notes. Defendants maintain that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, in light of FSIA immunity, as to Plaintiff’s remaining claim for breach of contract and the affirmátive pleading of equitable estoppel. The Court will consider these arguments when addressing these specific claims below. 11 . Neither .party suggests that analysis of this issue differs as to the Venezuelan Ministry of Finance. 12 . Moreover, as Price recognized “[u]nlike private entities, foreign nations are the juridical equals of the government that seeks to assert jurisdiction over them.” 294 F.3d at 98. 13 . To the extent Defendants contend that the FSIA, itself, requires a constitutional due process analysis, this contention is at odds with the Supreme Court’s notation in Samantar, 130 S.Ct. at 2292 n. 20 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). 14 . The Court will address
recognizing that the fsia makes personal jurisdiction over a foreign state automatic when an exception to immunity applies and service of process has been accomplished in accordance with 28 usc  1608 holding that under the fsia personal jurisdiction   depends upon the district court finding subject matter jurisdiction under 28 usc  1330a and proper service under 28 usc  1608 holding that under the fsia personal jurisdiction equals subject matter jurisdiction plus valid service of process recognizing exception recognizing the need for limited jurisdictional discovery to establish exception to the fsia