia€to€conductÐ 0*€%0 Ðforeign€relations€is€a€discretionary€public€policy€decision€andÐ À+'2 Ðthat€this€decision€undergirds€the€specific€acts€which€theÐ ° ÐAssociation€bewails.");€òòcf.óó€òòJosephóó,€830€F.2d€at€1020€n.1,€1027Ð @ Ð(concluding€that€"the€òòacquisition€and€operationóó€of€[a€consularÐ Ð  Ðresidence]€was€a€discretionary€policy€decision,"€but€finding€thatÐ ` ° Ðtenants'€"purely€destructive€acts"€„„€including€extensive€damage€toÐ ð @ Ðthe€property€and€the€removal€of€fully€grown€trees,€appliances,Ð € Ð  Ðfurniture,€light€fixtures,€shutters€and€drapes€„„€"can€hardly€beÐ `  Ðconsidered€part€of€[that]€policy€decision").€€The€same€is€true€ofÐ  ð  Ðthe€Fourniers'€actions€in€the€summer€of€1993,€when€they€wereÐ 0€  Ðconfronted€with€early€termination€of€the€lease€agreement€and€theÐ À ÐFagots'€demand€for€$5,000€monthly€rent.€€As€the€district€courtÐ P  Ðexplained:Ð à0 ÐÓÓà8 ` à[A]n€evaluation€of€the€range€of€alternativesÐ pÀ Ðavailable€to€the€[Fourniers]€at€the€time€ofÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€June€termination€notice€reveals€that€thereÐ P Ðwere€countervailing€political€and€economicÐ È Ðcosts€and€benefits€attendant€to€each€course€ofÐ à Ðaction.€€Perhaps€Costa€Rica€and€the€consulsÐ X¨ Ðcould€have€moved€the€Consulate€to€a€differentÐ  p Ðbuilding,€increased€their€diplomatic€relationsÐ è8 Ðbudget,€temporarily€shut€down€the€Consulate€orÐ °  Ðscrapped€it€altogether.€€However,€the€CourtÐ xÈ! Ðcannot€sit€in€de€novo€review€and€select€aÐ @" Ðlawful€alternative€that€would€have€beenÐ  X# Ðsuperior.ÓÿœÓÐÐ $` x` x ÐòòFagot€Rodriguez€IVóó,€139€F.€Supp.€2d€at€190.Ð `"°& Ðà ` àWe€agree,€and€hold€that€the€Fagots'€trespass€claims€areÐ ð#@( ÐÔ‡X8áXXX8áÔ"based€upon€the€exercise€or€performance€or€the€failure€to€exerciseÐ €%Ð * Ðor€perform€a€discretionary€function."€€28€U.S.C.€ðð1605(a)(5)(A).Ô#†X8áXXX8á¡#ÔÔ‡X8áXXX8áԀР'`", ÐAs€such,€they€are€excluded€from€the€exception€to€immunity€forÐ  (ð#. Ðtortious€activity.€Ô#†X8áXXX8áÞ¡#Ôò òÐ 0*€%0 ÐÐ À+'2 ÐÓ€ 1(š½88ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£j£ÝÔ2š½ÔÚ  ÚCÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝImmovable€Propertyó ó݃3£j£—£ÝŒÐ°` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  Ýà ` àThe€Fagots€contend€that€their€claims€fall€within€theÐ à Ðexception€to€sovereign€immunity€for€"any€case€in€which€.€.€.€rightsÐ  p Ðin€immovable€property€situated€in€the€United€States€are€at€issue."€Ð °  ÐòòId.óó€ðð1605(a)(4).€€The€district€court€disagreed,€reasoning€that€theÐ @  Ðimmovable€property€exception€extends€only€to€actions€involvingÐ Ð   Ðrights€to€"actual€possession€or€title."€€òòFagot€Rodriguez€IVóó,€139€F.Ð `°  ÐSupp.€2d€at€195.€€Neither€of€those€rights€is€at€issue€here:€€noneÐ ð@  Ðof€the€defendants€has€used€or€possessed€the€Fagots'€property€sinceÐ €Ð  ÐOctober€of€1994,€and€they€never€challenged€the€Fagots'€title.€Ð ` ÐThus,€the€only€right€at€stake€is€the€Fagots'€right€to€compensationÐ  ð Ðfor€non„payment€of€rent€or€for€trespass.€€Like€the€district€court,Ð 0€ Ðwe€conclude€that€purely€compensatory€rights,€without€more,€areÐ À Ðinsufficient€to€sustain€jurisdiction€under€the€immovable€propertyÐ P  Ðexception.€òòóóÐ à0 Ðà ` àThe€legislative€history€to€the€FSIA€indicates€that€theÐ pÀ Ðimmovable€property€exception€was€intended€to€codify€existingÐ P  Ðinternational€practice.€€òòSeeóó€House€Report,€òòsupraóó,€at€*20.€€UnderÐ à" Ðthat€practice,€a€foreign€sovereign€generally€was€not€immune€fromÐ  !p$ Ð"an€action€to€obtain€possession€of€or€establish€a€property€interestÐ °"& Ðin€immovable€property€located€in€the€territory€of€the€stateÐ @$( Ðexercising€jurisdiction."€€òòRestatement€(Second)€of€ForeignÐ Ð% !* ÐRelations€Law€of€the€United€Statesóó€ðð68(b)€(1965),€òòquotedóó€òòinóóÐ `'°", ÐòòAsociacion€de€Reclamantesóó€v.€òòUnited€Mexican€Statesóó,€735€F.2d€1517,Ð ð(@$. Ð1521€(D.C.€Cir.€1984).€€However,€the€exception€to€immunity€forÐ €*Ð%0 Ðclaims€involving€immovable€property€did€not€extend€to€cases,€suchÐ ,`'2 Ðas€slip„and„fall€suits€seeking€damages€for€injury€suffered€on€aÐ ° Ðforeign€state's€property,€in€which€the€state's€title€or€rights€ofÐ @ Ðuse€and€possession€were€not€contested.€€òòSeeóó€òòRestatementóó,€òòsupraóó,Ð Ð  Ððð68(b)€cmt.€d.Ð ` ° Ðà ` àThe€traditional€real€property€exception€was€founded€onÐ ð @ Ðthe€view€that€"[a]€territorial€sovereign€has€a€primeval€interest€inÐ € Ð  Ðresolving€all€disputes€over€use€or€right€to€use€of€real€propertyÐ `  Ðwithin€its€own€domain."€€òòAsociacion€de€Reclamantesóó,€735€F.2d€atÐ  ð  Ð1521.€€Such€disputes€not€only€implicate€core€sovereignty€interests;Ð 0€  Ðthey€also€raise€questions€of€institutional€competence.€€Put€simply,Ð À Ðforeign€courts€typically€are€"not€well€equipped€to€decide€propertyÐ P  Ðinterests€or€rights€to€possession€with€regard€to€land€outside€theirÐ à0 Ðjurisdiction,€particularly€land€located€in€a€foreign€nation."€€òòId.óó€Ð pÀ ÐThus,€it€is€important€for€property€disputes€to€be€adjudicated€byÐ P Ðlocal€courts,€notwithstanding€foreign€sovereign€immunity.Ð à Ðà ` àThose€concerns€suggest€that€the€immovable€propertyÐ  p Ðexception€"was€not€intended€broadly€to€abrogate€immunity€for€anyÐ °  Ðaction€touching€upon€real€estate."€€òòMacArthur€Area€Citizens€Ass'nóó,Ð @" Ð809€F.2d€at€921.€€Rather,€like€the€traditional€exception€it€wasÐ Ð $ Ðintended€to€codify,€its€purpose€is€to€permit€jurisdiction€in€casesÐ `"°& Ðwhere€the€United€States'€interests€in€adjudicating€the€dispute€areÐ ð#@( Ðparticularly€strong.€€It€is€difficult€to€understand€how€a€simpleÐ €%Ð * Ðcontract€dispute€over€nonpayment€of€rent€„„€without€more€„„€fallsÐ '`", Ðwithin€that€category.€€The€Fagots€do€not€cite,€nor€can€we€find,€anyÐ  (ð#. Ðcase€so€holding.€€To€the€contrary,€courts€have€construed€theÐ 0*€%0 Ðimmovable€property€exception€to€apply€only€in€cases€that€implicateÐ À+'2 Ðrights€of€ownership,€use,€or€possession.ò òó óÔ‡X8áXXX8áÔ€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòCity€ofÐ ° ÐEnglewoodóó€v.€òòSocialist€People's€Libyan€Arab€Jamahiriyaóó,€773€F.2dÐ @ Ð31,€36€(3d€Cir.€1985)€(describing€immovable€property€exception€asÐ Ð  Ða€"title€dispute€exception"€codifying€"the€recognized€principle€ofÐ ` ° Ðinternational€law€that€a€sovereign€may€resolve€disputes€over€titleÐ ð @ Ðto€real€estate€within€its€geographic€limits");€òòcf.óó€òòLoganóó€v.€òòDupuisóó,Ð € Ð  Ð990€F.€Supp.€26,€29€(D.D.C.€1997)€(interpreting€the€analogousÐ `  Ðexception€to€diplomatic€immunity€to€exclude€suits€for€breach€of€aÐ  ð  Ðrental€contract).Ð 0€  ÐÔ#†X8áXXX8áxµ#Ôò òó óà ` àIn€support€of€their€expansive€reading€of€the€immovableÐ À Ðproperty€exception,€the€Fagots€point€to€the€legislative€history€ofÐ P  Ðthe€FSIA.€€They€emphasize€certain€language€in€the€House€ReportÐ à0 Ðsuggesting€that€the€pre„existing€real€property€exception€toÐ pÀ Ðsovereign€immunity€extended€to€suits€involving€"questions€ofÐ P Ðownership,€òòrentóó,€servitudes,€and€similar€matters."€€House€Report,Ð à Ðòòsupraóó,€at€*20€(emphasis€added).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€do€not€believe€that€oneÐ  p Ðpassing€reference€to€"rent"€in€the€legislative€history€isÐ °  Ðsufficient€to€show€that€Congress€intended€the€immovable€propertyÐ @" Ðexception€to€apply€broadly€to€garden„variety€contract€disputes€inÐ Ð $ Ðwhich€title€or€possession€is€not€in€dispute.€€As€the€courtÐ `"°& Ðexplained€in€òòAsociacion€de€Reclamantesóó,€735€F.2d€at€1522€n.5,Ð ð#@( Ð"actions€for€rent€frequently€involve€issues€of€title€andÐ €%Ð * Ðpossession."€€Thus,€the€reference€to€"rent"€in€the€House€ReportÐ '`", Ð"does€not€establish€any€departure€from€the€traditional€principleÐ ° Ðthat€the€real€estate€exception€to€sovereign€immunity€is€bounded€byÐ @ Ðconcern€for€those€issues."€€òòId.óóÐ Ð  Ðà ` àThe€Fagots€also€rely€on€the€òòRestatement€(Third)€ofÐ ` ° ÐForeign€Relationsóó€ðð455,Ô‡X8áXXX8áÔ€cmt.€b,€which€states€that€the€immovableÐ ð @ Ðproperty€exception€includes€"controversies€concerning€payment€ofÐ € Ð  Ðrent,€taxes,€and€other€fees€concerning€[consular€premises]."€€Ô#†X8áXXX8áÔ¾#ÔLikeÐ `  Ðthe€legislative€history,€however,€the€òòRestatementóó€is€silent€on€theÐ  ð  Ðquestion€whether€such€controversies€are€cognizable€when€theyÐ 0€  Ðinvolve€òòonlyóó€the€payment€of€rent€or€other€debts.€€Comment€b€toÐ À Ððð455€states€in€full:Ð P  ÐÓÓà8 ` àTitle€to€land€and€to€buildings€on€landÐ à0 Ðtraditionally€is€subject€to€adjudication€byÐ ¨ø Ðthe€courts€of€the€state€where€the€land€isÐ pÀ Ðsituated.€The€fact€that€the€land€(orÐ 8ˆ Ðbuildings,€apartments,€or€appurtenances)€inÐ P Ðcontroversy€is€owned€or€leased€by€a€foreignÐ È Ðstate€does€not€detract€from€the€desirabilityÐ à Ðof€adjudicating€controversies€in€local€courts.€Ð X¨ ÐPremises€used€for€an€embassy,€consulate,€orÐ  p Ðdiplomatic€mission€come€under€this€rule,€soÐ è8 Ðthat€controversies€relating€to€rights€ofÐ °  Ðownership,€possession,€occupation,€or€use,€asÐ xÈ! Ðwell€as€controversies€concerning€payment€ofÐ @" Ðrent,€taxes,€and€other€fees€concerning€suchÐ  X# Ðpremises€are€subject€to€adjudication€in€localÐ Ð $ Ðcourts.И!è%` x` x ÐÌÓ3ÁÓThe€phrase€"as€well€as"€€certainly€òòcouldóó€mean€that€"controversiesÐ (#x' Ðconcerning€the€payment€of€rent"€can,€by€themselves,€supportÐ ¸$ ) Ðjurisdiction€under€the€immovable€property€exception.€€However,€itÐ H&˜!+ Ðalso€could€mean€that€a€plaintiff€can€recover€"rent,€taxes,€andÐ Ø'(#- Ðother€fees"€in€the€process€of€adjudicating€"rights€of€ownership,Ð h)¸$/ Ðpossession,€occupation€or€use."€€The€latter€reading€finds€supportÐ ø*H&1 Ðin€the€first€sentence€of€the€comment,€which€emphasizes€theÐ ˆ,Ø'3 Ðtraditional€importance€of€settling€questions€about€"title"€to€realÐ ° Ðproperty.€€Although€actions€for€rent€sometimes€involve€suchÐ @ Ðquestions,€a€simple€controversy€over€the€breach€of€a€rentalÐ Ð  Ðcontract€„„€unaccompanied€by€issues€of€ownership,€possession,€orÐ ` ° Ðuse€„„€usually€will€not€implicate€the€special€concerns€regardingÐ ð @ Ðreal€property€located€on€United€States€territory.€€Ð € Ð  Ðà ` àWe€conclude€that€the€immovable€property€exception€appliesÐ `  Ðonly€in€cases€in€which€rights€of€ownership,€use,€or€possession€areÐ  ð  Ðat€issue.€€As€noted,€those€rights€are€not€implicated€here:€€theÐ 0€  Ðdefendants€voluntarily€vacated€the€property€in€October€of€1994,€andÐ À Ðthey€never€questioned€the€Fagots'€ownership.€€The€only€remainingÐ P  Ðdispute€concerns€Costa€Rica's€liability€for€non„payment€of€rent.€Ð à0 ÐThe€peculiar€circumstances€of€this€case€should€not€obscure€the€factÐ pÀ Ðthat€such€a€dispute€is,€first€and€foremost,€a€contract€dispute.€Ð P ÐThus,€plaintiffs€seeking€to€recover€unpaid€rent€usually€will€beÐ à Ðable€to€proceed€under€the€commercial€activity€exception€to€foreignÐ  p Ðsovereign€immunity.€€Ð °  Ðà ` àThat€approach€may€fail€where€„„€as€here€„„€the€foreignÐ @" Ðsovereign€did€not€in€fact€agree€to€pay€the€rent€demanded.€€However,Ð Ð $ Ðthe€possibility€that€jurisdiction€will€be€lacking€in€some€casesÐ `"°& Ðshould€not€lead€us€to€adopt€an€unduly€broad€reading€of€theÐ ð#@( Ðimmovable€property€exception.€€The€very€purpose€of€the€FSIA€is€toÐ €%Ð * Ðrestrict€the€class€of€cases€in€which€United€States€courts€canÐ '`", Ðadjudicate€claims€against€foreign€sovereigns.€€As€we€have€seen,Ð  (ð#. Ðeach€of€the€exceptions€to€the€FSIA€Ô‡X8áXXX8áÔhas€its€own€specificÐ 0*€%0 Ðrequirements€designed€to€identify€cases€in€which€immunity€is€or€isÐ À+'2 Ðnot€appropriate.Ô#†X8áXXX8áyÏ#Ô€€Plaintiffs€should€not€Ô‡X8áXXX8áÔbe€allowed€to€circumventÐ ° Ðthose€requirements€simply€because€their€claims€are€somehow€relatedÐ @ Ðto€real€property.€Ô#†X8áXXX8ácÐ#Ôò òó óÐ Ð  ÐÓ  Óò òIII.Ð ` ° Ðó óÓ  Óà ` àOne€final€matter€requires€our€attention.€€The€FagotsÐ @  Ðclaim€that€Costa€Rica€failed€to€produce€certain€documents€in€itsÐ Ð   Ðpossession€relevant€to€the€exceptions€for€commercial€and€tortiousÐ `°  Ðactivity.€€They€argue€that€the€district€court€erred€in€enteringÐ ð@  Ðjudgment€"without€affording€[the€Fagots]€an€opportunity€to€concludeÐ €Ð  Ðjurisdictional€discovery"€as€to€those€exceptions,€and€withoutÐ ` Ðimposing€sanctions€on€Costa€Rica€for€its€failure€to€comply€with€theÐ  ð ÐFagots'€discovery€requests.€€òòSeeóó€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€37(d)€(authorizingÐ 0€ Ðsanctions€for€discovery€misconduct).€€"We€review€a€district€court'sÐ À Ðhandling€of€pretrial€matters,€including€discovery,€for€an€abuse€ofÐ P  Ðdiscretion."€€òòCummingsóó€v.€òòStandard€Register€Co.óó,€265€F.3d€56,€68Ð à0 Ð(1st€Cir.€2001);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòGuexóó€v.€òòAllmerica€Fin.€Life€Ins.€&Ð pÀ ÐAnnuity€Co.óó,€146€F.3d€40,€41€(1st€Cir.€1998)€(explaining€thatÐ P  Ðdistrict€court's€decisions€regarding€sanctions€under€Rule€37€areÐ à" Ðsubject€to€abuse€of€discretion€review).€€Assuming,€òòarguendoóó,€thatÐ  !p$ Ðthe€requested€documents€might€have€been€important€in€establishingÐ °"& Ðan€implied€contract€or€a€non„discretionary€tort,€we€find€no€abuseÐ @$( Ðhere.€€Ð Ð% !* Ðà ` àThe€Fagots€do€not€seriously€dispute€that€the€districtÐ `'°", Ðcourt€gave€them€an€adequate€òòopportunityóó€to€conduct€discovery.€€TheyÐ ð(@$. Ðargue€instead€that€the€court€did€not€do€enough€to€ensure€that€CostaÐ €*Ð%0 ÐRica€responded€to€their€requests€for€documents.€€However,€they€haveÐ ,`'2 Ðgiven€us€no€basis€to€believe€that€any€problem€existed€for€theÐ ° Ðdistrict€court€to€remedy.€€Costa€Rica€insists€that€it€turned€overÐ @ Ðall€the€documents€in€its€possession,€and€the€Fagots€have€notÐ Ð  Ðsuggested€any€reason€why€we€should€doubt€that€claim.€€Ð ` ° Ðà ` àNor€did€the€Fagots€present€a€coherent€claim€of€discoveryÐ ð @ Ðabuse€to€the€district€court.€€Ô‡X8áXXX8áÔAs€noted€above,€the€court€firstÐ € Ð  Ðentered€summary€judgment€for€Costa€Rica€and€the€Consulate€in€itsÐ `  Ð1996€decision€in€òòFagot€Rodriguez€Ióó.€€The€Fagots€moved€forÐ  ð  Ðreconsideration€and€for€additional€discovery,€and€the€court€allowedÐ 0€  Ðthem€60€days€for€discovery€on€the€commercial€and€tortious€activityÐ À Ðexceptions.€€At€that€point,€the€Fagots€submitted€a€request€forÐ P  Ðdocuments,€which€they€claim€Costa€Rica€ignored.€€(Costa€RicaÐ à0 Ðresponds€that€the€request€mirrored€an€earlier€request€forÐ pÀ Ðproduction,€with€which€they€already€had€complied€fully.)€€AlthoughÐ P Ðthe€Fagots€mentioned€the€matter€at€a€hearing€in€1997€„„€prior€toÐ à Ðthe€court's€decision€in€òòFagot€Rodriguez€IIó󀄄€they€never€lodged€aÐ  p Ðformal€objection€regarding€Costa€Rica's€alleged€non„compliance,€orÐ °  Ðmoved€to€compel€disclosure€under€Rule€37(a)(2).€€Instead,€theyÐ @" Ðforged€ahead€with€their€motion€for€summary€judgment,€relying€onÐ Ð $ Ðfacts€obtained€through€a€request€for€admissions.€€Indeed,€betweenÐ `"°& Ðthe€hearing€in€1997€and€the€court's€final€decision€in€2001,€theÐ ð#@( ÐFagots€did€not€mention€the€discovery€issue.€€Given€that€history,€weÐ €%Ð * Ðhave€no€trouble€concluding€that€the€district€court€did€not€abuseÐ '`", Ðits€discretion€by€failing€to€take€some€unspecified€initiativeÐ  (ð#. Ðdirected€at€some€unspecified€discovery€abuse€by€Costa€Rica.Ð 0*€%0 Ðà ` àò òòòAffirmedóó.ó óÔ#†X8áXXX8á¤Ú#Ô