Epstein Secrets

d until 2002, just months before the commencement of this litigation. On Jan- uary 31, 2002, Citibank closed its last re- maining bank branch in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Citibank no longer makes real estate-related loans in the Virgin Islands. (Malin Aff. 11 3-4.) Citibank, however, continues to process its ou

ing the depositions for a date and time that is suitable for both the Defendants and Plaintiff, and relocating the depositions from Philadelphia to the U.S. Virgin Islands for Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell; and New Albany, Ohio for the Wexners. Accordingly, this Court should grant Defendants' motion for a protective ord

fs counter that the defendants are currently doing busi- ness in the Virgin Islands and that this Court has jurisdiction over the defendants under the Virgin Islands' Long—Arm Stat- ute. The plaintiffs insist that the defen- dants' depiction of Citigroup as a "holding company" is belied by Citigroup's public disclosur

e that this Court has jurisdiction under the Virgin Islands Long-Arm Statute over both the defendants. 2. The Defendants' "Minimum Con- tacts" in the Virgin Islands Meet the Constitution's Due Process Re- quirements In addition to finding jurisdiction under this forum's long-arm statute, I must also determine whet

ce that the interests of New York or the Virgin Islands 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 th

Davison"], Vice President of Citibank in New York and Epstein's private banker, and other Citibank employees telephoned Epstein while he was in the Virgin Islands and recommended that the plaintiffs invest through EFTA01726510 Financial Trust Co., Inc. v. Citibank, N.A. Civ. No. 2002-108 Memorandum Opinion

tiffs counter that the defendants are currently doing business in the Virgin Islands and that this Court has jurisdiction over the defendants under the Virgin Islands' Long- Arm Statute. The plaintiffs insist that the defendants' depiction of Citigroup as a "holding company" is belied by Citigroup's public disclos

nce that the interests of New York or the Virgin Islands would 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 jurisdi

tions. Resolving the case in this Court is just as efficient as trying it in New York and there is no evidence that the interests of New York or the Virgin Islands would 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.

dence that the interests of New York or the Virgin Islands would 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, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987)). Accordingly, I find that t