Epstein Secrets

before discov- ery and decided without an evidentiary hearing, Plaintiffs need only make a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction ex- ists. PDK Labs, Inc. a Friedlander, 103 F.3d 1105, 1108 (2d Cir.1997); AL Trade Finance, Ina a Petra Bank, 989 F.2d 76, 79 (2c1 Cir.1993). Plaintiffs may rely en- tire

28 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES Plaintiffs have failed to state a RICO claim against the moving Defendants. See id.; Beata' Leasing, Inc. v. Bellezza, 95 Civ. 5191(JFK), 1997 WL 603496, at *5 (S.D.N.Y.1997) ("A defendant does not 'di- rect' an enterprise's affairs under § 1962(c) merely by e

Rule WESTLAW of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), Plaintiffs must make a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction exists over each moving Defendant. PDK Labs, Inc. v. Friedlander, 103 F.3d 1105, 1108 (Qd Cir.1997). The Court reviews the complaints and affidavits in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, id., but

the enterprise itself,’ which requires that these Defendants must have had some part in directing the enterprise’s affairs.” Redtail Leasing, Inc. v. Bellezza, No. 95 Civ. 51910FK), 1997 WL 603496, at *5 (S.D.N-Y. Sept.30, 1997). 25] 26] The TVPA provides a cause of action against individuals who under act

amdi participated in the operation or management of any enterprise. The RICO claims against Mr. Hamdi must be dismissed. See Redtail Leasing, Inc. v. Bellezza, 1997 WL 603496 at *5. Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Hamdi knew about bin Laden’s terrorist activities at the time he procured a phone for him because t

t before discov- ery and decided without an evidentiary hearing, Plaintiffs need only make a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction ex- ists. PDK Labs, Inc. v. Friedlander, 103 F.8d 1105, 1108 @d Cir.1997); AZ. Trade Finance, Inc. v. Petra Bank, 989 F.2d 76, 79 (2d Cir.1993). Plaintiffs may rely en- tirel

RSIGHT_017892 --- PAGE BREAK --- 828 Plaintiffs have failed to state a RICO claim against the moving Defendants. See id.; Redtail Leasing, Inc. v. Bellezza, 95 Civ. 5191JFK), 1997 WL 603496, at *5 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (“A defendant does not ‘di- rect? an enterprise’s affairs under § 1962(c) merely by engaging