of Def. Mot. to Dismiss (“MTD Mem”) (Dkt. 24), No. 16-CV-4453.) Fa-cebook separately moves to dismiss the Force Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and (6). (Force MTD; see also MTD Mem.) A court facing challenges as to both its jurisdiction over a party and the sufficiency of any claims raised must first address the jurisdictional question. See Arrowsmith v. United Press Int’l, 320 F.2d 219, 221 (2d Cir. 1963). However, there is no such required ordering as between questions of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 586-87, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 143 L.Ed.2d 760 (1999); Carver v. Nassau Cty. Interim Fin. Auth., 730 F.3d 150, 156 (2d Cir. 2013) (<HOLDING>). The court concludes that the Cohen Plaintiffs
holding that a written statement could not be regarded as an affidavit sufficient in law for any purpose because it was not sworn to by any one or before any officer holding that a gateway dispute about whether the parties are bound by a given arbitration clause raises a question of arbitrability for a court to decide holding that a court should decide whether the arbitration contract bound parties who did not sign the agreement holding that courts are not bound to decide any particular jurisdictional question before any other holding court will not process or decide the merits of any case on appeal that does not comply with the statute