Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-26073House OversightOther

Legal standards for personal jurisdiction in conspiracy cases cited in 9/11 litigation

The document outlines procedural requirements for establishing personal jurisdiction over alleged conspirators in 9/11‑related lawsuits. It contains no specific names, transactions, dates, or actionab Defines four elements required to plead a conspiracy claim. Specifies New York long‑arm statute criteria for inferring defendant participation. Notes due‑process minimum contacts test for personal ju

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #017907
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The document outlines procedural requirements for establishing personal jurisdiction over alleged conspirators in 9/11‑related lawsuits. It contains no specific names, transactions, dates, or actionab Defines four elements required to plead a conspiracy claim. Specifies New York long‑arm statute criteria for inferring defendant participation. Notes due‑process minimum contacts test for personal ju

Tags

conspiracy-lawpersonal-jurisdiction911-litigationlegal-standardslegal-exposurejurisdictionhouse-oversight

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 392 F.Supp.2d 539 (2005) 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 789 To establish personal jurisdiction based on a conspiracy theory under New York’s long-arm statute, plaintiffs must make a prima facie showing of conspiracy and allege facts warranting an inference that defendant was a member of the conspiracy. NY.McKinney’s CPLR 302(a)(2). 3 Cases that cite this headnote 118] Conspiracy @Nature and Elements in General Conspiracy Pleading To plead a valid cause of action for conspiracy, a plaintiff must allege the primary tort and four elements: (1) a corrupt agreement between two or more persons, (2) an overt act in furtherance of the agreement, (3) the parties’ intentional participation in the furtherance of a plan or purpose, and (4) the resulting damage or mjury. Cases that cite this headnote (161 Courts @ Conspiracy and co-conspirators To warrant the inference that a defendant was a member of the conspiracy, as would establish personal jurisdiction under New York’s long-arm statute, plaintiffs must show that (1) defendant had an awareness of the effects in New York of its activity, (2) the activity of the co-conspirators in New York was to the benefit of the out-of-state conspirators, and (3) the co-conspirators acting in New York acted at the direction or under the control of or at the request of or on behalf of the out-of-state defendant. N.Y.McKinney’s CPLR 302(a)(2). 3 Cases that cite this headnote [7 Constitutional Law WESTLAW [18] [19] Non-residents in general The exercise of personal jurisdiction must comport with due process requirements, Le., there must be minimum contacts and the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14. 1 Cases that cite this headnote Federal Courts Related contacts and activities; specific jurisdiction Federal Courts Business contacts and activities; transacting or doing business Specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant exists when the forum exercises jurisdiction over the defendant in a suit arising out of defendant’s contacts with that forum; general jurisdiction is based on a defendant’s general business contacts with the forum. Cases that cite this headnote Federal Courts @ Terrorism Two officials of Saudi Arabian government did not have such minimum contacts with the United States as to support a finding of general personal jurisdiction, in action alleging their decisions regarding distribution of humanitarian relief funds provided support for terrorist organization responsible for September 11th attacks, despite alleged donations of money to established humanitarian organizations that might have been diverting funds to support terrorists and despite one official’s visit to the White House twelve years before the attacks. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. 1 Cases that cite this headnote

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.