and murder of a Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA”) agent in Mexico. Id. at 2746. Due to difficulties in extricating the plaintiff from Mexico, the DEA hired a group of Mexican nationals to abduct, the plaintiff and transport him by private plane to the U.S. where he was arrested. Id. He stood trial for his alleged crimes and was acquitted. Id. After returning to Mexico, he instituted a civil action against several Mexican nationals and the DEA. Id. at 2747. 17 . The Court notes that the delayed discovery rule does not apply to § 17200 claims. See Snapp & Associates Ins. Services, Inc. v. Robertson, 96 Cal.App.4th 884, 891, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 331 (2002). 18 . The Court notes that it must take these statements regarding foreign policy at face value. See Sarei, 221 F.Supp.2d at 1181-82 (<HOLDING>); cf. Sosa, 124 S.Ct. at 2766 n. 21 (noting
holding that the court must accept the statement of foreign policy provided by the executive branch as conclusive of its view of that subject it may not assess whether the policy articulated is wise or unwise or whether it is based on misinformation or faulty reasoning holding that an arbitration award involving the appellants challenge to the failure of the insurance company to ensure that he had read and understood a signed waiver and to attach the waiver to the insurance policy as contrary to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because there is no challenge to a provision or term of the policy the appellant never claimed that the waiver or policy language itself was contrary to the public policy of this commonwealth holding that whether a particular document is subject to the work product protection depends on whether the subject matter of the document concerns preparation or strategy or the appraisal of the strengths or weaknesses of the companys case or the activities of the attorneys in preparing their case or is at least primarily concerned with legal assistance and not simply underlying evidence holding that a local government may be held liable for its employees constitutional violation only when the employee is executing the governments policy or custom whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may be fairly said to represent official policy holding that it is not