Opinion ID: 602903
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction as to Others

Text: 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.