Shahar v. Ofek et al

Filing 49

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants Sigalit Ofek, Naftali Shilo, Einat Meshulam, Lauren Akuka, Gideon Sa'ar, and Esther Hayut are immune from suit and are DISMI SSED from Plaintiff's Complaint. (Dkt. # 1 ). It is further ORDERED that Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. # 32 ), is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint, (Dkt. # 1 ), is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE with res pect to the federal claims. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's state law claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the refiling of the same in the appropriate state court, if one exists. Signed by District Judge Sean D. Jordan on 3/26/2024. (RPC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
RON SHAHAR,
v.

Plaintiff,

SIGALIT OFEK, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-00632SDJ-AGD

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Came on for consideration the Report and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), this matter having been referred to the
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Magistrate Judge’s Report, (Dkt.
#44), includes proposed findings of fact and a recommendation that the Joint Motion
to Dismiss, (Dkt. #32), be granted. Plaintiff Ron Shahar timely filed an objection to
the Report. (Dkt. #47). Having received the Report, reviewed Shahar’s objections, and
conducted a de novo review, the Court determines that the Magistrate Judge’s Report
should be adopted. The Court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the Court, with the following
additions and modifications.
First, the Court emphasizes the Report’s finding that there is no personal
jurisdiction over any of the Defendants. (Dkt. #44 at 18–19). Even if personal
jurisdiction over the Defendants existed, the Israeli Judicial Official Defendants are
immune from suit. Accordingly, the Court modifies the Report to state that the Israeli

1

Judicial Official Defendants are immune from suit under the common law, not the
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (“FSIA”), which governs foreign state
immunity. Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305, 325, 130 S.Ct. 2278, 176 L.Ed.2d 1047
(2010). Foreign officials are governed by the common law, which provides that
“foreign government officials acting [in] their official capacity . . . are entitled to
immunity.” Eliahu v. Jewish Agency for Israel, 919 F.3d 709, 712 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing
Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250, 252, 18 S.Ct. 83, 42 L.Ed. 456 (1897)).
Although the Magistrate Judge concluded that the foreign officials are immune under
FSIA, that basis for immunity was not correct. Additionally, the Report concluded
that the Israeli Judicial Official Defendants were immune from liability under FSIA,
(Dkt. #44 at p. 21); however, as stated above, the Israeli Judicial Official Defendants
are immune from suit pursuant to common law.
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants Sigalit Ofek, Naftali Shilo, Einat
Meshulam, Lauren Akuka, Gideon Sa’ar, and Esther Hayut are immune from suit
and are DISMISSED from Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Dkt. #1).
It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. #32),
is GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, (Dkt. #1), is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE with respect to the federal claims.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s state law claim is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the refiling of the same in the appropriate state court,
if one exists.

2

It is further ORDERED and that any request for relief not addressed by the
Report is denied as MOOT.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 26th day of March, 2024.

____________________________________
SEAN D. JORDAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3