Epstein Secrets

hat they were members of conspiracy pursuant to New York long-arm statute, or that they had any general business contacts with United States. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.; N.Y.McKinney's CPLR 302(a)(2). 68. Federal Courts C=97 Jurisdictional discovery was warrant- ed, at dismissal stage of Antiterrori

rrorism Act (ATA) suit by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, as to issue whether company purposefully directed its activities at United Slates, for purposes of personal jurisdiction. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2), 28 U.S.CA. 101. Federal Civil Procedure (3=

ts with the United States generally, but in- sufficient contacts with any one state in particular. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(2) advisory committee's note; United Stales v. Intl. Bhd, of Teamsters, 945 F.Supp. 609, 616- 17 (S.D.N.Y.1996). For jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2), there must be a federal claim, personal

dismissed for lack of per- sonal jurisdiction. 3. Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Jurisdic- tional Discovery as to Privatbank's Investing Activities in the United States [37] Plaintiffs point out that Privat- bank's website and its 2001 Annual Report state that Privatbank engages in transac- tions involving securiti

some conceivable non-discretionary tortious act falls within the purview of these generic allegations under the appli- cable substantive law. 28 U.S.C.A. 1605(a)(5). 28. International Law C=10.33 In determining whether functions are discretionary, for purposes of the discre- tionary function except

contacts throughout the United States, while under the Fourteenth Amendment only the con- tacts with the forum state may be consid- ered." Chew v. Dietrich, 143 F.3d 24, 28 n. 4 (2d Cir.1998). Here, personal jurisdic- tion under the New York long-arm statute requires minimum contacts with New York pur

York 881 rev?) e.mail h) 56 9233 (vesonlque h) ( Pittman, Sandy 2 805693 1212 jw) Em sand Plepler, Richard 755 Park Ave(h) 1100 Ave of the Americas RooMi6(w) 001 001 001 Plouvier, Diane & Denis 46 Villa Chaptal keValIgis•Perrir Man; Frençe 92300 00 31 1 3485 9207,5 00 33 1 4758 0619(h)

an Dickenson, Debbie 240 S °pi Dickinson, Janice OOi 6wis Royer Dietrich Marc Antoine and Cath 51 Ave Montigne Paris 75008 00 331 4256 9672 Dietrich, Paul & Laura Pre rdoni Afrildian Ersseping .Markets. Cm 1141 Custis St. (haw) Alexandna VA 22308 °Rs; 891244.073sti? cr„,„:12dy0 netatinet(

fficient con- tacts with the United States as a whole but is not subject to jurisdiction in any particu- lar state, requires contacts with the United States as a whole. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 4(k)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. 50. Constitutional Law ¢=305(5) The due process minimum contacts

has sufficient con- tacts with the United States as a whole but is not subject to jurisdiction in any particu- lar state, requires contacts with the United States as a whole. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 4(k)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. 50. Constitutional Law ¢=305(5) The due process minimum co

t, but in the manner of a private player within it, the foreign sover- eign’s actions are ‘commercial’ within the meaning of the FSIA.” Weltover, 504 U.S. at 614, 112 S.Ct. 2160. Courts must in- quire whether the foreign state’s actions “are the type of actions by which a private party engages in trade a

Teamsters, 945 F.Supp. at 617. a. Purposefully Directed Activities Theory Personal jurisdiction based on Rule 4(k) requires minimum contacts with the Unit- ed States to satisfy Fifth Amendment due process requirements. Plaintiffs claim these requirements are met because De- fendants purposefully directed their ac

forum. Cases that cite this headnote Federal Courts @ Terrorism Two officials of Saudi Arabian government did not have such minimum contacts with the United States as to support a finding of general personal jurisdiction, in action alleging their decisions regarding distribution of humanitarian relief funds prov

efendant’s contacts throughout the United States, while under the Fourteenth Amendment only contacts with the forum state may be considered.” Chew v. Dietrich, 143 F.3d 24, 28 n. 4 (2d Cir.1998). Plaintiffs claim that Rule 4(k)’s minimum contacts requirement is satisfied because the Defendants have purpose

n re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 392 F.Supp.2d 539 (2005) 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 789 purposefully directed his activities toward the United States by making personal contributions to several Saudi-based charities. (Federal Compl. §§ 442-43.) 19! Plaintiffs must make a prima facie showing that P

--- In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 392 F.Supp.2d 539 (2005) 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 789 purposefully directed his activities toward the United States by making personal contributions to several Saudi-based charities. (Federal Compl. §§ 442-43.) 19! Plaintiffs must make a prima facie showing