In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 392 F.Supp.2d 539 (2005) 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 789 plaintiffs’ favor.” Daventree v. Republic of Azerbaijan, participation in the attacks themselves, but at least 349 F.Supp.2d 736, 760 (S.D.N.Y.2004). participation in al Qaeda’s terrorist agenda. The alternative basis for personal jurisdiction offered by 181 Th analyzing a defendant’s minimum contacts, courts Plaintiffs is found in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k). distinguish between specific and general jurisdiction. Rule 4(k)(1) provides that service of process establishes “Specific jurisdiction exists when the forum exercises personal jurisdiction when service is authorized by a jurisdiction over the defendant in a suit arising out of the federal statute. Here, the ATA provides for personal defendant’s contacts with that forum.” Terrorist Attacks I, jurisdiction through its nationwide service of process 349 F.Supp.2d at 811 (citing Metro. Life Ins. 84 F.3d at provision. See 18 U.S.C. § 2334(a); Fed.R.Civ.P. 567-68). General jurisdiction is based on a defendant’s 4(k)(1)(D). In situations in which Defendants were not general business contacts with the forum. Because the served in the United States pursuant to the ATA, Rule defendant’s contacts are not related to the suit, a 4(k)(2) acts as a personal jurisdiction gap-filler “in the considerably higher level of contacts is generally required enforcement of federal law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(kK)(2) and the plaintiff must demonstrate the defendant’s advisory committee’s note. For the Court to exercise continuous and systematic general business contacts with personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 4(k)(2), “there must the forum. Metro. Life. Ins., 84 F.3d at 568; see also be a federal claim, personal jurisdiction must not exist Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A., 466 U.S. over the defendant in New York or any other state, and 408, 414-16, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). the defendant must have sufficient minimum c