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

aintiffs have failed to allege ade- quately that the defendants' actions caused the plaintiffs' losses under New York law. (Mem. Of Law in Supp. of Defs' Mot. to Dismiss at 40-44.) As noted above, Virgin Islands law governs these claims. The plaintiffs maintain that they have ade- quately stated causat

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.

COURT IS PROPER UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1391(A) Defendants also argue that this is an improper venue in which to litigate this dispute. (Mem. in Supp. of Defs' Mot. to Dismiss at 20-21.) I agree with the plaintiffs, however, that the Virgin Islands is a proper choice of venue. (Pls.' Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Mo

the defendants' actions caused the plaintiffs' losses under New York law. (Mem. Of Law in Supp. of Defs' Mot. to Dismiss at 40-44.) >As noted above, Virgin Islands law governs these claims. The plaintiffs maintain that they have adequately stated causation by alleging that the defendants did not disclose their

plaintiffs have failed to allege adequately that the defendants' actions caused the plaintiffs' losses under New York law. (Mem. Of Law in Supp. of Defs' Mot. to Dismiss at 40-44.) >As noted above, Virgin Islands law governs these claims. The plaintiffs maintain that they have adequately stated causation

9 and until 2002, just months before the commencement of this litigation. On January 31, 2002, Citibank closed its last remaining bank branch in the U.S. Virgin Islands. and Citibank no longer makes real estate-related loans in the Virgin Islands. (Matins Aft. 3-4.) Citibank. however, continues to process its outst

COURT IS PROPER UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1391(A) Defendants also argue that this is an improper venue in which to litigate this dispute. (Mem. in Supp. of Defs' Mot. to Dismiss at 20-21.) I agree with the plaintiffs, however, that the Virgin Islands is a proper choice of venue. (Pls' Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Mot