Vasquez v. H.K. & Shanghai Banking Corp.

43 Citing cases

  1. Seiden v. Baker Tilly H.K.

    No. 17-CV-02583-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2023)

    DiStefano v. Carozzi North America, Inc., 286 F.3d 81, 84 (2d Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). However, “resolving all doubts in plaintiff's favor is not the same as blindly crediting all allegations regardless of their factual support.” Vasquez v. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corp., 477 F.Supp.3d 241, 263 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2020) (quotation omitted). To do so would require the Court to “ignore the basic notion that ‘a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) based on lack of personal jurisdiction is inherently a matter requiring resolution of factual issues outside the pleadings.'” Melnick v. Adelson-Melnick, 346 F.Supp.2d 499, 503 n. 21 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (citation omitted).

  2. Henkin v. Qatar Charity

    21-CV-5716 (AMD) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    When evaluating whether the plaintiffs have met their burden at this stage, “the Court may look beyond the four corners of the complaint and consider materials outside of the pleadings, including accompanying affidavits, declarations, and other written materials.” Vasquez v. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corp., Ltd., 477 F.Supp.3d 241, 245 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

  3. Berdeaux v. OneCoin Ltd.

    561 F. Supp. 3d 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)   Cited 30 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Berdeaux, plaintiffs asserted claims against a group of defendants in connection with an alleged “fraudulent cryptocurrency scheme.

    (cleaned up)). As courts have described in the context of determining whether a foreign bank defendant's use of a correspondent account is purposeful, "the key distinction is between the ‘unintended and unapproved use of a correspondent bank account, where the nondomiciliary bank is a passive and unilateral recipient’ of money transfers, and the ‘[r]epeated, deliberate use that is approved by the foreign bank on behalf and for the benefit of a customer[.]’ " Vasquez v. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corp. , 477 F. Supp. 3d 241, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (quoting Al Rushaid v. Pictet & Cie , 28 N.Y.3d 316, 326–27, 45 N.Y.S.3d 276, 68 N.E.3d 1 (2016) ). Absent allegations that Scott "directed the funds to be deposited or controlled the route of the plaintiffs’ funds through the correspondent account," the mere use of a correspondent account does not subject Scott to jurisdiction under Section 302(a)(1).

  4. Przewozman v. Qatar Charity

    20-CV-6088 (NGG) (TAM) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2023)   Cited 3 times

    Vasquez v. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corp., 477 F.Supp.3d 241,258 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). Other than the number of transfers to the correspondent account and amount of money involved- which, as discussed, are both undefined-there is no indication in the Complaint that Masraf al Rayan made any specific choices regarding the use of the correspondent account.

  5. McDowell v. United Parcel Serv.

    4:22-cv-4028 (W.D. Ark. Aug. 31, 2022)

    Unlike Rule 12(b)(6) motions, Rule 12(b)(2) motions are not converted into a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment when the Court considers materials outside of the pleadings. See Vasquez v. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corp., 477 F.Supp.3d 241, 250 (S.D.N.Y. 2020); Astor Chocolate Corp. v. Elite Gold Ltd., 510 F.Supp.3d 108, 121 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). Nevertheless, Rule 56's standards govern affidavits that are submitted in support of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

  6. Shatsky v. The Palestine Liberation Org.

    18-cv-12355 (MKV) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2022)   Cited 2 times

    On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant. See In re Terrorist Attacks, 714 F.3d 659, 673 (2d Cir. 2013); Vasquez v. H. K. & Shanghai Banking Corp., 477 F.Supp.3d 241, 250 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). Where, as here, jurisdictional discovery has been conducted, “a plaintiff's prima facie showing” of personal jurisdiction “must be ‘factually supported'; in other words, it must ‘include an averment of facts that, if credited by [the ultimate trier of fact], would suffice to establish jurisdiction over the defendant.'” Vasquez, 477 F.Supp.3d at 250 (alteration in original) (quoting Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560, 567 (2d Cir. 1996)).

  7. In re Tether & Bitfinex Crypto Asset Litig.

    576 F. Supp. 3d 55 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)   Cited 9 times

    Under New York law, the "transacts business" prong of CPLR 302(a)(1) "may be satisfied by the defendant's use of a correspondent bank account in New York, even if no other contacts between the defendant and New York can be established, if the defendant's use of that account was purposeful." Vasquez v. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corp., Ltd. , 477 F. Supp. 3d 241, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (quoting Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank , 20 N.Y.3d 327, 337, 960 N.Y.S.2d 695, 984 N.E.2d 893 (2012) ). Here, Plaintiffs allege that Fowler created and operated a "shadow" banking network by opening dozens of bank accounts — using a series of front companies and his own name — in order to assist the DigFinex Defendants in their scheme.

  8. Miami Prods. & Chem. Co. v. Olin Corp.

    545 F. Supp. 3d 1 (W.D.N.Y. 2021)

    Where, as here, a Rule 12(b)(2) motion is made after jurisdictional discovery has been conducted, a plaintiff must make a "factually supported" prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. Vasquez v. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corp., Ltd. , 477 F. Supp. 3d 241, 250 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). More specifically, the plaintiff must make "an averment of facts that, if credited by the ultimate trier of fact, would suffice to establish jurisdiction over the defendant."

  9. Fairfield Sentry Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch Int'l (In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.)

    657 B.R. 362 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2024)

    To, 2017 WL 816136, at *7 n.6. Defendant's Reply cites to Vasquez v. H.K. & Shanghai Banking Corp. Ltd., 477 F. Supp. 3d 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) as another case establishing the supposed rule that the use of New York-based correspondent bank accounts without choosing to transact in U.S. dollars does not suffice to establish personal jurisdiction. Reply at 7, ECF No. 151.

  10. Villalobos v. Telemundo Network Grp.

    22 Civ. 7665 (JPC) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2024)

    ; in other words, it must ‘include an averment of facts that, if credited by the ultimate trier of fact, would suffice to establish jurisdiction over the defendant.'” Vasquez v. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corp., Ltd., 477 F.Supp.3d 241, 250 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (alteration adopted)