This action arises out of an alleged racketeering scheme spanning about eight years whereby defendants—twenty-two companies and individuals—purportedly used otherwise legitimate business entities to defraud plaintiffs by making false promises to sell agricultural goods. Plaintiffs sue defendants for: (1) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)(“RICO”); (2) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)(conspiracy to violate RICO); (3) conspiracy to commit fraud; (4) fraud; and (5) breach of contracts. Pending before the Court are several motions: (1) nine defendants’ eight motions to dismiss; (2) one defendant’s motion to strike certain declarations; (3) plaintiffs’ two motions to allow alternate service for seven defendants; (4) plaintiffs’ motion for jurisdictional discovery.

The Court  considered the pending motions, the opposition memoranda, the replies thereto, the entire record herein, and the applicable law. The Court concluded that it lacks personal jurisdiction over the nine defendants and tgranded the eight pending motions to dismiss. The Court also concludes that jurisdictional discovery was not warranted and denied plaintiffs’ motion for jurisdictional discovery. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over the relevant defendants, it denied as moot the plaintiffs’ motions for service and the motion to strike plaintiffs’ declarations.