Antonelli v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery where “the pleadings contained no allegations of specific facts that could establish the requisite contacts with the District” | § 13-423(a)(l) does not confer specific personal jurisdiction where the claims asserted are "unrelated to the acts forming the basis for personal jurisdiction" | an entity with a clear and substantial interest in the subject of the contract is necessary and indispensable | the anticompetitive effect of a boycott in the medical profession is too uncertain to be amenable to per se treatment | the anticompetitive effect of a boycott in the medical profession is too uncertain to be amenable to per se treatment | D.C. cannot assert personal jurisdiction over non-residents whose sole contact with District “consists of dealing with a federal instrumentality” | “we must look to the instructions as a whole, in a common sense manner ... inquiring whether the correct message was conveyed to the jury reasonably well” | jurisdictional discovery properly denied where plaintiff has had ample opportunity to take discovery oPdepose defendant on the question of jurisdiction, and yet requisite contacts with the forum have not been established | chiropractors sued physicians’ association and physicians for refusal to deal professionally | “It is an elementary principle of issue preclusion that it may only be asserted where the burden of proof as to [the issue in the subsequent proceeding] is no greater than it was in the prior proceeding where the issue was decided” | in order to demonstrate a basis for the exercise of in personam jurisdiction, the plaintiff must demonstrate not only that defendant has transacted business in the District, but also that the claims asserted relate to that business transacted in the District | no private cause of action under the MLA