Epstein Secrets

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

court ... may refer to that evidence.'" Robinson, 269 F.3d at 140 (quoting Maka- rova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir2000)); see also Filetech S.A. v. France Telecom S.A, 157 F.3d 922, 932 ante v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 03 Civ. 8591(RCC). EFTA00795047 IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER

tates, 201 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir.2000)); see also Filetech S.A. v. France Telecom S.A., 157 F.3d 922, 932 ance v

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

y from legal proceedings in this country). Finally, Plaintiffs have not identified a factual dispute that would require jurisdictional discovery. See Filetech S.A. v. France Telecom S.A., 304 F.3d 180, 183 (2d Cir.2002) (finding no abuse of discretion where district court resolved jurisdictional issue without ho

v. Robertson—Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560, 567 (2d Cir.1996); see also Terrorist Attacks I, 349 F.Supp.2d at 810-11 (reviewing due process requirements); Ungar v. Palestinian Auth., 153 F.Supp.2d 76, 87 (D.R.1.2001) (requiring minimum contacts with the United States for personal jurisdiction under *558 ATA).