BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New ...

10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12 Entered 08/17/12 14:29:55 Main Document
Pg 106 of 133
inadequate. 45 (See [S.D.N.Y. ECF No. 18 at 1 n.1]; [S.D.N.Y. ECF No. 20 at 4.]) This approach
is procedurally improper and has been rejected in the Southern District of New York. See, e.g.,
Bryant Park Capital v. Jelco Ventures, No. 05 Civ. 8702 (GEL), 2005 WL 3466013, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2005) (“Defendants are mistaken in contending that they ‘do not waive’ any
of the listed objections [by “assert[ing], in passing, that . . . they ‘do not waive’ any future
objection” to personal jurisdiction]; the failure to properly raise a Rule 12(b)(2) motion for lack
of personal jurisdiction at this juncture is preclusive.”). The Court should find that the Moving
Defendants have waived their opportunity to challenge personal jurisdiction.
V. ALL MOVING DEFENDANTS FAIL TO SHOW THAT THE EXERCISE OF
PERSONAL JURISDICTION WOULD BE UNREASONABLE
In addition to “minimum contacts,” which are met here for each Moving Defendant, due
process considerations also require that the exercise of jurisdiction be “reasonable.” Int’l Shoe
Co., 326 U.S. at 317; see also Maxam, 460 B.R. at 117. The Supreme Court has identified five
factors in determining the “reasonableness” of the exercise of personal jurisdiction: (1) “the
burden on the defendant;” (2) “the forum State’s interest in adjudicating the dispute;” (3) “the
plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief;”(4) “the interstate judicial
system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies;” and (5) “the shared
interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.” Burger King,
471 U.S. at 476–77 (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292
(1980)).
Once the Trustee has made a prima facie showing that defendants have the requisite
minimum contacts, the exercise of jurisdiction may be defeated only “where the defendant
45 Notably, Luxalpha failed to even purport to preserve any jurisdictional defenses until filing an April 15, 2012
brief in the Second Circuit opposing the Trustee’s appeal of the District Court’s November 1, 2011 decision [2d Cir.
ECF No. 99.]
86