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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12 Entered 08/17/12 14:29:55 Main Document Pg 34 of 133 440 B.R. 274, 278 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010) (Lifland, J.) (“Chais”); Federalpha Steel LLC v. Fed. Pipe & Steel Corp. (In re Federalpha Steel LLC), 341 B.R. 872, 887 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2006) (The Bankruptcy Rules permit “worldwide service of process, limited only by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.” (internal citation omitted)). Courts undertaking this analysis distinguish between specific and general jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction exists when “a State exercises personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a suit arising out of or related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” Chloe, 616 F.3d at 164 (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 & n.8 (1984)). The exercise of specific jurisdiction is also appropriate when a foreign defendant, “through an act performed elsewhere, causes an effect in the United States.” Eskofot A/S v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 872 F. Supp. 81, 87 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). The act must be “expressly aimed” at the forum to support the exercise of specific jurisdiction. Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789–90 (1984). By contrast, general jurisdiction “is based on the defendant’s general business contacts with the forum state and permits a court to exercise its power in a case where the subject matter of the suit is unrelated to those contacts.” Chloe, 616 F.3d at 164 (citing Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 414–15 & n.9). Second, if the court is satisfied that there are sufficient minimum contacts, it must then assess whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would be reasonable under the circumstances such that the exercise comports with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Id., 616 F.3d at 164 (citing Int’l Shoe Co., 326 U.S. at 316). As demonstrated below, each of the Moving Defendants is subject to the Court’s specific jurisdiction, because each of the Moving Defendants has minimum contacts with the United States. The Trustee’s claims against each Moving Defendant arise out of each Moving 14
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12 Entered 08/17/12 14:29:55 Main Document Pg 35 of 133 Defendant’s contacts with the forum, and it is reasonable to subject each Moving Defendant to suit in the United States. Jurisdiction is also appropriate over each Moving Defendant under New York’s long arm statute, Civil Practice Law and Rules § 302(a)(1). N.Y. C.P.L.R. 302(a)(1) (MCKINNEY 2009) (“CPLR”). Under CPLR 302, personal jurisdiction exists where the defendant “transacts business” in New York. A single transaction is sufficient for specific jurisdiction, even if the defendant never enters the state, “so long as the defendant’s activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted.” Kinetic Instruments, Inc. v. Lares, 802 F. Supp. 976, 982 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (quoting Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp., 522 N.E.2d 40, 43 (N.Y. 1988)); see also Richard Feiner & Co., Inc. v. BMG Music Spain, S.A., No. 01 Civ. 0937 (JSR), 2003 WL 740605, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (“it is clear that § 302(a)(1) is a ‘single act statute’”). Because CPLR 302 does not reach as far as the Constitution permits, contacts sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction in New York will satisfy the requirement of minimum contacts with the United States. See Chais, 440 B.R. at 280. 7 A. Imputation of Personal Jurisdiction to Foreign Parties Closely Related to Parties Present in the Forum In addition, where a foreign party is not present in New York, the jurisdictional presence of a related party may be imputed to the foreign party in two circumstances: (1) where one entity is the “mere department” of the other entity, or (2) where one of the entities acts as the agent of 7 Likewise, a foreign corporation is subject to this Court’s general jurisdiction under CPLR 301 “if it is engaged in such a continuous and systematic course of ‘doing business’ here as to warrant a finding of its presence.” Dorfman v. Marriott Int’l Hotels, Inc., No. 99 Civ. 10496 (CSH), 2002 WL 14363, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2002). 15
Page 1 and 2: 10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 33: 10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 85 and 86:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 87 and 88:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 89 and 90:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 91 and 92:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 93 and 94:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 95 and 96:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 97 and 98:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 99 and 100:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 101 and 102:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 103 and 104:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 105 and 106:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 107 and 108:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 109 and 110:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 111 and 112:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 113 and 114:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 115 and 116:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 117 and 118:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 119 and 120:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 121 and 122:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 123 and 124:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 125 and 126:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 127 and 128:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 129 and 130:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 131 and 132:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
Page 133:
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?