Court dismisses claims against Saudi officials and charities in 9/11 MDL citing FSIA immunity

In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 392 F.Supp.2d 539 (2005) 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 789 an KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Distinguished by Abecassis v. Wyatt, S.D.Tex., March 31, 2010 392 F.Supp.2d 539 United States District Court, S.D. New York. In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 Nos. 03 MDL 1570(RCC), 02 Civ. 6977, 03 Civ. 6978, 03 Civ. 9849. | Sept. 21, 2005. Synopsis Background: Representatives, survivors, and insurance carriers of victims of September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks brought actions against terrorist organization responsible for the attacks and its members and associates, alleged state sponsors of terrorism, and individuals and entities who allegedly provided support to the terrorist organization, asserting causes of action under Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), Antiterrorism Act (ATA), Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), as well as claims under New York law for aiding and abetting, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, survival, wrongful death, trespass, and assault and battery. Actions were consolidated, various defendants filed motions to dismiss, and plaintiffs moved to supplement the record. Holdings: The District Court, Casey, J., held that: “1 Saudi High Commission (SHC) was entitled to immunity under discretionary function exception to Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA); [1 chairman of SHC and Saudi Minister of Interior were entitled to immunity under discretionary function exception to FSIA; Bl two Saudi officials did not have such minimum contacts with the United States as to support a finding of general personal jurisdiction; (1 complaint alleging that various Islamic charities and organizations provided support for September 11th WESTLAW attacks, failed to state a claim under TVPA; (1 allegation that defendant provided a satellite phone battery to terrorist leader sufficiently stated a claim under ATA; and (61 absent any allegation that defendant had any role in directing an enterprise, allegation that he funneled money to terrorist organization through the charities with which he was involved failed to state a claim under RICO. Motions granted in part and denied in part. See also 349 F.Supp.2d 765. West Headnotes (46) [4] International Law @ Evidence of immunity, and fact questions Pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), a _ foreign state and its instrumentalities are presumed immune from jurisdiction unless one of the _ statute’s exceptions applies. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1602 et seq. Cases that cite this headnote 2] International Law Evidence of immunity, and fact questions In a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), the defendant must present a prima facie case that it is a foreign sovereign; thereafter plaintiff has burden of going forward with evidence showing that, under the exceptions to FSIA, immunity should not be granted. 28 U'S.C.A. § 1602 et seq. 2 Cases that cite this headnote [3 Federal Civil Procedure HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017904