Personal Jurisdiction and Forum Non Conveniens

1) All the parties are citizens and residents of the
Republic of Singapore, where they live, work, and
shared their investment group in which the "untruestatements" and "sales" by Mr. Ee allegedly occurred. The Singaporean plaintiffs, however, represented byUnited States lawyers, sued their fellow Singaporeanin the United States District Court, and the lowercourts ruled that specific jurisdiction existed over Mr.Ee because he visited North Dakota once and emailedto his fellow group members pictures of the "mancamps" in which they were all (Mr. Ee too) investing. Did this satisfy the "arise ou t of" or "relate to" aspects
of the minimum contacts requirement?

2) Was the District Court required to assess
principles of forum non conveniens in deciding whether
it was "reasonable" for the United States court toexercise personal jurisdiction over the foreign Mr. Eesuch that it did not "offend traditional notions of fairplay and substantial justice"?

Does Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 56 require a District Court to
assess all the evidence a moving party presents onsummary judgment, or may the court rely solely on"deemed admitted" Requests for Admissions obtainedby default – even if the sa les contracts and other proofs
also attached to the motion belie the elements of thebreach of contract and other claims on which theplaintiff demands judgment?

Questions Presented