58 Cited authorities

Daimler AG v. Bauman
571 U.S. 117 (2014) Cited 5,591 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 4,283 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.”
Papasan v. Allain
478 U.S. 265 (1986) Cited 16,640 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that Ex parte Young would not support a suit against a state for ongoing liability for an alleged past breach of trust, since "continuing payment of the income from the lost corpus is essentially equivalent in economic terms to a one-time restoration of the lost corpus itself"
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
Asahi Metal Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court
480 U.S. 102 (1987) Cited 4,868 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
Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.
561 U.S. 247 (2010) Cited 1,456 times 177 Legal Analyses
Holding extraterritorial application of a statute is a merits question, not a question of subject matter jurisdiction
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.
465 U.S. 770 (1984) Cited 3,021 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
Chloé v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC
616 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2010) Cited 787 times
Holding that a defendant's conduct was purposefully directed toward New York because the defendant offered bags for sale on its website to New York customers and shipped at least one bag to a New York customer
Jazini ex rel. Jazini v. Nissan Motor Co.
148 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 1998) Cited 698 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "conclusory non-fact-specific jurisdictional allegations" and "legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation" do not meet the burden of a prima facie showing of jurisdiction
Daniel v. Am. Bd. of Emergency Med.
428 F.3d 408 (2d Cir. 2005) Cited 495 times
Holding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate antitrust injury where their "economic expert conceded that he had performed no analysis of the consumer effect of defendants’ purportedly anticompetitive conduct"
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 344,855 times 920 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 68,636 times 121 Legal Analyses
Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time
Section 1391 - Venue generally
28 U.S.C. § 1391 Cited 27,708 times 197 Legal Analyses
Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred
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

58 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 Ex parte Young would not support a suit against a state for ongoing liability for an alleged past breach of trust, since "continuing payment of the income from the lost corpus is essentially equivalent in economic terms to a one-time restoration of the lost corpus itself"

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

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 extraterritorial application of a statute is a merits question, not a question of subject matter jurisdiction

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 defendant's conduct was purposefully directed toward New York because the defendant offered bags for sale on its website to New York customers and shipped at least one bag to a New York customer

Holding that "conclusory non-fact-specific jurisdictional allegations" and "legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation" do not meet the burden of a prima facie showing of jurisdiction

Holding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate antitrust injury where their "economic expert conceded that he had performed no analysis of the consumer effect of defendants’ purportedly anticompetitive conduct"

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

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

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