IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
771
Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
tirely on factual allegations, and would prevail even if defendants made contrary arguments. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2), 28 U.S.C.A.
35. Federal Courts <-96
In resolving motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the district court reads the complaints and affidavits in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2), 28 U.S.C.A.
36. Federal Courts <-96
In resolving a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the district court will not accept legally conclusory assertions or draw argumentative infer- ences. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2), 28 U.S.C.A.
37. Federal Courts €417
A federal court sitting in diversity ex- ercises personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant to the same extent as courts of general jurisdiction of the state in which it sits. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 4(k)(1)(A), 28 U.S.C.A.
38. Courts €12(2.20)
For New York’s long-arm statute to provide a basis for personal jurisdiction in a civil conspiracy action, the plaintiffs are not required to establish the existence of a formal agency relationship between the de- fendants and their putative co-conspira- tors. N.Y.McKinney’s CPLR 302(a)(@).
39. Courts €12(2.20)
The bland assertion of conspiracy is insufficient to establish personal jurisdic- tion under New York’s long-arm statute. N.Y.McKinney’s CPLR 302(a)(2).
40. Courts €12(2.20)
To establish personal jurisdiction on a conspiracy theory under New York’s long- arm statute, the plaintiffs must make a prima facie showing of conspiracy, allege
specific facts warranting the inference that the defendant was a member of the con- spiracy, and show that the defendant’s co- conspirator committed a tort in New York. N.Y.McKinney’s CPLR 302(a)(2).
41. Courts © 12(2.20)
To warrant the inference that an out- of-state defendant was a member of a con- spiracy, as required for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction under New York’s long-arm statute on the basis of the acts of co-conspirators in New York, plaintiffs must show that: (1) the defendant had an awareness of the effects in New York of its activity; (2) the activity of the co-conspira- tors in New York was to the benefit of the out-of-state conspirators; and (8) the co- conspirators acting in New York acted at the direction or under the control or at the request of or on behalf of the out-of-state defendant. N.Y.McKinney’s CPLR 302(a)(2).
42. Federal Courts 94, 96
Allegations by victims’ survivors, that various defendants, including Saudi Ara- bian Princes, conspired with al Qaeda ter- rorists to perpetrate September 11, 2001 attacks, failed to make prima facie showing necessary to establish personal jurisdiction as to Antiterrorism Act (ATA) claims un- der New York’s long-arm statute, absent specific facts from which district court could infer that defendants directed, con- trolled, or requested al Qaeda to under- take its terrorist activities, or specific alle- gations of defendants’ knowledge of or consent to those activities. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.; N.Y.McKinneys CPLR 302(a)(2).
43. Constitutional Law 305)
Federal Courts €76.5
For jurisdiction to exist under the rule establishing personal jurisdiction in any district court for cases arising under
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017836