§ 1331. For example, the Advisory Committee states that Rule 4(k)(2) “authorizes the exercise of territorial jurisdiction over the person of any defendant against whom is made a claim arising under any federal law if that person is subject to personal jurisdiction in no state.” (emphasis added). The use of the word “any” to qualify “federal law” strongly suggests that the Advisory Committee intended Rule 4(k)(2) to reach not just federal question cases under •§ 1331 but all claims arising under substantive federal law. As the court in United Trading Company S.A. v. M.V. Sakura Reefer et al. points out, had the Advisory Committee meant to limit the scope of Rule 4(k)(2) to federal question claims, it clearly could have done so. No. 95-2846, 1996 WL 374154, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 1996) (<HOLDING>). Instead, it chose to describe the rule with
holding that rule 4 displaced service provision in the admiralty act holding that courts apply substantive admiralty law to claims that sound in admiralty regardless of whether the complaint invokes diversity or admiralty jurisdiction holding that claims arising under admiralty law do fall within rule 4k2 rubric and criticizing district court in world tanker for its narrow reading of rule 4k2 holding that rule 4k2 does apply to admiralty cases holding that alleyne does not apply to cases on collateral review