Epstein Secrets

n Landgraf v. USI Film Products, which I cited in my papers for a different proposition, but it's found at 511 U.S. 244. In that case, your Honor, the U.S. Supreme Court was considering a very similar situation with respect to a sexual harassment claim under Title VII. In that case, Title VII, prior to the defendan

upp. 2d 481, 486 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). The Court must construe the pleadings and supporting affidavits in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See PDK Labs, 103 F.3d at 1108. The plaintiff eventually will have to establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence, either at trial or at a pretri

ious banks are not identical. In Bush, following the Supreme Court’s instructions in Steel Co., the district court dis

rt looks to in federal question cases in which no federal statute provides for national service of process or when the Court is sitting in diversity. PDK Labs, 103 F.3d at 1108; Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 305 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir.2002). *557 New York’s long-arm statute, C.P.L.R.

other Saudi banks’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions cannot apply to NCB because the allegations against the various banks are not identical. In Bush, following the Supreme Court’s instructions in Steel Co., the district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after finding plaintiffs lacked standing to

upport of this argument, the Federal Plaintiffs cite Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468, 480, 123 S.Ct. 1655, 155 L.Ed.2d 643 (2003), in which the Supreme Court held that instrumentality status is determined at the time of the filing of the complaint. has specifically addressed the issue. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_01

, A.J Trade, 989 F.2d at 79. In resolving the motions, the Court will read the com- plaints and affidavits in a light most favor- able to Plaintiffs. PDK Labs, 103 F.3d at 1108. It will not, however, accept legally 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES conclusory assertions or draw “argumenta- tive inferences