Oliver Hilsenrath v. Equity Trust (Jersey) Limited , 402 F. App'x 300 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OLIVER HILSENRATH, No. 08-15726
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 07-CV-04162-CW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
EQUITY TRUST (JERSEY) LIMITED
and CANDOVER INVESTMENTS PLC,
Defendants - Appellees.
HANA HILSENRATH and OLIVER No. 08-15728
HILSENRATH,
D.C. No. 07-CV-03312-CW
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
EQUITY TRUST (JERSEY) LIMITED; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Claudia A. Wilken, District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Submitted October 19, 2010 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.
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 Le 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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
-2- 08-15726, 08-15728
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 (1981).
AFFIRMED 1.
1
Appellee’s motion to take judicial notice is denied as unecessary.
-3- 08-15726, 08-15728