IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
803
Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
duct of ostensible charities under the Kingdom’s control.” Federal Opp. to Mo- tion to Dismiss of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia at 12° Thus, the Federal Plaintiffs claim the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia aided and abetted the terrorists through these charities. In attempting to overcome the presumption of the Kingdom’s sovereign immunity, the Federal Plaintiffs argue the merits of their claims against the chari- ties." Based on news accounts that the Kingdom has dissolved its international charities and terrorist financing reports that implicate certain charities, the Feder- al Plaintiffs urge the Court to find that the Kingdom had previously willfully ignored the charities’ support for terrorism. See, e.g. Federal Opp. to Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Motion to Dismiss Ex. 2 (“Terrorist Financing, Report of an Independent Task Force Sponsored by the Council on For- eion Relations”), Ex. 3 (CNN.com June 2, 2004 “Saudis reform charities as antiterror measure” (mentioning only Al Haramain Islamic Foundation)), Ex. 5 (Senate Sub- committee Testimony, July 31, 2003 by Steven Emerson with Jonathan Levin, “Terrorism Financing: Origination, Or- ganization, and Prevention: Saudi Arabia, Terrorist Financing and the War on Ter- ror”).
30. The Federal Plaintiffs allege that each of the following charities, which are all named as Defendants and represented by counsel in these actions, are agencies, instrumentalities, arms or organs of the Kingdom: MWL, IIRO, WAMY, Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, Sa- udi High Commission for Relief to Bosnia and Herzegovina, SJRC, Rabita Trust, Saudi Red Crescent, and BIF. The Kingdom disputes the instrumentality status of MWL, ITRO, WAMY, Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, Rabita Trust, and BIF. These Plaintiffs request dis- covery as to the instrumentality status of these charities. The request is denied at this time and may be more appropriate when the Court considers each of the charities’ motions to dismiss.
In response, the Kingdom argues that Plaintiffs ignore Osama bin Laden’s public targeting of the Kingdom. See, e.g., Bier- stein Aff. in Opp. to Prince Sultan’s Motion to Dismiss, Ex. 3 & 4; The 9/11 Commis- ston Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, 48, 373 (July 2004) (hereinafter “9/11 Report”). The King- dom also submits it has worked with the United States to share information in the fight against terrorism. 9/11 Report, at 115-22; Prince Turki Decl. 117, 8, 10. The U.S. State Department has not desig- nated the Kingdom a state sponsor of ter- rorism. Additionally, the presidentially- appointed September 11 commission found no evidence of the Kingdom’s funding or support for the September 11 terrorists. 9/11 Report, at 171 (““[Wle have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individ- ually funded the organization.”).
The Court finds the Plaintiffs’ allega- tions cannot overcome the discretionary function exception to the tortious acts ex- ception. Marchisella v. Gov't of Japan, 2004 WL 307248, at *2 (explaining acts performed at the planning, as opposed to operational, level of government are pro- tected by immunity); Robinson, 269 F.3d at 146 (noting conclusory nature of allega-
31. Rather than pleading specific facts show- ing that the Kingdom caused Plaintiffs’ inju- ries, the Federal Plaintiffs focus predominant- ly on the charities’ actions. For example, these Plaintiffs argue that the Kingdom has waived the defense of sovereign immunity be- cause certain charities, which have not been designated as instrumentalities of the King- dom and which are represented by separate counsel, did not raise the FSIA defense in
The Court is not
convinced by this argument because the waiv-
er of FSIA immunity must be explicit. See
Banco de Seguros del Estado v. Mutual Marine
Office, Inc., 344 F.3d 255, 261 (2d Cir.2003).
their motions to dismiss.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017868