UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE No. 20-36024 LIMITED, D.C. No. 2:18-cv- Petitioner-Appellee, 01360-TSZ CC/DEVAS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED; DEVAS MULTIMEDIA ORDER AMERICA, INC.; DEVAS EMPLOYEES MAURITIUS PRIVATE LIMITED; TELCOM DEVAS MAURITIUS LIMITED,

Appellees-Intervenors,

v. ANTRIX CORP. LTD.,

Respondent-Appellant.

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE No. 22-35085 LIMITED, D.C. No. 2:18-cv- Petitioner-Appellant, 01360-TSZ 2 DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LTD. V. ANTRIX CORP. LTD.

CC/DEVAS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED; TELCOM DEVAS MAURITIUS LIMITED; DEVAS MULTIMEDIA AMERICA, INC.; DEVAS EMPLOYEES MAURITIUS PRIVATE LIMITED,

Intervenor-Plaintiffs- Appellees,

v. ANTRIX CORP. LTD.,

Respondent.

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE No. 22-35103 LIMITED, D.C. No. 2:18-cv- Petitioner, 01360-TSZ and CC/DEVAS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED; DEVAS MULTIMEDIA AMERICA, INC.; DEVAS EMPLOYEES MAURITIUS PRIVATE LIMITED; TELCOM DEVAS MAURITIUS LIMITED, DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LTD. V. ANTRIX CORP. LTD. 3

Intervenor-Plaintiffs- Appellees,

v. ANTRIX CORP. LTD.,

Respondent-Appellant.

Filed February 6, 2024

Before: Eric D. Miller and Lucy H. Koh, Circuit Judges, and Donald W. Molloy, * District Judge.

Order; Statement by Judge O’Scannlain; Dissent by Judge Bumatay

SUMMARY **

Personal Jurisdiction / Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

The panel filed an order denying petitions for rehearing en banc and directing that no further petitions will be * The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 4 DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LTD. V. ANTRIX CORP. LTD.

entertained, in a case in which the panel held that the district court erred in exercising personal jurisdiction over Antrix Corp. Ltd., an Indian corporation, under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, because plaintiff failed to establish that Antrix had the requisite minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction. In a statement respecting the denial of rehearing en banc, Judge O’Scannlain wrote that he agreed with the views expressed by Judge Bumatay in his dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc. Dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, Judge Bumatay, joined by Judges Callahan, Ikuta, Bennett, R. Nelson, and VanDyke, wrote that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, governing when foreign states may be sued in federal court, does not require plaintiffs to also prove “minimum contacts” to assert personal jurisdiction over a foreign state, and this court’s error in holding otherwise should be corrected through rehearing en banc.

ORDER

The panel has unanimously voted to deny the petitions for rehearing en banc. Judge Miller and Judge Koh have voted to deny the petitions for rehearing en banc, and Judge Molloy so recommends. The full court has been advised of the petitions for rehearing en banc. A judge of the court requested a vote on en banc rehearing. The matter failed to receive a majority of votes of non-recused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35(f). DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LTD. V. ANTRIX CORP. LTD. 5

The petitions for rehearing en banc, (20-36024 Dkts. No. 111, 112; 22-35085 Dkt. No. 56; 22-35103 Dkt. No. 63), are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be en