DeFalco v. Bernas, 244 F.3d 286, 309 (2d Cir. 2001); see 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). “Although the law in this Circuit does not require RICO plaintiffs to show more than a minimal effect on interstate commerce, even a minimal showing requires some factual allegations of a nexus with interstate commerce.” Lally v. Leff, No. 17-CV-4291 (JFB) (SIL), 2018 WL 4445152, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2018) (citations, quotation marks, brackets, and ellipses omitted).
(quoting Scotto v. Almenas, 143 F.3d 105, 111 (2d Cir. 1998), and Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 335 (1983)); see also T.A. v. Leff, No. 17-CV-4291 (JFB/SIL), 2018 WL 5077163, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. July 19, 2018), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Lally v. Leff, 2018 WL 4445152 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2018). As relevant here, in New York, “[t]he Commissioner of Jurors is considered an officer of the court and performs services according to rules prescribed by the Appellate Division, which services are an integral part of the operation of the courts.” Newsday, Inc. v. Sise, 507 N.Y.S.2d 182, 186 (App. Div. 1986), aff'd, 518 N.E.2d 930 (1987); see, e.g., N.Y. JUD. LAW § 502(d) (“The commissioner shall take any steps necessary to enforce the laws and rules relating to the drawing, selection, summoning and impanelling of jurors.”)
” Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 171 F.3d 779, 784 (2d Cir. 1999); see T.A. v. Leff, No. 17-cv-4291, 2018 WL 5077163, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 19, 2018), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Lally v. Leff, 2018 WL 4445152 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2018) (quoting Penguin Grp. (USA) Inc. v. Am. Buddha, 609 F.3d 30, 34 (2d Cir. 2010)).
“When responding to a Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant.” Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 171 F.3d 779, 784 (2d Cir. 1999); see T.A. v. Leff, No. 17-cv-4291, 2018 WL 5077163, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 19, 2018), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Lally v. Leff, 2018 WL 4445152 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2018) (quoting Penguin Grp. (USA) Inc. v. Am. Buddha, 609 F.3d 30, 34 (2d Cir. 2010)).
It is also undisputed that the Divorce Action concluded, and the judgment was rendered before this federal action. As a result, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes Plaintiff's claims....”), report & recommendation adopted sub nom., Lally v. Leff, No. 17-CV-4291, 2018 WL 4445152 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2018), appeal dismissed, No. 18-3124, 2019 WL 3954787 (2d Cir. Mar. 6, 2019) (slip op.); Oxman v. Oxman, No. 3:16-CV-1304, 2017 WL 4078114, at *3-4 (D. Conn. Sept. 13, 2017) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibited claims “couched in terms of fraud and violations of constitutional rights, [because it was] apparent that the injuries the plaintiff claims she has sustained all relate back to the Judgment of the New York Supreme Court entered in the plaintiff's divorce case . . . and the consequences flowing from that Judgment, e.g., the transfer of . . . property.“).
It also applies to cases on the verge of being matrimonial in nature . . . which includes actions directed at challenging the results of domestic relations proceedings". Lally v. Leff, 2018 WL 4445152, *4 (E.D.N.Y. 2018); Martinez v. Queens County District Attorney, 596 Fed. App'x 10, 12 (2d Cir. 2015). Although plaintiff argues that she "does not seek an order affecting any state court proceeding" and "does not seek to overturn or modify [the Final Order] in this court" (plaintiff's Memorandum of Law [101-4], pp. 10, 11), that is exactly what she seeks.