Legal analysis of personal jurisdiction and due process standards in federal cases

772 federal law where the defendant has suffi- cient contacts with the United States as a whole but is not subject to jurisdiction in any particular state, there must be a fed- eral claim, personal jurisdiction must not exist over the defendant in any state, and the defendant must have sufficient con- tacts with the United States as a whole such that the exercise of jurisdiction does not violate Fifth Amendment due process. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; Fed.Rules Civ. Proc.Rule 4(k)(@), 28 U.S.C.A. 44, Constitutional Law ¢=305(5) To comply with the Due Process Clause, jurisdiction based on the Antiter- rorism Act (ATA), or on the rule establish- ing personal jurisdiction in any district court for cases arising under federal law where the defendant has sufficient con- tacts with the United States as a whole but is not subject to jurisdiction in any particu- lar state, requires minimum contacts with the United States, which may be estab- lished under a “personally directed” theo- ry. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; 18 U.S.C.A. § 2334(a); Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 4(k)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. 45. Constitutional Law €=305(5) Federal Courts 76.25, 86 Modified due process standard appro- priate for mass torts would not be applied to question whether district court had per- sonal jurisdiction over Saudi Arabian Princes and other defendants in Antiter- rorism Act (ATA) action by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, giv- en questions as to defendants’ contacts with forum and attenuated nature of their alleged involvement with al Qaeda. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; 18 U.S.C.A, § 2331 et seq. 46. Constitutional Law ¢305(4.1) Any exercise of personal jurisdiction must comport with the requirements of due process. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES 47, Constitutional Law ¢305(4.1) Depending on the basis for personal jurisdiction, due process under either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment applies. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14. 48. Courts €712(2.5) Personal jurisdiction under the New York long-arm statute requires minimum contacts with New York pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14; N.Y.McKinney’s CPLR 302(a)(2). 49, Constitutional Law ¢=305(5) Pursuant to the Fifth Amendment, personal jurisdiction, under the rule estab- lishing personal jurisdiction in any district court for cases arising under federal law where the defendant has sufficient con- tacts with the United States as a whole but is not subject to jurisdiction in any particu- lar state, requires contacts with the United States as a whole. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 4(k)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. 50. Constitutional Law ¢=305(5) The due process minimum contacts requirement is known as “fair warning,” such that the defendant’s contacts with the forum should be sufficient to make it rea- sonable to be haled into court there. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14. 51. Constitutional Law ¢=305(5) The “fair warning” requirement of the Due Process Clause is satisfied if the de- fendant has purposefully directed his activ- ities at the residents of the forum and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14. 52. Constitutional Law ¢=305(5) Federal Courts 76.5, 76.10 For purposes of the minimum contacts inquiry required by the Due Process HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017837