judgment on his motion to strike the defendants’ subject matter jurisdiction defenses. Leave is granted for any party to challenge this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over foreign claims at the close of discovery in this action. III. Personal Jurisdiction Over Defendants Island and Virgin UK In their papers, the Virgin/Island Defendants suggest that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Island and Virgin UK because it is undisputed that b (S.D.N.Y.1992) (finding that domestic entity CBS acted as agent in United States for its independent foreign subsidiaries, for personal jurisdiction purposes, given structure of “matrix” licensing agreements between entities); Larball v. CBS, Inc., 664 F.Supp. 704, 707-08 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (same); see also Blue Ribbon Pet, 66 F.Supp.2d at 460 (<HOLDING>). But see Intersong-USA, Inc. v. CBS, Inc., No.
holding that two meet ings in new york and numerous telephone calls and correspondence to new york were not sufficient to confer jurisdiction holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership holding that outofstate defendants transmittal into new york of ceaseanddesist letter to new york plaintiff for purported trademark infringement was insufficient to create jurisdiction over defendant in a new york declaratory judgment action holding that hagen canadas outofstate acts contributed to or induced hagen usas infringement  within new york and are sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction in new york