Legal Opinion

A.R. International Anti-Fraud Systems, Inc. v. Pretoria National Central Bureau of Interpol

District Court, E.D. California

Decided July 15, 2009No. Case CV F 08-1301 LJO SMSPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO QUASH (Doc. 29)

LAWRENCE J. O’NEILL, District Judge.

Introduction

On May 5, 2009, defendant Pretoria National Central Bureau of Interpol (“Interpol Pretoria”) moved to dismiss plaintiff A.R. International Anti-Fraud Systems, Inc.’s (“A.R. International’s”) first amended complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6), and moved to quash service of process. Interpol Pretoria argues that it is immune from suit in the United States, pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq.; it is not…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  2. Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, SheriffCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
  3. Jena Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department Al Olsen, Police Chief, Individually and as a Police AgentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
  4. Jenkins v. McKeithenSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  5. Lee v. City Of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Edumoz, LLC v. Republic of MozambiqueDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2013
  2. (PC) Henley v. BurnesDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2020
  3. Cattanach v. Maricopa County Community College DistrictDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2023
  4. Nails v. CarpenterDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2022
  5. Nails v. CarpenterDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2022

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API