Oliver Hilsenrath v. Equity Trust (Jersey) Limited, et al, No. 08-15726 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 02 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OLIVER HILSENRATH, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 08-15726 D.C. No. 07-CV-04162-CW v. MEMORANDUM * EQUITY TRUST (JERSEY) LIMITED and CANDOVER INVESTMENTS PLC, Defendants - Appellees. HANA HILSENRATH and OLIVER HILSENRATH, No. 08-15728 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.