#houseoversight017876
LightNews LightNews
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 2/2 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017876.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight017876
order efficient resolution of the controversy; discovery. See, eg, APWU v. Potter. 348 and (5) the shared interest of the states Fad Rin . 627 @ aa. 2003) toting a cour " in furthering substantive social policies. may " devisfel the proce dures [to] ferret Metro. Life, 4 F8d at 568 (citing Asahi out the facts pertinent to jurisdiction”); Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 arine Midland Bank, N.A. v. Miller, 664 US. 102, 113-16, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 F.p4 g99, 904 d Cir.1981) (noting a court L.Ed.2d 92 (1987)). “These considerations has considerable procedural leeway in de- sometimes serve to establish the reason- ciding whether discovery would assist res- ableness of jurisdiction upon a lesser show- giution of motion to dismiss for lack of ing of minimum contacts than would other- personal jurisdiction); Lehigh Valley In- wise be required.” Burger King, 471 US. dus. y, Birenbaum, 527 F.2d 87, 93-94 (2d at 477, 105 S.Ct. 2174. Cir.1975) (finding no abuse of discretion in [54] There obviously are competing denying discovery where the complaint policy considerations at play here. In gen- failed to plead sufficient facts to establish 34. At oral argument, Plaintiffs focused on sition briefs, see, e.g., Ashton Opp. to Prince specific jurisdiction, see Oct. 12, 2004 Tran- | Mohamed at 22-24; Burnett Opp. to Aljo- script at 44, but Plaintiffs include general maih at 11. The Court considers all argu- jurisdiction arguments in many of their oppo- ments. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017876
February 8, 2026 at 3:26 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 1/2 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017876.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight017876
IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 811 Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 eral, “‘great care and reserve should be S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958)). exercised when extending our notions of [52] For pur the mini personal jurisdiction into the international ache inqahw, a distinction is made be. fel.” Asahi Metal Indus., 480 U.S. at quny, mace O& 115, 107 S.Ct. 1026 (quoting United States tween specific and general jurisdiction. |) ines Nat'l City Bank, 379 US. 378, 404 Specific jurisdiction exists when the forum 35° 5 G4 598, 13 L.Ed.2d 365 (1965) (Har- exercises jurisdiction over the defendant in lan, J., dissenting)). “[T]he unique bur- a suit arising out of the defendant’s con- dend place d upon one who must defend tacts with that forum. Metro. Life Ins. 84 pnexel? in actoreien’ lewal ‘system, should Hed at 567-08. Gotan ju@iadiction S have significant weight in assessing the based on the defendant’s general business tacts with the f + hee the d reasonableness of stretching the long arm suit, a considerably higher level of contacts se A. iiiiee eae nea On me fegencrally required.” Id.aboos. the plaintiffs’ argument that no foreign terrorist today can fairly assert a lack of 2. 1 Reasonab eness ‘fair warning’ that it could be ‘haled into [53] In determining whether the exer- our’ in [this forum.]” Biton v. Palestini- cise of personal jurisdiction is reasonable, gy, Interim Self-Government, 310 a court is to consider: F Supp.2d 172, 178 (D.D.C.2004). (1) the burden that the exercise of juris- diction will impose on the defendant; (2) C. Jurisdictional Discovery the interests in the forum state in adju- [55,56] Plaintiffs urge the Court to — = om 8 nea h deny Defendants’ motions and order juris- tive relief: (4) tbe interstate judicial dictional discovery. In evaluating jurisdic- yan : — J tional motions, district courts enjoy broad systems ‘interest in; obteiningrthe most discretion in deciding whether to
February 8, 2026 at 3:26 AM