Epstein Secrets

27, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(bX6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations"); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very

134 (6th Cir.1994) (finding seventeen month period insufficient to show continuity); Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Wollersheim, 971 F.2d 364, 366-67 (9th Cir.1992)( "We have found no case in which a court [of appeals] has held the [continuity] requirement to be satisfied by a pattern of activity lasting less t

y prevail in a trial on the merits, but whether they should be afforded an opportunity to offer evidence in support of their claims." /d. (citing Scheuer I Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Harlow Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73

ie showing that minimum contacts warranting personal jurisdiction exist.FN3 Mellon Bank (East) PSFS Nat. Ass'n I. Farina, 960 F.2d 1217, 1223 (3d Cir.1992). FN3. The Court notes that although a Plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction to defeat a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(bX

, 436 U.S. 478, 516-17, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 2915-16, fi7 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978). Oth- er executive officials are entitled to quali- fied immunity, see, e.g.. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 247-49, 94 S.Ct. 1688, 1691- 92, 40 LEd.2d 90 (1974) (state executive officials), as are prosecutorial activities that ar

d 20, the district court held a probable cause hear- ing pursuant to United States tz All Assets of Statewide Auto Pads, Inc. 971 F2d 896, 906 (2d Cir.1992) and United States v. Monsanto, 924 F2d 1186, 1203 (2d Cir.1991). On May 30, 1995, the district court vacated the seizure warrant, finding that th