From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hilsenrath v. Credit Suisse

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 302
Nov 2, 2010
402 F. App'x 301 (9th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 08-15230.

Submitted October 19, 2010.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed November 2, 2010.

Hana Hilsenrath, Washington, DC, pro se.

Oliver Hilsenrath, Washington, DC, pro se.

Yohance Claude Edwards, Esquire, Trial, Munger Tolles Olson, LLP, San Francisco, CA, George Michael Garvey, Esquire, Munger, Tolles Olson, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, William H. Alsup, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-07-05374-WHA.

Before: O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Hana Hilsenrath and Oliver Hilsenrath appeal pro se the district court's dismissal of their action against Credit Suisse and the United Bank of Switzerland alleging that the banks failed to warn them through a product-warning label that the banks would not comply with the United States Constitution and its provisions to protect the constitutional right to property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is de novo, Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's Order filed on January 10, 2008.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Hilsenrath v. Credit Suisse

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 302
Nov 2, 2010
402 F. App'x 301 (9th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

Hilsenrath v. Credit Suisse

Case Details

Full title:Hana HILSENRATH and Oliver Hilsenrath, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CREDIT…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 302

Date published: Nov 2, 2010

Citations

402 F. App'x 301 (9th Cir. 2010)