Epstein Secrets

ained, foreign jurisdiction, middle ground COUNSEL: rli For Richard Kahn, Plaintiff: Deirdre M. Stephens-Johnson, LEAD ATTORNEY, Crowther Law Firm, Atlanta, GA USA. For Visador Holding Corporation, a Foreign Corporation, Defendant: J. Douglas Stewart, Sr., LEAD ATTORNEY, Stewart Melvin & Frost, LLP, Ga

eclude a finding of specific jurisdiction. Although a contract with a non-resident alone is not always sufficient to support personal jurisdiction, Burger King, 471 U.S. at 478-79, the employment agreement, itself, is evidence that defendant participates in the Georgia marketplace. Defendant hired plaintiff

& Pickering, L.L.P., T. Barry Kingham, Curtis, Mallet—Prevost, Colt and Mosle LLP, New York City, Wilmer Parker, III, Gillen Parker and Withers LLC, Atlanta, GA, Lynne Bernabei, Alan R. Kabat, Ber- nabei & Katz, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Defendants. Michael J. Sommi, Cozen O’Connor, New York City, for Mo

rocess requirements. Plaintiffs claim these requirements are met because De- fendants purposefully directed their activi- ties at the United States. Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472, 479, 105 8.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (explain- ing jurisdiction is appropriate if defendant “purposefully dire

r & Pickering, L.L.P., T. Barry Kingham, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt and Mosle LLP, New York City, Wilmer Parker, IJ, Gillen Parker and Withers LLC, Atlanta, GA, Lynne Bernabei, Alan R. Kabat, Bernabei & Katz, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Defendants. Michael J. Sommi, Cozen O’Connor, New York City, for Mova

ed States. The minimum contacts requirement is satisfied “if the defendant has ‘purposefully directed’ his activities at the residents of the forum.” Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). Foreseeability is not enough, there must be “some act by which the defendant