FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAHROKH MIRESKANDARI and No. 13-55945
PAUL BAXENDALE-WALKER,
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-03861-JGB-
Plaintiffs - Appellants, MAN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BARRINGTON MAYNE, et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 13, 2015
Pasadena, California
Before: CHRISTEN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BURGESS, District
Judge.**
Shahrokh Mireskandari and Paul Baxendale-Walker appeal the district
court’s May 14, 2013 order dismissing all pending claims with prejudice.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
1. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the claims against the Law Society
of England and Wales (“LSE”) and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“SRA”)
pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). The SRA has no
legal existence separate from the LSE. Though the LSE and SRA are formally
independent from the government, both are accountable to the statutorily-created
Legal Services Board (“LSB”), which is itself accountable to Parliament through
the Lord Chancellor. The LSB is responsible for eight regulatory objectives
defined by statute, and the LSE and SRA must act in a manner compatible with
these objectives, see Legal Services Act 2007, c. 29, § 28, 2(a). Thus, the LSE and
SRA engage “in a public activity on behalf of the foreign government.” Cal. Dep’t
of Water Res. v. Powerex Corp., 533 F.3d 1087, 1098 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal
quotation mark omitted).
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the claims against
the LSE and SRA with prejudice, refusing to allow Appellants to amend their
complaint for a fourth time. See McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802,
809-10 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed is another valid reason for a district court to deny a party leave
to amend.”).
2
3. We vacate the district court’s dismissal of the claims against Barrington
Mayne, Malcolm Lees, David Middleton, Antony Townsend, and Richard Hegarty,
because the FSIA does not provide immunity to officials acting on behalf of a
foreign state. See Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305, 319 (2010). On remand, the
district court may consider whether dismissal of these defendants is required under
common law immunity.
4. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the claims against Associated
Newspapers, Ltd. and David Gardner (“ANL Defendants”) pursuant to the doctrine
of claim splitting. Appellants argue that claim splitting should not apply because
an order from another judge, denying transfer of this case to that judge’s calendar,
reserved Appellants’ right to pursue their claims against the ANL Defendants in a
separate lawsuit. The order, however, did not reserve any such right.
5. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the claim against Patrick
Rohrbach, but on the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th
Cir. 2004) (“We may affirm the district court’s dismissal on any ground supported
by the record.”). Rohrbach’s written witness statements, which Mireskandari
agreed could be considered on the motion to dismiss, are not actionable. The
statements never directly assert that Mireskandari did anything wrong. The only
3
factual assertions contained in the statements are that Mireskandari is not a
California attorney and has not passed the California Bar examination.
Mireskandari does not challenge the accuracy of these statements.
6. We vacate the district court’s order dismissing the claims against Mansur
Rahnema for lack of personal jurisdiction. On remand, the district court should
consider whether the eleventh claim for relief – a defamation claim against
Rahnema that was missing from the electronic version of the third amended
complaint and not addressed in the district court’s order – supports a finding of
personal jurisdiction. The district court may also consider Rahnema’s other
arguments for dismissal of Mireskandari’s claims.1
7. Each party shall bear its own costs.
AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED.
1
Appellants also filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal. In
light of our decision to remand parts of this case, we deny the motion and leave the
augmentation of the record to the district court’s discretion.
4