Raymond Foxgord, Individually and as Trustee of the Foxgord Trust, Cecilia Foxgord v. Baron Herbert Hischemoeller

In this fraud and breach of guaranty action, defendant-appellant Baron Herbert Hischemoeller (hereinafter Hischemoeller) appeals from the district court’s judgment against him for damages in favor of plaintiffs-appellees Raymond Foxgord, an individual and as trustee of the Foxgord Trust, and his wife, Cecilia Foxgord (hereinafter the Foxgords) following a bench trial. This case presents a novel issue. Does a district court have exclusive subject matter jurisdiction in an action against the honorary consul general of another country under 28 U.S.C. § 1351 (1) (1982), which gives federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over actions against “consuls or vice consuls,” where the honorary consul general is a citizen of the United States and is sued for his private actions? We hold that a district court does not have exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over a proceeding involving private actions against an American citizen who is an honorary consul general for another country under 28 U.S.C. § 1351 (1).

PERTINENT FACTS

On September 16, 1980, the Foxgords agreed to loan $500,000 to codefendants Henry Perdón and his corporation, Transamerica Minerals, Inc. (hereinafter TM), to purchase…

concurring:

I concur in all but part B of the majority’s persuasive and exhaustively researched opinion. My sole concern regarding part B is that, once we have determined from the statute’s plain meaning that the statute does not refer to honorary consuls, examination of the statute’s legislative history should be unnecessary. “ ‘[W]hen we find the terms of a statute unambiguous, *1038 judicial inquiry is complete.’ ” Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, — U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 1855, 1860 , 95 L.Ed.2d 404 (1987), quoting Rubin v. United States, 449 U.S. 424, 430 , 101 S.Ct. 698, 701 , 66 L.Ed.2d 633 (1981); see also Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 , 184 n. 29, 98 S.Ct. 2279 , 2296 n. 29, 57 L.Ed.2d 117 (1978); Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 896 , 104 S.Ct. 1541, 1547 , 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984) (“we look first to the statutory language and then to the legislative history if the statutory language is unclear.”) (emphasis added); Mobil Sales & Supply Corp. v. Panamax Venus, 804 F.2d 541, 542 (9th Cir.1986). I believe that, having concluded that the plain meaning of the statute does not refer to honorary consuls, we need go no further.

820 F.2d 1030 Raymond FOXGORD, Individually and as Trustee of the Foxgord Trust, Cecilia Foxgord, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Baron Herbert HISCHEMOELLER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 85-5976. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 6, 1987. Decided June 23, 1987. Robert E. Aitken, Long Beach, Cal., for defendant-apellant. Gerald Goldfarb, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before WALLACE, ALARCON and THOMPSON, * Circuit Judges. ALARCON, Circuit Judge: 1 In this fraud and breach of guaranty action, defendant-appellant Baron Herbert Hischemoeller (hereinafter Hischemoeller) appeals from the district court's judgment against him for damages in favor of plaintiffs-appellees Raymond Foxgord, an individual and as trustee of the Foxgord Trust, and his wife, Cecilia Foxgord (hereinafter the Foxgords) following a bench trial. This case presents a novel issue. Does a district court have exclusive subject matter jurisdiction in an action against the honorary consul general of another country under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1351 (1) (1982), which gives federal courts exclusive…