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
Finding sufficient allegations of fact under each of the four factors to demonstrate that the American subsidiary was a mere department of its foreign corporation
131 F. Supp. 2d 544 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) Cited 55 times
Holding all the factors aside from common ownership "counsel against the exercise of personal jurisdiction" where "the plaintiff cannot, and does not, adequately demonstrate that the [subsidiary] is dependent upon [the parent corporation] for funds. To the contrary, the facts alleged suggest that the [subsidiary] generates the bulk of [the parent corporation]'s income"
722 F. Supp. 2d 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) Cited 31 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that plaintiff's suit was not anticipatory because defendant's intent to sue was "far from clear," as the cease and desist letter failed to include specific deadlines or identify a possible forum for subsequent legal action, and indicated a desire to "negotiate a business resolution"
99-CV-0312E(F) (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2000) Cited 18 times
Finding financial dependence factor not satisfied where initial investment derived from parent but subsidiary had financially independent operations and received no day-to-day financing