Court discusses Rule 4(k) personal jurisdiction in 9/11 terrorism lawsuits

IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 807 Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) Defendants either dispute the manner in which they were served or were not served in the United States. Accordingly, the Court must consider an alternative basis for personal jurisdiction. [43] If the New York long-arm statute or the ATA does not establish personal jurisdiction, the Court will engage in a Rule 4(k)@) analysis. Rule 4(k)(@) states: If the exercise of jurisdiction is consis- tent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, serving a summons or filing a waiver of service is also effective, with respect to claims arising under fed- eral law, to establish personal jurisdic- tion over the person of any defendant who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of general jurisdiction of any state. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(2). Rule 4(k)@) “fill[s] a gap in the enforcement of federal law” for courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants with sufficient contacts with the United States generally, but in- sufficient contacts with any one state in particular. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)@) advisory committee’s note; United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 945 F.Supp. 609, 616- 17 (S.D.N.Y.1996). For jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2), there must be a federal claim, personal jurisdiction must not exist over the defendant in New York or any other state, and the defendant must have suffi- cient contacts with the United States as a whole such that the exercise of jurisdiction does not violate Fifth Amendment due pro- cess. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 945 F.Supp. at 617. a. Purposefully Directed Activities Theory Personal jurisdiction based on Rule 4(k) requires minimum contacts with the Unit- ed States to satisfy Fifth Amendment due process requirements. Plaintiffs claim these requirements are met because De- fendants purposefully directed their activi- ties at the United States. Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472, 479, 105 8.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (explain- ing jurisdiction is appropriate if defendant “purposefully directed his activities at resi- dents of the forum and the litigation re- sults from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities” and finding minimum contacts existed since dispute arose from a contract with substantial con- tacts with the forum) (internal quotations and citations omitted); Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984) (finding personal juris- diction appropriate over non-resident de- fendants who “expressly aimed” intention- ally tortious conduct at residents of forum state, even where defendants were never physically present in forum); see also Da- ventree, 349 F.Supp.2d 736 at 762-63, 2004 WL 2997881, at *22 (finding exercise of personal jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2) is appropriate if defendants “purposefully di- rected their activities at residents of the forum, and the litigation results from al- leged injuries that arise out of or related to those activities”). Pursuant to the hold- ings in Burger King, Calder, and three recent terrorism cases—Rein v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 995 F.Supp. 325 (E.D.N.Y.1998), Daliberti v. Republic of Iraq, 97 F.Supp.2d 38 (D.D.C. 2000), and Pugh v. Socialist People’s Lib- yan Arab Jamahiriya, 290 F.Supp.2d 54 (D.D.C.2003)—Plaintiffs submit that the moving Defendants knew that the primary target of Osama bin Laden’s and al Qae- da’s campaign of terror was the United States and that by providing assistance to these terrorists, who Plaintiffs claim were Defendants’ co-conspirators, Defendants aimed their conduct at the United States. In Rein, the court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of subject mat- ter and personal jurisdiction in a case aris- HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017872