Case Name: ISRAEL DISCOUNT BANK, LTD., Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee, v. Moshe SCHNAPP, an individual, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-10
Citations: 321 F. App'x 700
Docket Number: No. 07-56318
Parties: ISRAEL DISCOUNT BANK, LTD., Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee, v. Moshe SCHNAPP, an individual, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, BEA, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 321
Pages: 700–701

Head Matter:
ISRAEL DISCOUNT BANK, LTD., Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee, v. Moshe SCHNAPP, an individual, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant.
No. 07-56318.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 9, 2009.
Filed April 10, 2009.
Ronald F. Frank, Esquire, Bannan, Green, Frank & Terzian, LLP, Los Ange-les, CA, Kevin C. McCann, Esquire, Sean D. Unger, Esquire, Paul Hastings Janof-sky & Walker, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee.
Paul M. Kelley, Esquire, Donfeld, Kelley & Rollman, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant.
Before: KLEINFELD, BEA, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The district court did not err by ruling on Israel Discount Bank Ltd.'s motion to dismiss Moshe Schnapp's counterclaim for forum non conveniens before determining whether it had jurisdiction. See Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malay. Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 425, 127 S.Ct. 1184, 167 L.Ed.2d 15 (2007). The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Schnapp's counterclaim and remanded the remainder of the case to state court. Leetsch v. Freedman, 260 F.3d 1100, 1102 (9th Cir.2001). Therefore, the district court's order is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.