## Facts

- FC Investment Group LC (a Maryland LLC with its principal place of business in the District of Columbia) and its owner, Lawrence Jay Eisenberg (a Maryland resident), invested millions of dollars in a foreign-currency trading program marketed and managed by a third party, Titan Global Strategies, Ltd.
- Titan solicited Eisenberg in Washington, D.C., representing that investments would remain liquid and that currency trades would be executed through a broker affiliated with an international financial group.
- Plaintiffs alleged Titan operated a fraudulent scheme that caused substantial losses and that IFX Markets, Ltd., a London-based currency broker, knowingly participated in the fraud.
- Plaintiffs pointed to asserted “business partner” descriptions, communications and marketing materials bearing IFX’s name or logo, and a wire transfer from Titan to IFX as support for IFX’s alleged involvement.
- Plaintiffs sued IFX in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia asserting fraud-based claims and civil RICO claims, and sought to establish personal jurisdiction through the D.C. long-arm statute (including a conspiracy theory of jurisdiction) and RICO’s service-of-process provisions.
- The district court denied jurisdictional discovery and dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether IFX was subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of Columbia under the D.C. long-arm statute based on IFX’s own contacts, including any website or communications connected to the District.
2. Whether the court could exercise conspiracy-based personal jurisdiction by imputing Titan’s in-forum acts to IFX based on sufficiently pleaded facts showing IFX’s knowing participation in a conspiracy.
3. Whether RICO’s nationwide service-of-process provisions supplied personal jurisdiction over IFX in the District.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying jurisdictional discovery before dismissing.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction over IFX.
- IFX’s alleged web presence and other asserted contacts did not constitute continuous and systematic contacts sufficient for general jurisdiction and did not show purposeful, claim-related forum contacts sufficient for specific jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs failed to plead nonconclusory facts showing IFX knew of and agreed to a fraudulent conspiracy; therefore, Titan’s District-of-Columbia acts could not be imputed to IFX for jurisdiction.
- RICO did not supply personal jurisdiction because plaintiffs did not satisfy the statutory requirements for invoking nationwide service of process on the pleadings.
- Denial of jurisdictional discovery was affirmed because plaintiffs did not make a detailed, non-speculative showing of what discovery would likely uncover and how it would establish jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- The plaintiff bears the burden to allege specific, nonconclusory jurisdictional facts; conclusory assertions of conspiracy or agency do not establish personal jurisdiction.
- A website accessible in the forum, without substantial forum-directed activity, is insufficient to support general personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant.
- Conspiracy-based personal jurisdiction requires pleaded facts showing (1) a conspiracy, (2) the defendant’s knowing participation, and (3) overt acts in the forum in furtherance of the conspiracy; absent such a showing, a co-conspirator’s forum contacts are not imputable.
- RICO’s nationwide service-of-process provisions do not automatically create personal jurisdiction; the statutory prerequisites must be met, including adequately pleading a viable RICO claim and satisfying § 1965’s requirements.
- Jurisdictional discovery may be denied where the request rests on speculation rather than a detailed showing of likely jurisdiction-establishing facts.

## Conclusion

The court held that plaintiffs’ allegations did not establish general, specific, or conspiracy-based personal jurisdiction over a London-based broker in the District of Columbia and that RICO’s service provisions could not cure the pleading deficiencies; it also upheld denial of jurisdictional discovery because plaintiffs did not identify concrete, likely discoverable facts that would support jurisdiction.


FC Inv. Grp. LC v. IFX Mkts., Ltd., 529 F.3d 1087 (D.C. Cir. 2008)