the state to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant.”). These authors, although noting that the rule is designed to help plaintiffs, nonetheless note that if a plaintiff cannot identify a federal district court in a state with a long-arm statute that would reach the defendant: the clause seems destined to foment costly, time-consuming, superfluous, and distracting litigation about a defendant’s amenability to jurisdiction in different states. In an anomalous turnabout, those disputes would involve plaintiffs arguing that defendants are not subject to jurisdiction under any state long-arm statute and defendants arguing that they are and that the litigation is in the wrong state. Id. at 227. See also United States v. Offshore Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 156, 157-59 (D.Vi.1998) (<HOLDING>). 9 . Plaintiff characterizes as a
holding that no basis existed for personal jurisdiction after reviewing the plaintiffs alleged contacts pursuant to the territorys longarm statute and rule 4k2 holding that personal jurisdiction is proper if party has sufficient minimum contacts holding that the massachusetts longarm statute provides for jurisdiction over a nonresident personal representative when the decedent had sufficient contacts with the forum such that the decedent would have been subject to personal jurisdiction had he lived holding that rule 4k2 provides an alternative basis for jurisdiction to the extent that plaintiffs allegations do not support jurisdiction under the virginia longarm statute holding minimum contacts were necessary for personal jurisdiction over defendant