level, and (2) this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over Defendants would not comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Plaintiff, on the other hand, asserts that the constitutional prerequisites for personal jurisdiction do not apply in this case because a foreign state is not a person within the meaning of the due process clause. For the purposes of statutory jurisdiction, 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 U.S.C. § 1608.” Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305, 130 S.Ct. 2278, 2292 n. 20, 176 L.Ed.2d 1047 (2010) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b)); see also Gould, Inc. v. Pechiney Ugine Kuhlmann, 853 F.2d 445, 454 (6th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). For the purposes of personal jurisdiction,
holding that where jurisdiction was based on 28 usc  2201 venue was determined as per 28 usc  1391 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 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 venue for litigation was proper based on 28 usc  1441 regardless of whether defendant was doing business in the district within the meaning of 28 usc  1391 holding that under the fsia personal jurisdiction equals subject matter jurisdiction plus valid service of process