Oliver Hilsenrath v. EQUITY TRUST (JERSEY) LIMITED and CANDOVER INVESTMENTS PLC

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OLIVER HILSENRATH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EQUITY TRUST (JERSEY) LIMITED
and CANDOVER INVESTMENTS PLC,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-15726
D.C. No. 07-CV-04162-CW
MEMORANDUM*
HANA HILSENRATH and OLIVER
HILSENRATH,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
EQUITY TRUST (JERSEY) LIMITED; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-15728
D.C. No. 07-CV-03312-CW
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Claudia A. Wilken, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
NOV 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
08-15726, 08-15728 -2-
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).

-- 2 of 3 --

Appellee’s motion to take judicial notice is denied as unecessary.1
08-15726, 08-15728 -3-
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

-- 3 of 3 --