Epstein Secrets

i- rected activities where defendant delivered products into stream of commerce with ex- pectation they would be purchased by resi- dents of forum); Calder, 465 U.S. at 789- 90, 104 S.Ct. 1482 (fording publishing ac- tivities outside of forum were calculated to cause injury to plaintiff in forum where

m, and the litigation results from al- leged injuries that arise out of or related to those activities"). Pursuant to the hold- ings in Thayer King, Calder, and three recent terrorism cases—Rein v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 995 F.Supp. 325 (E.D.N.Y.1998), Daliberti v. Republic of Ira

that a plaintiff "must demonstrate that the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy a traditional due process analysis." Estates of Ungar a Palestinian Autlk, 153 F.Supp2d 76, 95 (D.R.I.2001); see also Biton v. Palestinian Interim Self-Gov% Auth., 310 F.Supp.2d 172, 179 (D.D.C. 200

uded that a plaintiff “must demonstrate that the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy a traditional due process analysis.” Estates of Ungar v. Palestinan Auth, 153 F.Supp.2d 76, 95 (D.R.1.2001); see also Biton v. Palestinian Interim Self-Gov't Auth. 310 F.Supp.2d 172, 179 (D.D.C. 2004) (d

minimum contacts existed since dispute arose from a contract with substantial con- tacts with the forum) (internal quotations and citations omitted); Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984) (finding personal juris- diction appropriate over non-resident de- fendants who “e

tates. Accordingly, Plaintiffs may rely on their “purposefully directed” theory to establish these mini- mum contacts. But as existed in Burger King, Calder, and the three terrorism cases, Plaintiffs must allege some personal or direct involvement by the Defendants in the conduct giving rise to their clai

-1842, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106657 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2011) ccccceseccscsnssseccsneecccsnseeccesnsseccesnseeccesnseeeeesnseeccennseeecennseeesees Ungar v. Palestine Liberation Org., 402 F.3d 274 (1st Cir. QOOS) crecccseesccccsneececcsnseceseseseeescsesecesnseseeesnseseesnsescesnsesecesnseseeesnseeee

nt took ‘intentional * * * tortious, actions’ and ‘knew that the brunt of th[e] injury would be felt’ in the *15 foreign forum.” Jd. at *19, (quoting Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789-790 (1984)). Even so, the United States argued that the questions presented by the Petition did not warrant review by the