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

nce 186-881 In New York, a plaintiff may establish negligent infliction of emotional distress under the bystander or direct duty theory. Baker v. Dorfman, 239 F.3d 415, 421 (2d Cir2000). Under the by- stander theory, "a defendant's conduct is negligent as creating an unreasonable risk of bodily har

etter to Mr. Goldberger that "the U.S. Attorney's modification of the 2255 portion of the Agreement now limits our victim list to those persons whom the United States was prepared to include in an indictment. This means that, pursuant to Justice Department policy, these are individuals for whom the United States b

other instances where 5 counsel other than myself, not in the civil aspects, where 6 allegations have been made and letters have been sent by the 7 United States suggesting that there's been a violation of the 8 NPA. And under those circumstances, some notification was 9 provided. 10 THE COURT: Did it have

21 until 37:23 urge 22:9 use 10:25 11:8 20:24 23:1128:25 40:11 used 28:19 U.S 2:15 4:10 7:1,9 8:6 12:8,12 16:16 26:19 27:4,18,19 43:5,11,25 U.S.A 2:16 U.S.0 33:7 I various 3:1 10:25 very 4:21 5:711:1,2 1120 12:21 16:19 162417:12,12 23:1129:4 32:1 35:18 38:10 40:18 42:2 43:18 44:14 Via

on the foregoing, the plaintiff cannot blame someone else (= ) for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. Cf. Feld & Sons, Inc. v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolfe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. Ct, 1983) (holding that law-firm clients could not recover damages flowing from their own

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