Epstein Secrets

ditionally, general jurisdic- tion could be appropriate for the SAAR Network entities having offices in Virgi- nia. Id, 1227. Accordingly, the SAAR Network's motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice. The parties are to en- gage in jurisdictional discovery to deter- mine which of the Network's entit

harged with decid- ing which grants should be made to Islam- ic charities, Prince Sultan's decisions were made at the planning level of government, Kline, 685 F.Supp. at 392, and "grounded in social, economic, and political policy," Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. at 814, 104 S.CL 2755. Similarly, as the

eting FICA)). Generally, acts are discretionary if they are per- formed at the planning level of govern- ment, as opposed to the operational level. Kline v. Kaneko, 685 F.Supp. 386, 392 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (finding decision to expel plaintiff from Mexico was product of en- forcement of immigration laws an

a personal meeting between Shanks andAbigail Wexner in New York City on or about March 15, 2000. 12: The visit between Shanks and Abigail Wexner in Now York City was arranged by Abigail Wexner's personal assistant, Karl W. Koon. : . 13. Following 'the March 15, '2002 visit between Shanks and Abigail wexne

S 1-877-DOC-RETR (1-877-362-7387) (Additional Charges Apply). Dockets - NEW YORK SUPREME COURT Current Dates 04/24/2007 Source: SUPREME COURT, NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK CAM smrcamanom Case Titles J. EPSTEIN G COMPANY 457 MADISON AVENUE CORP. Court: SUPREME COURT, NEW YORK COUNTY Divisions SUPREME C

ts, the documents "bespeak caution" to the investor and the investor cannot later premise a fraud claim on the events of which he has been warned. Kline v. First Western Gov't Sec., Inc., 24 F.3d 480, 4289 (3d Cir. 1994). The defendants' claim that the Preliminary Offering Circular [the "pitch book"

the present action, the state with the most significant relationship to the transaction is New York: the contract being sued upon was executed in Ncw York. defendant Ep- stein Is a New York citizen. and I.A.G. is a New York corporation. Moreover, both parties agree that New York law applies in this ca

, the documents "bespeak caution" to the investor and the investor cannot later premise a fraud claim on the events of which he has been warned. Kline I First Western Gov't Sec., Inc., 24 F.3d 480, 482 (3d Cir.1994). The defendants' claim that the Preliminary Offering Circular (the "pitch bookl,

nction n.comm it t sg , 1 Green : c4 W=5 , / we Town South Ahab T 2 7421 8186(h) 2 61 3832(f) 21 6383 Jeanine Green, Judy 555 Park Ave. New York_ N_Y 10021 001 212 486-1077 Gregg Geordie &Kath- erine 38 Kensington Park GrOns 0207-49 9080r) 0207.221 5755 h) OZ7- 351 141 077 47 695 830 cel

głą Jenie (mom) 5 6 36860 Karen Mesa id 467 0412 Kapa (h) gypsys aPrd 744017 3565 Kristen IM 54 2 3309 Kiery (Usa Pe Mend) 1 329021 K 1 7 Kline 561 346 2 Lina p 61 615 9 ina rtl° 4 CO) 561 352 70 Lina P 561 7 561 6i7 Maura ) 561 f 5 i 880 Mealiisrasa allis kei 74g il4nes (h) dl

exception of FSIA; 7 a, survivors failed to make prima facie showing necessary to establish person- al jurisdiction over Princes and others under New York’s long-arm statute; (8 nai modified due process standard appro- priate for mass torts would not be applied to question of personal juris- diction;

preting FTCA)). Generally, acts are discretionary if they are per- formed at the planning level of govern- ment, as opposed to the operational level. Kline v. Kaneko, 685 F.Supp. 386, 392 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (finding decision to expel plaintiff from Mexico was product of en- forcement of immigration laws and

charged with decid- ing which grants should be made to Islam- ic charities, Prince Sultan’s decisions were made at the planning level of government, Kline, 685 F.Supp. at 392, and “grounded in social, economic, and political policy,” Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. at 814, 104 S.Ct. 2755. Similarly, as the hea

Attacks on September 11, 2001, 392 F.Supp.2d 539 (2005) 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 789 To establish personal jurisdiction based on a conspiracy theory under New York’s long-arm statute, plaintiffs must make a prima facie showing of conspiracy and allege facts warranting an inference that defendant was a member of th

unction exception replicates that found in the FTCA and that courts rely on the FTCA for guidance in interpreting the scope of the FSIA’s exception); Kline v. Kaneko, 685 F.Supp. 386, 392 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (explaining sovereign’s decisions regarding formation and enforcement of national policies are discret

to state a claim, the Court accepts as true the facts alleged in the complaints and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiffs. Harris v. City of New York, 186 F.3d 243, 247 (2d Cir.1999). The complaints should be dismissed only if it appears beyond doubt *564 that Plaintiffs can prove no set of facts i