766
ber 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, as well as insurance carriers, brought actions against al Qaeda, al Qaeda’s members and associ- ates, alleged state sponsors of terrorism, and individuals and entities who allegedly provided support to Al Qaeda, asserting causes of action under Torture Victim Pro- tection Act (TVPA), Antiterrorism Act (ATA), Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organi- zations Act (RICO), as well as claims for aiding and abetting, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, survival, wrongful death, trespass, and as- sault and battery. Actions were consolidat- ed by Multidistrict Litigation Panel. Vari- ous defendants filed motions to dismiss. Holdings: The District Court, Casey, J., held that:
(1) jurisdictional discovery was warranted on issue whether Saudi Arabian bank was immune under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA);
claims against Saudi Arabia and two of its officials based on alleged contribu- tions to charities were not subject to commercial activities exception of FSIA;
complaint alleging that Saudi Princes contributed to charities that supported al Qaeda failed to allege causal connec- tion sufficient to satisfy New York standard for concerted action liability, for purposes of torts exception of FSIA;
(4) claims against Saudi Arabian Prince arising from alleged contributions to charities were barred by discretionary function exception to torts exception of FSIA;
(5) claims against Saudi Arabian Prince arising from alleged decisions regard- ing treatment of Taliban and al Qaeda leader were barred by discretionary function exception to torts exception of FSIA;
2
aa
G)
ar
349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES
(6) claims against Saudi Arabia arising from alleged decisions to make charita- ble contributions were barred by dis- cretionary function exception to torts exception of FSIA;
7
a,
survivors failed to make prima facie showing necessary to establish person- al jurisdiction over Princes and others under New York’s long-arm statute;
(8
nai
modified due process standard appro- priate for mass torts would not be applied to question of personal juris- diction;
(9) allegations were insufficient to estab- lish general personal jurisdiction over Princes;
(10) survivors failed to establish personal jurisdiction over founder of Saudi Arabian company;
(11) limited discovery would be permitted with regard to whether Saudi Arabian bank’s contacts with United States were sufficient for exercise of person- al jurisdiction;
(12) survivors failed to establish personal jurisdiction over director of charity;
(13) jurisdictional discovery was warrant- ed to determine if Saudi Arabian con- struction company purposefully di- rected its activities at United States;
(14) jurisdictional discovery was warrant- ed to determine which of charitable network’s entities had presence in Virginia, for purposes of personal ju- risdiction;
(15) survivors made prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over bank chairman;
(16) survivors failed to state cause of ac- tion under RICO;
(17) attacks were extreme and outrageous, as required for intentional infliction of emotional distress;
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017831