Whether non-immune foreign sovereign entities may raise a defense of international comity (exhaustion)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Whether non-immune foreign sovereign entities may raise a defense of international comity (exhaustion) when the defense is not barred by the FSIA, the availability of the defense is important to the United States’ foreign policy interests, private parties may raise such a defense, and this Court held last term that non-immune foreign sovereign entities must be treated like private parties, see Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Found., 142 S. Ct. 1502, 1508-10 (2022)? (2) Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 and this Court’s decision in Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851 (2008), which recognizes that an action must be dismissed where there is a possibility that a continued action could harm the interests of an immune foreign sovereign, bar this case from proceeding because the owner of the claimed property and the source of respondents’ injuries is an immune sovereign, its interests in the case are not frivolous, and, as acknowledged by the court of appeals, the immune sovereign’s interests will be adversely affected if the case continues?