From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hilsenrath v. Credit Suisse

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 2, 2010
402 F. App'x 300 (9th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

Nos. 08-15726, 08-15728.

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.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Claudia A. Wilken, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. Nos. 07-CV-04162-CW, 07-CV-03312-CW.

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



MEMORANDUM

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

Oliver and Hana Hilsenrath appeal pro se the district court's Orders dismissing their actions against Equity Trust and other foreign corporations and citizens, alleging RICO violations, malicious prosecution, extortion, obstruction of justice and violations of due process arising from a 2001 settlement agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is de novo, Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the claims against Candover Investments PLC, Insinger de Beaufort Holdings SA, and Jardine Matheson Holdings Limited because it lacked personal jurisdiction over these non-resident defendants. See Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre he Racisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1205 (9th Cir. 2006) (requiring a non-resident to have "substantial, continuous, and systematic" contacts in a forum for a court to exercise general jurisdiction, and "purposefully direct" activities and transactions within the forum for a court to exercise specific jurisdiction).

The district court also properly dismissed the claims against Equity Trust (Jersey) Limited and its executives on the ground that Jersey is an adequate alternative forum and the balance of private and public interest factors favors dismissal. See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 254 n. 22, 257, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981).

AFFIRMED

Appellee's motion to take judicial notice is denied as unnecessary.


Summaries of

Hilsenrath v. Credit Suisse

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 2, 2010
402 F. App'x 300 (9th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

Hilsenrath v. Credit Suisse

Case Details

Full title:Oliver HILSENRATH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EQUITY TRUST (JERSEY) LIMITED…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 2, 2010

Citations

402 F. App'x 300 (9th Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig.

Defendants contend that none of the intentional acts demonstrated that Lion Capital or its employees acted…