Bruce Ball v. Metallurgie Hoboken-Overpelt, S.A.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “[p]rior to discovery, . . . the plaintiff’s prima facie showing may be established solely by allegations”
• noting that a Rule 12(b)(2) motion “assumes the truth of the plaintiff’s factual allegations for purposes of the motion and challenges their sufficiency”
• declining to consider due process concerns because district court properly held that plaintiffs failed to establish jurisdiction over defendant under New York C.P.L.R. 301 and 302
• rejecting proposition that defendant may, on a Rule 12(b)(2) motion, refute plaintiff’s unsupported allegations with specific testimonial evidence regarding fact essential to personal jurisdiction
• rejecting proposition that defendant may, on a Rule 12(b)(2) motion, refute plaintiff’s unsupported allegations with specific testimonial evidence regarding fact essential to personal jurisdiction
• discussing the changing nature of personal jurisdiction analysis, depending on the procedural posture of the case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).