Haber v. United States (2016)

See, e.g., Clay, 199 F.3d at 879 ; Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 750-51 (2d Cir. 2016); Upton v. IRS, 104 F.3d 543, 545-46 (2d Cir. 1997) (per curiam).

SCRL, 671 F.3d 140, 149 (2d Cir. 2011), or “unfounded and speculative accusations,” Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 755 (2d Cir. 2016), a district court may properly deny their request for jurisdictional discovery.

See Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 754 (2d Cir. 2016) (“We review a district court’s denial of jurisdictional discovery for abuse of discretion.”).4 * * * We have considered Appellants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

“We review a district court’s denial of jurisdictional discovery for abuse of discretion.” Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 754 (2d Cir. 2016).

On appeal from such a dismissal, we review a district court’s legal conclusions de novo, see Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 751 (2d Cir. 2016), and its factual findings for clear error, see Cortlandt St.

Recovery Corp. v. Hellas Telecomms., S.Á.R.L, 790 F.3d 411, 417 (2d Cir. 2015), and its legal conclusions de novo, see Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 751 (2d Cir. 2016).

Federale De La Culture De La Confederation Suisse, 999 F.3d 808 , 828 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting Arch Trading Corp. v. jurisdictional discovery if the record shows that the requested discovery is not likely to produce the facts needed to withstand a Rule 12(b)(1) motion.” Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 753 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Freeman v. United States, 556 F.3d 326, 342 (5th Cir. 2009)); see also Gualandi v. Adams, 385 F.3d 236 , 244–45 (2d Cir. 2004) (affirming denia…

Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 750 (2d Cir. 2016).

“A plaintiff bears the burden o[f] demonstrating that sovereign immunity has been waived.” Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 751 (2d Cir. 2016) (citing Makarova, 201 F.3d at 113 ).

“A party is not entitled to jurisdictional discovery if the record shows that the requested discovery is not likely to produce the facts needed to withstand a Rule 12(b)(1) motion.” Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 753 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Freeman v. United States, 556 F.3d 326, 342 (5th Cir. 2009)); -se-e -al-so- -G-ua-la-n-di- v-.

Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 753 (2d Cir. 2016) (citing, inter alia, Freeman v. United States, 556 F.3d 326, 342 (5th Cir. 2009) (“A party is not entitled to jurisdictional discovery if the record shows that the requested discovery is not likely to produce the facts needed to” confer jurisdiction. (brackets omitted))).

Lastly, the Court denies Defendant’s request for jurisdictional discovery. “[A] district court does not abuse its discretion if it denies jurisdictional discovery where” a party fails “to show how the information [it] hoped to obtain from this discovery would bear on the critical issue for jurisdiction.” Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 753 (2d Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing, inter alia, Freeman v. United States, 556 F.3d 326, 342 (5th Cir. 2009) …

“Therefore, if a summons ‘is issued in aid of the collection’ of a taxpayer's liability,’ the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity.” Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 750 (2d Cir. 2016).

Saint-Gobain asserts that “more recent Second Circuit caselaw has rejected jurisdictional discovery “based entirely on conclusory and implausible allegations.’” Saint-Gobain’s Mem. at 3 (quoting Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 754 (2d Cir. 2016)).

Saint-Gobain asserts that “more recent Second Circuit caselaw has rejected jurisdictional discovery “based entirely on conclusory and implausible allegations.’” Saint-Gobain’s Mem. at 3 (quoting Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 754 (2d Cir. 2016)).

Saint-Gobain asserts that “more recent Second Circuit caselaw has rejected jurisdictional discovery “based entirely on conclusory and implausible allegations.’” Saint-Gobain’s Mem. at 3 (quoting Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 754 (2d Cir. 2016)).

Saint-Gobain asserts that “more recent Second Circuit caselaw has rejected jurisdictional discovery “based entirely on conclusory and implausible allegations.’” Saint-Gobain’s Mem. at 3 (quoting Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 754 (2d Cir. 2016)).

Saint-Gobain asserts that “more recent Second Circuit caselaw has rejected jurisdictional discovery “based entirely on conclusory and implausible allegations.’” Saint-Gobain’s Mem. at 3 (quoting Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 754 (2d Cir. 2016)).

Saint-Gobain asserts that “more recent Second Circuit caselaw has rejected jurisdictional discovery “based entirely on conclusory and implausible allegations.’” Saint-Gobain’s Mem. at 3 (quoting Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 754 (2d Cir. 2016)).

Saint-Gobain asserts that “more recent Second Circuit caselaw has rejected jurisdictional discovery “based entirely on conclusory and implausible allegations.’” Saint-Gobain’s Mem. at 3 (quoting Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 754 (2d Cir. 2016)).

(Id. at 38) A request for jurisdictional discovery may be denied when the requesting party has not shown “that the requested discovery is likely to produce the facts needed to establish jurisdiction.” Haber v. U.S., 823 F.3d 746, 750 (2d Cir. 2016).

No. 105–206, § 3706, 112 Stat. 8 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4258 Doc: 35 Filed: 07/31/2023 Pg: 9 of 17 685, 778 (1998); see also Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746 , 755 n.6 (2d Cir. 2016); Sanders v. United States, 53 F.3d 343 (Table), 1995 WL 257812 , at *1 (10th Cir. 1995).

See Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 751, 753 (2d Cir. 2016) (engaging in a “preliminary review of the IRS’s contention that it issued the challenged summons in aid of collection”).

See Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 754 (2d Cir. 2016).

See Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 753 (2d Cir. 2016) (noting that jurisdictional discovery is inappropriate where requesting party has not shown how the requested discovery would produce facts necessary to withstand dismissal); see also Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239, 255 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[T]he district court acted well within its discretion in declining to permit discovery because the plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case for jurisdiction.”).

Aug. 23, 2013) (ordering jurisdictional discovery into citizenship of the defendant LLC where the plaintiffs failed to provide competent proof sufficient to overcome defendants’ factual challenge but otherwise made a good faith effort to establish the LLC’s citizenship); see also Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 750 (2d Cir. 2016) (holding that the district court “did not abuse its discretion in denying jurisdictional discovery because [the plaintiff] did not meet his b…

Gualandi v. Adams, 385 F.3d 236, 245 (2d Cir. 2004); see also Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 753 (2d Cir. 2016).

See Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 753 (2d Cir. 2016) (noting that a party is not entitled to jurisdictional discovery if the requested discovery is “not likely to produce the facts needed” to establish jurisdiction) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

See Haber v. United States, 823 F.3d 746, 753 (2d Cir. 2016) (not- ing that jurisdictional discovery is inappropriate if the plaintiff fails to show how the in- formation to be obtained bears on the jurisdictional issue).