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 5,940 times 238 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 4,513 times 49 Legal Analyses
Holding that, for specific jurisdiction, "the relationship must arise out of contacts that the 'defendant [it]self' creates with the forum State" (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985))
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
471 U.S. 462 (1985) Cited 17,181 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 2,230 times 135 Legal Analyses
Holding plaintiffs had failed to establish personal jurisdiction over defendants in California in part because they "did not allege that they obtained [the drug at issue] through California physicians or from any other California source; nor did they claim that they were injured by [that drug] or were treated for their injuries in California"
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
444 U.S. 286 (1980) Cited 10,993 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 4,947 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 4,731 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 3,097 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that jurisdiction was proper in New Hampshire for publication-based defamation torts, even though the defendant magazine publisher sold most of its magazines elsewhere and that, as a result, "the bulk of the harm done to [the plaintiff] occurred outside New Hampshire"
McGee v. International Life Ins. Co.
355 U.S. 220 (1957) Cited 3,412 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
Metropolitan Life Ins. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp.
84 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 1996) Cited 1,419 times
Holding that dismissal was appropriate where no witnesses or other evidence were located in Vermont, neither party was a resident, and "Florida, the locus of the alleged tort . . . ha far more significant interest[] in resolving the dispute"
Section 1391 - Venue generally
28 U.S.C. § 1391 Cited 28,738 times 199 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. C.P.L.R. § 302 Cited 4,322 times 6 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 733 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, for specific jurisdiction, "the relationship must arise out of contacts that the 'defendant [it]self' creates with the forum State" (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985))

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 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 jurisdiction was proper in New Hampshire for publication-based defamation torts, even though the defendant magazine publisher sold most of its magazines elsewhere and that, as a result, "the bulk of the harm done to [the plaintiff] occurred outside New Hampshire"

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 that dismissal was appropriate where no witnesses or other evidence were located in Vermont, neither party was a resident, and "Florida, the locus of the alleged tort . . . ha far more significant interest[] in resolving the dispute"

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"