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

wing three conditions are satisfied: (1) an alien sues (2) for a tort (3) committed in violation of the law of nations (i.e., international law)." Kadic v. Karad- zic, 70 FM 232, 238 (2d Cir.1995); see also Flores v. Southern Peru Corp, 343 F.3d 140, 143 n. 2 (2d Cir2003). Certain Plaintiffs in the

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

llowing three conditions are satisfied: (1) an alien sues (2) for a tort (3) committed in violation of the law of nations (i.e., international law).” Kadic v. Karad- zic, 70 F.8d 232, 238 (2d Cir.1995); see also Flores v. Southern Peru Corp., 348 F.3d 140, 143 n. 2 (2d Cir.2003). Certain Plaintiffs in th

94 (S.D.N-Y. 2010) eeccccseeessssssseessesnseeeeesnseeecesnseeeeesnseeeeesnseeeeanseees Johnson v. Nyack Hosp., 86 F.3d 8 (2d Cir. 1996) ou. eeeeeee Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir, 1996) vce Khulumani v. Barclay Nat’] Bank. Ltd., 504 F.3d 254 (2d Cir, 2007) ceccccsessccccsntsceccsnseeeccsnseeec

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