Epstein Secrets

lan... 5/14/2007 EFTA00187439 $DNY CM/ECF Version 3.0L - Docket Report Page 1 of 5 CLOSED U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02-cv-05332-SITS Citibank, N.A.I Epstein, et al Assigned to: Judge Sidney H. Stein Demand:

would be better served if this matter were not litigated in this jurisdiction. See, e.g., Mesalic, 897 F.2d at 701 (citing Asahi Wild indua. Co. Superior Ct., 480 U.S. 102, 113, 107 &Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed2d 92 (1987)). Accordingly, I find that this Court has general jurisdiction over the defendants and t

hat jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court, the defendants have requested that I transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. They aver that this claim actually arose in New York and that the clauses in the agreements stipulating to the application of New York

would be better served if this matter were not litigated in this jurisdiction. See, e.g.. Moselle, 897 F.2d at 701 (citing Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Ct. 480 U.S. 102, 113, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987)). Accordingly, I find that this Court has general jurisdiction over the defendants and that

11 11-13.) On June 11, 2002, the plaintiffs filed their complaint in this Court. One month later on July 11, 2002, Citibank sued the plaintiffs in the Southern District of New York, alleging that they had defaulted on both the loan at issue here and a second $10 million loan.' See Citibank, N.A. v. Epstein, Index N

uld be better served if this matter were not litigated in this jurisdiction. See, e.g., Mesalic, 897 F.2d at 701 (citing Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Ct., 480 U.S. 102, 113 (1987)). Accordingly, I find that this Court has general jurisdiction over the defendants and that litigating this matter in th