House Oversight — Estate records
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017830
FedMap
- Pages
- 74
- Text
- Searchable
Text as released
Machine-read from the scan. Names, dates and numbers can be misread — check anything you rely on against the original page.
IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) 765 tain general jurisdiction over them, all claims asserted against those individual defendants are dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. 3. Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Jurisdictional Discovery as to Privatbank’s Investing Activities in the United States [37] Plaintiffs point out that Privatbank’s website and its 2001 Annual Report state that Privatbank engages in transactions involving securities issued in the United States. (2001 Annual Report at 3, attached to Affidavit of Frances E. Bivens at Exhibit B). There is no allegation that transactions are related to the claims asserted here. Accordingly, they are only relevant to this Court’s determination of whether the exercise of general jurisdiction over Privatbank is warranted pursuant to Rule 4(k)(2) for having such ‘‘continuous and systematic general business contacts’’ with the United States. See Aerogroup Int’l, Inc., 956 F.Supp. at 439. Because plaintiffs have identified a genuine issue of jurisdictional fact, the question of general jurisdiction cannot be resolved on the pleadings and affidavits alone. Thus, plaintiffs are entitled to jurisdictional discovery regarding the extent of defendant Privatbank’s general business contacts with the United States in the years 1992—1998, a period that includes the relevant period in this action and five preceding years. See In re Magnetic Audiotape Antitrust Litig., 334 F.3d at 207– 08; see also, Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84 F.3d at 569–70 (holding that the time period relevant for determining extent of a defendant’s contacts for general jurisdiction purpose should include a number of years prior to the events giving rise to the claims asserted). IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Sovereign defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs’ claims alleging takings in violation of international law, promissory estoppel, equitab […]