Epstein Secrets

purposely availed itself of the privilege of conducting business within the forum State, thus invoking the protec- tion and benefits of its laws.'" Pennzoil Prods. Co. F Colelli & Assocs., Inc., 149 F.3d 197, 203 (3d Cir.1998). A plaintiff can meet this burden in one of two ways: EFTA00187468 568 2

pt the relevant rule of New York landlord-tenant law for purposes of deciding the remaining issue in this dis- pute, and hold that, consistent with New York law, OFM was entitled to arbitrarily withhold its consent to Epstein's request to sublet the Premises to Fisher. Even assum- ing OFM had a hidden a

d in part and denied in part. I. Federal Courts .3=409 In diversity action, federal court sitting in New York must apply New York law, including New York's choice-of-law rules. 2. Contracts e=s144 Under New York's choice-of-law rules, when court is construing meaning of con- tract, court should apply

t may not be introduced to create ambiguity. Arthur M. Handler, Whitman & Ransom, New York City, for plaintiff. Elliot Silverman, Cold & Wachtel, New York City, for defendant. ORDER CONBOY, District Judge: We have before us an action for breach of contract. Plaintiff Michael R. Stroll ("Stroll") see

t purposely availed itself of the privilege of conducting business within the forum State, thus invoking the protection and benefits of its laws.'" Pennzoil Prods. Co. v. Colelli & Assocs., Inc., 149 F.3d 197, 203 (3d Cir. 1998). A plaintiff can meet this burden in one of two ways: by establishing spec

parties' written and oral arguments, I will deny the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and to transfer this case to New York. Further, I find that the amended complaint adequately states claims of breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation. Finally, I will g

claims, and instead shall look to Virgin Islands law to determine whether the plaintiffs have stated claims cognizable in this jurisdiction. 2. New York's 'Martin Act Does Not Apply to this Lawsuit The defendants aver that the Martin Act, New York General Business section 352 et seq., bars the plainti

Doe Action as the basis for his argument that he too is similarly entitled to production of the Epstein interview for use in the Ponzi Scheme $ As Pennzoil and Sheehan illustrate, where (as here) a party files a New York proceeding seeking discovery of newsgathering material from a New York news organiz

tion (whether Edwards participated in Rothstein's fraudulent Ponzi scheme, not whether Epstein sexually abused Jane Doe) and entirely different law (New York's stringent Shield Iaw, not the less protective federal reporter's privilege). And the unpublished Epstein interview, which was conducted months befo