Opinion ID: 602903
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Grant of Summary Judgment for the Mexican Defendants

Text: 16 The district court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the Mexican Consulate and the consulate defendants on two grounds. First, it found that it lacked personal jurisdiction due to improper service over the Consulate itself and two individual defendants--Garcia and Uribe. Regarding the two remaining individual defendants, Escobar and Silva, the district court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over them because they were immune under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Vienna Convention). 21 U.S.T. 77. We affirm the district court in both respects. 17 A district court's ruling on whether or not there is personal jurisdiction is reviewed de novo. Bourassa v. Desrochers, 938 F.2d 1056, 1057 (9th Cir.1991). Whether or not the district court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law which we review de novo. Gerritsen v. de la Madrid Hurtado, 819 F.2d 1511 (9th Cir.1987); see also Joseph v. Office of the Consulate General of Nigeria, 830 F.2d 1018 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 905, 108 S.Ct. 1077, 99 L.Ed.2d 236 (1988). We accept the factual findings on which the district court bases its jurisdictional conclusions as correct unless they are clearly erroneous. Reebok Int'l, Ltd. v. Marnatech Enterprises, Inc., 970 F.2d 552, 554 (9th Cir.1992).

18 Gerritsen sued the four individual Mexican defendants in both their individual and official capacities. 4 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d), in order to serve the defendants properly in their individual capacity, Gerritsen was required to serve them either personally or by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at their usual place of abode. Instead, he attempted service on Garcia and Uribe by leaving the paperwork with a co-worker at the Mexican Consulate. 19 When defendants are sued in their official capacity, service may be made personally or by leaving the summons and complaint with an authorized agent at the defendant's place of employment. Daly-Murphy v. Winston, 837 F.2d 348, 355 (9th Cir.1987). Since service was not made either personally or to an authorized agent to Garcia or Uribe, the suits against them in their official capacity must also be dismissed. Gerritsen does not refute the district court's factual conclusions regarding the manner of service.
20 Gerritsen attempted to serve the Mexican Consulate by having the district court clerk send an untranslated copy of the complaint to the President of Mexico by registered mail. Service of the Consulate is governed by the Foreign Sovereigns Immunity Act (FSIA). 28 U.S.C. § 1330 (1988). Since the consulate is a separate legal person, it is a foreign state within the meaning of the FSIA. Joseph, 830 F.2d at 1021 (citing Gerritsen I, 819 F.2d at 1517). 21 Section 1608(a) of the FSIA provides for four alternative methods of service, only one of which could apply in this case: 22 (3) if service cannot be made under paragraphs (1) or (2), by sending a copy of the summons and complaint and a notice of suit, together with a translation of each into the official language of the foreign state, by any form of mail requiring signed receipt, to be addressed and dispatched by the clerk of the court to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs of the foreign state concerned. 23 28 U.S.C. § 1608(b) (emphasis added). Even assuming that the president of Mexico is the head of the ministry of foreign affairs, Gerritsen did not perfect service because he sent only an English language version of the complaint. 24
25 Gerritsen properly served only two of the consulate defendants, Consul Escobar and Vice-consul Silva. 5 Gerritsen claimed jurisdiction over Escobar and Silva under 28 U.S.C. § 1351. The district court went on, however, to dismiss these defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that they were immune under the Vienna Convention. 6 21 U.S.T. 77. 26 Gerritsen alleges that Escobar and Silva took various actions and/or made various statements to him in an effort to inhibit or curtail completely his anti-Mexican government protest activity near the Consulate. Gerritsen said that, on various occasions in 1983 and 1984, Escobar verbally threatened him, placed him under citizen's arrest in the Consulate (until LAPD officers arrived to take Gerritsen into custody for disrupting the peace), and talked to the U.S. Attorney to explore legal options for restraining Gerritsen. Gerritsen alleged that Silva interrogated and intimidated him on one occasion in 1983. Despite orders from the district court to specify and elaborate upon these allegations and interrogatories from the defendants, Gerritsen never provided more detailed information. On this limited evidentiary basis, the district court concluded that Escobar and Silva were immune from suit under the Vienna Convention. 27 Immunity of consular officials is governed by Article 43 of the Vienna Convention: Consular officers and consular employees shall not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the judicial or administrative authorities of the receiving State in respect to acts performed in the exercise of the consular functions. 21 U.S.T. at 104. The term consular functions is defined in the several clauses of Article 5. Only one of these clauses is relevant here, 5(m), the catch-all provision which states: 28 ... any other functions entrusted to a consular post by the sending State which are not prohibited by the laws and regulations of the receiving State or to which no objection is taken by the receiving State or which are referred to in the international agreements in force between the sending State and the receiving State. 29 21 U.S.T. at 82-85. 30 The district court found that the consular officials acted in order to maintain the peace and dignity of the consular offices ... [to protect] consular premises and that these were legitimate consular functions within the meaning of Article 43. 7 The functions of protecting the dignity and premises of the Consulate are reasonable functions of a foreign mission in this country, and they are not illegal in and of themselves. Thus, we agree that this was a consular function within the meaning of the Vienna Convention. 31 This does not end our inquiry, however, as the Vienna Convention also requires that the acts for which the consular officials seek immunity must be performed in the exercise of the consular functions in question. 8 See Joseph, 830 F.2d at 1027-28. In Joseph, this court found that the consular official's damage to and theft of property from a rented home had no connection whatsoever to his consular functions, and, consequently, that he was not immune under the Vienna Convention. Ibid. 32 Thus, the alleged acts taken by Escobar and Silva against Gerritsen must be shown to be in the furtherance of the functions of protecting the dignity and premises of the Mexican Consulate. The district court found that the defendants' alleged actions were taken in response to plaintiff's [anti-Mexican government] leaflets and political speeches ... in the proximity of the consulate ... and that they furthered the claimed consular functions. 33 We also conclude, based upon the record before us (which Gerritsen had the opportunity to develop between 1985 and 1988), that the defendants' actions constitute reasonable efforts to effectuate the consular function of maintaining the dignity and safety of the Consulate. Consul Escobar's reliance on government officials in the host country (including the local police and the U.S. Attorney) was reasonable in the context of Gerritsen's repeated disruptions and refusals to leave the Consulate. Likewise, Escobar's and Silva's verbal warnings and threats, without accompanying physical contact, were attempts to persuade Gerritsen to leave the area or to desist from disrupting consular business.