One or more Plaintiffs in 06-cv-05561, Diana Kitch v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co et al

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. The NCPC defendants' 371 motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants North China Pharmaceutical Co. Limited and North China Pharmaceutical Group International Trade Co., Ltd. are dismissed from this case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss is denied insofar as it seeks dismissal of defendant North China Pharmaceutical Group Corp. See attached order for further details. Ordered

39 Cited authorities

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
475 U.S. 574 (1986) Cited 115,602 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
444 U.S. 286 (1980) Cited 11,058 times 33 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 4,966 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 4,774 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"
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington
326 U.S. 310 (1945) Cited 23,142 times 111 Legal Analyses
Holding that states may exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants with "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ " (quoting Milliken v. Meyer , 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940) )
Caldarola v. Calabrese
298 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 1,214 times
Holding that information provided by "an identified bystander with no apparent motive to falsify" has "a peculiar likelihood of accuracy"
Metropolitan Life Ins. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp.
84 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 1996) Cited 1,435 times
Holding that district court committed reversible error by limiting timeframe of analysis to the single year prior to the filing of the action
Chloé v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC
616 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2010) Cited 839 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
Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank SAL
673 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2012) Cited 729 times 4 Legal Analyses
Finding New York law applied to tort claim where all of the challenged conduct occurred in New York even though the plaintiffs' injuries occurred in Israel, where they were domiciled
Best Van Lines v. Walker
490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007) Cited 782 times
Holding that we proceed to the constitutional prong of the analysis "[i]f, but only if" we conclude that there is a statutory basis for personal jurisdiction
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 336,952 times 161 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 302 - Personal jurisdiction by acts of non-domiciliaries
N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302 Cited 4,362 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 736 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing for venue where the defendant is "an inhabitant," "may be found," or "transacts business"

One or more Plaintiffs in 06-cv-05561, Diana Kitch v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co et al

39 Cited authorities

Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them

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 information provided by "an identified bystander with no apparent motive to falsify" has "a peculiar likelihood of accuracy"

Holding that district court committed reversible error by limiting timeframe of analysis to the single year prior to the filing of the action

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

Finding New York law applied to tort claim where all of the challenged conduct occurred in New York even though the plaintiffs' injuries occurred in Israel, where they were domiciled

Holding that we proceed to the constitutional prong of the analysis "[i]f, but only if" we conclude that there is a statutory basis for personal jurisdiction

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

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"