OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING MOTION FOR PRE-ANSWER JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY In December 2019, Plaintiffs brought parallel lawsuits in this Court and the English High Court of Justice, demanding compensation for certain consulting services provided to Defendants Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Consumer Protection Association. See ECF No. 10. Defendants now move to dismiss the Complaint against them, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §1602 et seq. and under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. See ECF No. 50. In connection with Defendants’ motion, Plaintiffs seek pre-answer jurisdictional discovery on sovereign immunity issues. See ECF No. 89. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted, and Plaintiffs’ motion for pre-answer discovery is denied. BACKGROUND The instant case stemmed from a contract dispute between the parties for the payment of consulting services. See Am. Compl. (ECF No. 10), at 1. Plaintiff Consulting Concepts International, Inc. (“CCI”) is a corporation organized and headquartered in the State of New York. See id. at 6. Plaintiff Massimiliano Pincione (“Pincione”), a New York resident, is CCI’s principal and shareholder. See id. at 7. In June 2013, Defendant Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (“Saudi Arabia”), through Defendant Consumer Protection Association (“CPA”), its agency or instrumentality, retained Plaintiffs to perform certain asthma — and non-asthma-related consulting services in Saudi Arabia. See id. at
11, 35. On June 4, 2013, CPA and CCI executed a contract (the “Contract”) setting forth the parties’ responsibilities. See Br. (ECF No. 87), Ex. C. The Contract provides, among other things, that CCI and CPA “will collaborate to develop and implement strategies, programs and public policies to address the root causes of Asthma, its prevalent misdiagnosis, treatment compliance and pediatric continuing-education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as well as to promote proven therapeutic protocols to enhance and improve the life of Saudi Arabia’s youth.” Id. at 1. The Contract also provides that “[t]he parties [ ] will submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United Kingdom for any and all disputes arising from this agreement.” Id. at 1. Plaintiffs assert that they completed asthma — and non-asthma-related consulting services as of January 2014, and that Defendants have not made any payments to Plaintiffs on account of their services. See Am. Compl., at
