18 Cited authorities

Asahi Metal Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court
480 U.S. 102 (1987) Cited 4,873 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
Metzler v. Corinthian
540 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 932 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs failed to plead loss causation where plaintiffs' theory was that "Corinthian's fraud was revealed to the market, causing Metzler's losses" but "[t]he TAC does not allege that the June 24 and August 2 announcements disclosed—or even suggested—[the fraudulent activities] to the market"
Chloé v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC
616 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2010) Cited 788 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
Charles Schwab Corp. v. Bank of Am. Corp.
883 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2018) Cited 339 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Schwab's allegations as to Citibank, HSBC, and JPMorgan Chase could not establish jurisdiction over those banks because the allegations were not sufficiently individualized
Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez
305 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 421 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court adopted "too narrow of a view" of the relevant contacts with respect to specific jurisdiction, reasoning that, although the contacts "may not have directly given rise to the plaintiff's cause of action, they certainly 'relate to' it"
Waldman v. Palestine Liberation Org.
835 F.3d 317 (2d Cir. 2016) Cited 226 times
Holding that there was no specific jurisdiction in part "because the terror attacks in Israel at issue ... were not expressly aimed at the United States and because the deaths and injuries suffered by the American plaintiffs in these attacks were random and fortuitous"
Jung v. Ass'n of Am. Med. Colls.
300 F. Supp. 2d 119 (D.D.C. 2004) Cited 100 times
Finding non-forum defendants' contacts with the forum — up to ten times per year — insufficient to establish that defendant "transacted business" in forum under D.C. Code § 13-423
In re Braskem S.A. Sec. Litig.
246 F. Supp. 3d 731 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) Cited 65 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a list of reasons for the low price the defendant had paid for a good was plausibly misleading because it omitted a "key factor, the bribery-affected side deal" with the supplier and therefore amounted to "a classic half-truth"
Tamam v. Fransabank Sal
667 F. Supp. 2d 720 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) Cited 62 times
Holding that the “mere maintenance of a correspondent account in New York” is insufficient to establish “minimum contacts with the United States”
In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litig.
16 Civ. 696 (BMC)(GRB) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 20, 2017) Cited 25 times
Finding the opposite
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 68,973 times 122 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

In re SSA Bonds Antitrust Litigation

18 Cited authorities

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 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 Schwab's allegations as to Citibank, HSBC, and JPMorgan Chase could not establish jurisdiction over those banks because the allegations were not sufficiently individualized

Holding that the district court adopted "too narrow of a view" of the relevant contacts with respect to specific jurisdiction, reasoning that, although the contacts "may not have directly given rise to the plaintiff's cause of action, they certainly 'relate to' it"

Holding that there was no specific jurisdiction in part "because the terror attacks in Israel at issue ... were not expressly aimed at the United States and because the deaths and injuries suffered by the American plaintiffs in these attacks were random and fortuitous"

Finding non-forum defendants' contacts with the forum — up to ten times per year — insufficient to establish that defendant "transacted business" in forum under D.C. Code § 13-423

Holding that a list of reasons for the low price the defendant had paid for a good was plausibly misleading because it omitted a "key factor, the bribery-affected side deal" with the supplier and therefore amounted to "a classic half-truth"

Holding that the “mere maintenance of a correspondent account in New York” is insufficient to establish “minimum contacts with the United States”

Finding the opposite

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