
    Oliver HILSENRATH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EQUITY TRUST (JERSEY) LIMITED and Candover Investments PLC, Defendants-Appellees. Hana Hilsenrath and Oliver Hilsenrath, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Equity Trust (Jersey) Limited; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 08-15726, 08-15728.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Nov. 2, 2010.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Oliver and Hana Hilsenrath appeal pro se the district court’s Orders dismissing their actions against Equity Trust and other foreign corporations and citizens, alleging RICO violations, malicious prosecution, extortion, obstruction of justice and violations of due process arising from a 2001 settlement agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is de novo, Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the claims against Candover Investments PLC, Insinger de Beaufort Holdings SA, and Jardine Matheson Holdings Limited because it lacked personal jurisdiction over these non-resident defendants. See Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1205 (9th Cir.2006) (requiring a non-resident to have “substantial, continuous, and systematic” contacts in a forum for a court to exercise general jurisdiction, and “purposefully direct” activities and transactions within the forum for a court to exercise specific jurisdiction).

The district court also properly dismissed the claims against Equity Trust (Jersey) Limited and its executives on the ground that Jersey is an adequate alternative forum and the balance of private and public interest factors favors dismissal. See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 254 n. 22, 257, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . Appellee's motion to take judicial notice is denied as unnecessary.
     