HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017875.jpg

810 Court declines to adopt this standard. There was no question that, at a minimum, the defendants in these products liability actions had substantial contacts with the forum, in these cases being New York, and were involved in the sale or production of the products at issue. In re DES Cases, 789 F.Supp. at 559; Simon, 86 F.Supp.2d at 99-100. Here, however, there are ques- tions as to the Defendants’ contacts with the forum, whether it be the United States generally or New York specifically, and the Defendants’ alleged involvement with al Qaeda is much more attenuated. B. Due Process Requirements [46-49] Any exercise of personal juris- diction must comport with the require- ments of due process. “The due process test for personal jurisdiction has two relat- ed components: the ‘minimum contacts’ inquiry and the ‘reasonableness’ inquiry.” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson—Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560, 567 (2d Cir.1996). De- pending on the basis for personal jurisdic- tion, due process under either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment applies. “[TJhe due process analysis is basically the same under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The principal difference is that under the Fifth Amendment the court can consider the defendant’s contacts throughout the United States, while under the Fourteenth Amendment only the con- tacts with the forum state may be consid- ered.” Chew v. Dietrich, 143 F.3d 24, 28 n. 4 (2d Cir.1998). Here, personal jurisdic- tion under the New York long-arm statute requires minimum contacts with New York pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. The exercise of personal jurisdiction under Rule 4(k) requires contacts with the Unit- ed States as a whole pursuant to the Fifth Amendment. 1. Minimum Contacts [50,51] Minimum contacts are re- quired so “that the maintenance of the suit 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Intl Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); see also World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Wood- son, 444 U.S. 286, 292, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980). The minimum con- tacts requirement is also known as “fair warning,” such that the defendant’s con- tacts with the forum should be sufficient to make it reasonable to be haled into court there. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 474, 105 S.Ct. 2174. The “ ‘fair warning’ requirement is satisfied if the defendant has ‘purposefully directed’ his activities at the residents of the forum ... and the litigation results from alleged injuries that ‘arise out of or relate to’ those activities.” Id. (internal citations omitted); see also World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 297- 98, 100 S.Ct. 559 (finding purposefully di- rected activities where defendant delivered products into stream of commerce with ex- pectation they would be purchased by resi- dents of forum); Calder, 465 U.S. at 789- 90, 104 S.Ct. 1482 (finding publishing ac- tivities outside of forum were calculated to cause injury to plaintiff in forum where she lived and which also had the highest subscription rate). “Although it has been argued that foreseeability of causing iu- ry in another State should be sufficient to establish such contacts there when policy considerations so require, the Court has consistently held that this kind of foresee- ability is not a ‘sufficient benchmark’ for exercising personal jurisdiction.” Burger King, 471 US. at 474, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 295, 100 S.Ct. 559). In every case, there must be “some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Jd. (quoting HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017875