Phaneuf

Phaneuf v. Republic of Indonesia

Good Law
106 F.3d 302·97 Daily Journal DAR 1329·1997 WL 47755·1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 2030·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 895
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 7, 1997No. 95-17131California3,388 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Beezer, J.

The Republic of Indonesia, the National Defense Security Council of the Republic of Indonesia and H.A. Chalid Mawardi (collectively “defendants”) appeal the district court’s order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of sovereign immunity and for lack of venue. We have jurisdiction over the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss pursuant to the collateral order doctrine. Schoenberg v. Exportadora de Sal, S.A. de C.V., 930 F.2d 777, 779 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 581 , 130 L.Ed.2d 496 (1994). Jurisdiction does not exist to review the district court’s refusal to dismiss for lack of venue. American Concrete Agric. Pipe Ass’n v. No-Joint Concrete Pipe Co., 331 F.2d 706, 709 (9th Cir.1964). We reverse and remand.

I

Plaintiff Curtis A. Phaneuf holds several promissory notes allegedly issued by the National Defense Security Council of the Republic of Indonesia (“NDSC”). These notes are part of approximately 505 promissory notes created by several then-members of the NDSC and valued at over three billion U.S. dollars (“NDSC notes”). The notes bear the signatures of two NDSC members and the NDSC crest. The principal maker of the notes,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.