Court Opinion on Personal Jurisdiction in 9/11 Terrorist Attack Litigation

IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 811 Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 §.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1288 (1958)). [52] For purposes of the minimum con- tacts inquiry, a distinction is made be- tween specific and general jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction exists when the forum exercises jurisdiction over the defendant in a suit arising out of the defendant’s con- tacts with that forum. Metro. Life Ins. 84 F.3d at 567-68. General jurisdiction is based on the defendant’s general business contacts with the forum; because the de- fendant’s contacts are not related to the suit, a considerably higher level of contacts is generally required.™ Jd. at 568. 2. Reasonableness [53] In determining whether the exer- cise of personal jurisdiction is reasonable, a court is to consider: (1) the burden that the exercise of juris- diction will impose on the defendant; (2) the interests in the forum state in adju- dicating the case; ©) the plaintiffs in- terest in obtaining convenient and effec- tive relief; (4) the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of the controversy; and (5) the shared interest of the states in furthering substantive social policies. Metro. Life, 84 F.3d at 568 (citing Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 1138-16, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987)). “These considerations sometimes serve to establish the reason- ableness of jurisdiction upon a lesser show- ing of minimum contacts than would other- wise be required.” Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477, 105 S.Ct. 2174. [54] There obviously are competing policy considerations at play here. In gen- 34. At oral argument, Plaintiffs focused on specific jurisdiction, see Oct. 12, 2004 Tran- script at 44, but Plaintiffs include general jurisdiction arguments in many of their oppo- eral, “‘great care and reserve should be exercised when extending our notions of personal jurisdiction into the international field’” Asahi Metal Indus. 480 U.S. at 115, 107 8.Ct. 1026 (quoting United States v. First Nat'l City Bank, 379 U.S. 378, 404, 85 S8.Ct. 528, 138 L.Ed.2d 365 (1965) (Har- lan, J., dissenting)). “[T]he unique bur- dens placed upon one who must defend oneself in a foreign legal system should have significant weight in assessing the reasonableness of stretching the long arm of personal jurisdiction over national bor- ders.” Jd. at 114, 107 S.Ct. 1026. On the other hand, “[t]here is some merit ... to the plaintiffs’ argument that no foreign terrorist today can fairly assert a lack of ‘fair warning’ that it could be ‘haled into court’ in [this forum.]” Beton v. Palestine- an Interrm Self-Government, 310 F.Supp.2d 172, 178 (D.D.C.2004). C. Jurisdictional Discovery [55,56] Plaintiffs urge the Court to deny Defendants’ motions and order juris- dictional discovery. In evaluating jurisdic- tional motions, district courts enjoy broad discretion in deciding whether to order discovery. See, eg., APWU v. Potter, 348 F.3d 619, 627 (2d Cir.2003) (noting a court may “devis[e] the procedures [to] ferret out the facts pertinent to jurisdiction”); Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. Miller, 664 F.2d 899, 904 (2d Cir.1981) (noting a court has considerable procedural leeway in de- ciding whether discovery would assist res- olution of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction); Lehigh Valley In- dus. v. Birenbaum, 527 F.2d 87, 938-94 (2d Cir.1975) (finding no abuse of discretion in denying discovery where the complaint failed to plead sufficient facts to establish sition briefs, see, e.g., Ashton Opp. to Prince Mohamed at 22-24; Burnett Opp. to Aljo- maih at 11. The Court considers all argu- ments. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017876