Opinion ID: 4538516
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Personal Jurisdiction Over JP Morgan Europe

Text: This leaves one final issue for our consideration. Recall the district court dismissed the Ritchie entities’ claims against JP Morgan Europe because it determined personal jurisdiction over the entity was lacking. The district court reasoned that although it had statutory jurisdiction under New York’s long-arm statute, the Ritchie entities failed to show the exercise of jurisdiction would comport with constitutional due process. The Ritchie entities claim this decision was erroneous and ask us to reverse it. Although we detect no error in the district court’s personal jurisdiction analysis, we believe it is necessary to remand the issue based on the district court’s own reasoning. When reaching its decision, the district court explained that it typically “would stay dismissing [JP Morgan Europe] to allow the plaintiffs to conduct jurisdictional discovery.” However, since the district court believed dismissal of the claims against JP Morgan Europe was necessary because they were time barred, it concluded discovery would be pointless. With the Ritchie Cayman entities’ claims revived, the district court’s rationale for not allowing jurisdictional discovery is no longer present.7 Therefore, we reverse the dismissal of the Ritchie Cayman entities’ claims against JP Morgan Europe in order for the district court to permit jurisdictional 7 We express no opinion as to whether or not the district court was required under the circumstances to offer plaintiffs the opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery. -23- discovery if it deems necessary to determine whether it has personal jurisdiction over JP Morgan Europe.8