HANA HILSENRATH and OLIVER HILSENRATH v. the Swiss Confederation;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HANA HILSENRATH and OLIVER
HILSENRATH,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
NANA HILSENRATH; et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE SWISS CONFEDERATION; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 07-17127
D.C. No. CV-07-02782-WHA
MEMORANDUM*
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.
FILED
NOV 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-17127 -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 of 2 --