HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017836.jpg

IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 771 Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d_ 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) tirely on factual allegations, and would prevail even if defendants made contrary arguments. Fed.Rules _Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. 35. Federal Courts <-96 In resolving motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the district court reads the complaints and affidavits in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. 36. Federal Courts <-96 In resolving a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the district court will not accept legally conclusory assertions or draw argumentative infer- ences. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. 37. Federal Courts €417 A federal court sitting in diversity ex- ercises personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant to the same extent as courts of general jurisdiction of the state in which it sits. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 4(k)(1)(A), 28 U.S.C.A. 38. Courts €12(2.20) For New York’s long-arm statute to provide a basis for personal jurisdiction in a civil conspiracy action, the plaintiffs are not required to establish the existence of a formal agency relationship between the de- fendants and their putative co-conspira- tors. N.Y.McKinney’s CPLR 302(a)(@). 39. Courts €12(2.20) The bland assertion of conspiracy is insufficient to establish personal jurisdic- tion under New York’s long-arm statute. N.Y.McKinney’s CPLR 302(a)(2). 40. Courts €12(2.20) To establish personal jurisdiction on a conspiracy theory under New York’s long- arm statute, the plaintiffs must make a prima facie showing of conspiracy, allege specific facts warranting the inference that the defendant was a member of the con- spiracy, and show that the defendant’s co- conspirator committed a tort in New York. N.Y.McKinney’s CPLR 302(a)(2). 41. Courts €12(2.20) To warrant the inference that an out- of-state defendant was a member of a con- spiracy, as required for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction under New York’s long-arm statute on the basis of the acts of co-conspirators in New York, plaintiffs must show that: (1) the defendant had an awareness of the effects in New York of its activity; (2) the activity of the co-conspira- tors in New York was to the benefit of the out-of-state conspirators; and (8) the co- conspirators acting in New York acted at the direction or under the control or at the request of or on behalf of the out-of-state defendant. N.Y.McKinney’s CPLR 302(a)(2). 42. Federal Courts <=94, 96 Allegations by victims’ survivors, that various defendants, including Saudi Ara- bian Princes, conspired with al Qaeda ter- rorists to perpetrate September 11, 2001 attacks, failed to make prima facie showing necessary to establish personal jurisdiction as to Antiterrorism Act (ATA) claims un- der New York’s long-arm statute, absent specific facts from which district court could infer that defendants directed, con- trolled, or requested al Qaeda to under- take its terrorist activities, or specific alle- gations of defendants’ knowledge of or consent to those activities. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.; N.Y.McKinneys CPLR 302(a)(2). 43. Constitutional Law 3055) Federal Courts €°76.5 For jurisdiction to exist under the rule establishing personal jurisdiction in any district court for cases arising under HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017836