OPINION & ORDER Plaintiffs Elliot Porco (“Porco”) and Construction Directions, LLC (“Construction Directions”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed the instant Complaint on July 3, 2018. (ECF No. 9.) The Complaint alleges that Defendants engaged in wire fraud as predicate acts and racketeering activities in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1961 and 18 U.S.C. 1343. Plaintiff also raises common law conversion, fraud, breach of contract, and negligence claims.Before the Court is Defendant Frank Debose’s1 Motion to Dismiss the action against him for lack of personal jurisdiction. For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.BACKGROUNDThe following facts, taken from the Complaint, are deemed true for the purpose of the instant motion. This case is a complex commercial action that seeks damages and equitable relief arising out of violations of the Racketeering Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. 1961, and Wire Fraud Statute, 18 U.S.C. 1343, as well as common law conversion, fraud, breach of contract, and negligence. Plaintiffs were allegedly defrauded by the Defendants, who together, conspired to nefariously solicit investments from them by creating compelling background stories and fictional real estate development offerings. Defendant Frank Debose (“DeBose”) participated in the fraudulent activity and conspired with Defendants DiOrio and Craig Green by, inter alia, soliciting investments directly from Plaintiffs in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.Plaintiff Construction Directions, LLC maintains its principal place of business in New York, where Plaintiff Porco is also domiciled. Plaintiff’s have chosen to sue Defendants in New York, where they argue, many of the activities that give rise to this action took place, and where Defendant’s purposeful solicitations occurred. Plaintiffs seek to subject DeBose to personal jurisdiction in New York State. De Bose opposes.LEGAL STANDARDSLocal Civil Rule 7.1Local Rule 7.1 sets requirements for submitting dispositive motions to the Southern District of New York. It provides:Local Civil Rule 7.1. Motion Papers (a) Except for letter-motions as permitted by Local Rule 7.1(d) or as otherwise permitted by the Court, all motions shall include the following motion papers: (1) A notice of motion, or an order to show cause signed by the Court, which shall specify the applicable rules or statutes pursuant to which the motion is brought, and shall specify the relief sought by the motion; (2) A memorandum of law, setting forth the cases and other authorities relied upon in support of the motion, and divided, under appropriate headings, into as many parts as there are issues to be determined; and (3) Supporting affidavits and exhibits thereto containing any factual information and portions of the record necessary for the decision of the motion. (b) Except for letter-motions as permitted by Local Rule 7.1(d) or as otherwise permitted by the Court, all oppositions and replies with respect to motions shall comply with Local Civil Rule 7.1(a)(2) and (3) above, and an opposing party who seeks relief that goes beyond the denial of the motion shall comply as well with Local Civil Rule 7.1(a)(1) above…2Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Under Rule 12(b)(6), the inquiry for motions to dismiss is whether the complaint “contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.” Id. at 679. The Court must take all material factual allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences in the non-moving party’s favor, but the Court is “‘not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation,’” or to credit “mere conclusory statements” or “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief, a district court must consider the context and “draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. A claim is facially plausible when the factual content pleaded allows a court “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678.Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)A court must dismiss an action against any defendant over whom it lacks personal jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2). On a Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant. In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“”MTBE”) Prod. Liab. Litig., 399 F. Supp. 2d 325, 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). “Where, as here, a court relies on pleadings and affidavits, rather than a full-blown evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that the court possesses personal jurisdiction over the defendant.” Id. (quoting Distefano v. Carozzi N. Am., Inc., 286 F.3d 81, 84 (2d Cir.2001)). “A plaintiff can make this showing through [its] own affidavits and supporting materials, containing [a] [good faith] averment of facts that, if credited…, would suffice to establish jurisdiction over the defendant.” Id. (quoting Whitaker v. American Telecasting, Inc., 261 F.3d 196, 208 (2d Cir.2001)). When the issue is addressed on affidavits, a court must construe all allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Id.Personal Jurisdiction Under New York LawDetermining whether a federal court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant is a two-part inquiry. First, a court must evaluate whether jurisdiction is proper under the state’s long-arm statute. Second, it must determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with the requirements of due process. Whitaker, 261 F.3d at 208; Bensusan Rest. Corp. v. King, 126 F.3d 25, 27 (2d Cir.1997). A Plaintiff’s burden of proof for a jurisdiction-testing motion “varies depending on the procedural posture of the litigation.” Dorchester Fin. Ee., Inc. v. Banco BRJ, S.A., 722 F.3d 81, 84 (2d Cir. 2013) At the pleading stage, prior to discovery, a plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that jurisdiction exists. Id. at 84-85; Eades v. Kennedy, PC Law Offices, 799 F.3d 161, 167-68 (2d Cir.2015). “Plaintiffs prima facie showing, necessary to defeat a jurisdiction testing motion, must include an averment of facts that, if credited by [the ultimate trier of fact], would suffice to establish jurisdiction over the defendant.” Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, 616 F.3d 158, 163 (2d Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Courts may rely on materials outside the pleading in considering a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. DiStefano v. Carozzi N. Am., Inc., 286 F.3d 81, 84 (2d Cir. 2001).DISCUSSIONPlaintiff first argues that Defendant DeBose’s motion is improper because he failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 7.1. (Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition, (“Pl. Mem.”), ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff next argues that DeBose failed to argue why he is an improper party under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). (Id.) Lastly, Plaintiff argues that subject matter jurisdiction is proper under New York’s Long-Arm statute and due process requirements. (Id.) The Court addresses each argument in turn.Local Civil Rule 7.1Plaintiff correctly notes that Defendant has not complied with Local Rule 7.1, which requires dispositive motions to be filed along with a notice of motion and supporting affidavits. All that Defendant has submitted is a memorandum, and even that fails to take the form of a proper memorandum, as it lacks a table of authorities as required by Local Rule 7.1(a)(2).DeBose’s failure to comply with the Local Rules of this Court is distasteful and will not be tolerated again during this litigation. It is incumbent on all parties to the suit to comply with the Court’s rules. For the purpose of deciding this motion, however, it is not completely debilitating because DeBose does at least provide legal arguments and authority to support his position, which prevents “place[ment] on the court the burden of conducting the initial legal analysis that is properly the responsibility of [ ]counsel.” Burroughs v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., No. 01 CIV. 1929 (BSJ), 2004 WL 350728, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2004). Accordingly, in interests of efficiency and conserving judicial resources, the Court proceeds with its subject matter jurisdiction analysis on the merits.Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Plaintiff argues that while Defendant claims that his motion is made in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and (6), Defendant never discusses the grounds for dismissing the case against him under 12(b)(6). (Pl. Mem. at 8.)The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Nowhere in his memorandum does DeBose explain why the pleadings are insufficient as against him. On the other hand, Plaintiff raises specific allegations against Defendants DiOrio, Debose, and Greene together throughout the Complaint. The Court agrees. (See e.g., Compl.
