Hilsenrath, et al v. Swiss Confederation, et al, No. 07-17127 (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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 02 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HANA HILSENRATH and OLIVER HILSENRATH, No. 07-17127 D.C. No. CV-07-02782-WHA Plaintiffs - Appellants, MEMORANDUM * and NANA HILSENRATH; et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE SWISS CONFEDERATION; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William H. Alsup, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 19, 2010 Before: ** O SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Hana Hilsenrath and Oliver Hilsenrath appeal pro se the district court s judgment dismissing their action against the Swiss Confederation and Swiss government officials alleging violation of their rights under the United States Constitution. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Af-Cap, Inc. v. Chevron Overseas (Congo) Ltd., 475 F.3d 1080, 1085-86 (9th Cir. 2007) , and we affirm. The Hilsenraths alleged that the Swiss Confederation, the Federal Attorney General of Switzerland and an employee of the Swiss Attorney General violated the Hilsenraths constitutional rights when they froze the Hilsenraths Swiss bank assets during the course of a criminal investigation into allegedly illicit financial dealings. The district court properly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Swiss government and its employees are immune from this action under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602 et seq. ( FSIA ) and the Hilsenraths did not establish the applicability of any of the FSIA s exceptions to sovereign immunity. See Security Pacific Nat. Bank v. Derderian, 872 F.2d 281, 285 (9th Cir. 1989) (if the claim does not fall within one of the exceptions, the court cannot entertain the action and it must dismiss the action against the foreign state). AFFIRMED. -2- 07-17127
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.
