In re SSA Bonds Antitrust Litigation

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 537 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Second Consolidated Class Action Complaint., 540 MOTION to Dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint., 542 MOTION to Dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint., 533 MOTION to Dismiss ., 520 MOTION to Dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. Plaintiffs' Consolidated Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue. Document

117 Cited authorities

Daimler AG v. Bauman
571 U.S. 117 (2014) Cited 5,588 times 236 Legal Analyses
Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"
Walden v. Fiore
571 U.S. 277 (2014) Cited 4,281 times 49 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the mere fact that [defendant's] conduct affected plaintiffs with connections to the forum State does not suffice to authorize jurisdiction.”
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
471 U.S. 462 (1985) Cited 16,802 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant has "fair warning" if he purposefully directs his activities at residents of the forum and if the litigation results from alleged injuries arising out of or relating to those activities.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal.
137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) Cited 2,174 times 135 Legal Analyses
Holding that unrelated contacts cannot diminish the required showing of an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
444 U.S. 286 (1980) Cited 10,815 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding that an Oklahoma court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over a car retailer when the retailer's only connection to Oklahoma was the fact that a car sold in New York became involved in an accident in Oklahoma
Asahi Metal Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court
480 U.S. 102 (1987) Cited 4,867 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in suit by Taiwanese manufacturer for indemnification against Japanese manufacturer, the assertion by California court of personal jurisdiction over Japanese manufacturer was unreasonable
Calder v. Jones
465 U.S. 783 (1984) Cited 4,611 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding a California court had personal jurisdiction over individual defendants when the defendants had not visited the state in connection with an allegedly defamatory article and "[we]re not responsible for the circulation of the article in California"
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.
465 U.S. 770 (1984) Cited 3,019 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that, because the defendant was "carrying on a part of its general business" in the state, it was fair to subject the defendant to jurisdiction for a claim arising out of that activity
McGee v. International Life Ins. Co.
355 U.S. 220 (1957) Cited 3,400 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a California court had jurisdiction over an out-of-state insurer when the insurer delivered the offer of life insurance and the insurance contract itself to California and the insured had sent his premium payments from California to the insurer for two years
Cleveland v. Caplaw Enters.
448 F.3d 518 (2d Cir. 2006) Cited 962 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding district court was not required to convert motion to summary judgment where court did not consider deposition excerpts but, rather, relied only upon pleadings and contract incorporated by reference into the pleadings
Section 1391 - Venue generally
28 U.S.C. § 1391 Cited 27,694 times 197 Legal Analyses
Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred
Section 302 - Personal jurisdiction by acts of non-domiciliaries
N.Y. CPLR 302 Cited 4,201 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that service may be made "to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served and by ... mailing the summons to the person to be served at his or her last known residence"
Section 22 - District in which to sue corporation
15 U.S.C. § 22 Cited 723 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing for venue where the defendant is "an inhabitant," "may be found," or "transacts business"

In re SSA Bonds Antitrust Litigation

117 Cited authorities

Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"

Holding that “the mere fact that [defendant's] conduct affected plaintiffs with connections to the forum State does not suffice to authorize jurisdiction.”

Holding that a defendant has "fair warning" if he purposefully directs his activities at residents of the forum and if the litigation results from alleged injuries arising out of or relating to those activities.

Holding that unrelated contacts cannot diminish the required showing of an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy

Holding that an Oklahoma court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over a car retailer when the retailer's only connection to Oklahoma was the fact that a car sold in New York became involved in an accident in Oklahoma

Holding that, in suit by Taiwanese manufacturer for indemnification against Japanese manufacturer, the assertion by California court of personal jurisdiction over Japanese manufacturer was unreasonable

Holding a California court had personal jurisdiction over individual defendants when the defendants had not visited the state in connection with an allegedly defamatory article and "[we]re not responsible for the circulation of the article in California"

Holding that, because the defendant was "carrying on a part of its general business" in the state, it was fair to subject the defendant to jurisdiction for a claim arising out of that activity

Holding that a California court had jurisdiction over an out-of-state insurer when the insurer delivered the offer of life insurance and the insurance contract itself to California and the insured had sent his premium payments from California to the insurer for two years

Holding district court was not required to convert motion to summary judgment where court did not consider deposition excerpts but, rather, relied only upon pleadings and contract incorporated by reference into the pleadings

Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred

Holding that service may be made "to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served and by ... mailing the summons to the person to be served at his or her last known residence"

Providing for venue where the defendant is "an inhabitant," "may be found," or "transacts business"