Plaintiffs Seek to Hold Saudi Prince Salman Accountable for 9/11 via Funding Charities and U.S. Business Ties

In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 392 F.Supp.2d 539 (2005) 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 789 plaintiffs’ favor.” Daventree v. Republic of Azerbaijan, 349 F.Supp.2d 736, 760 (S.D.N.Y.2004). The alternative basis for personal jurisdiction offered by Plaintiffs is found in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k). Rule 4(k)(1) provides that service of process establishes personal jurisdiction when service is authorized by a federal statute. Here, the ATA provides for personal jurisdiction through its nationwide service of process provision. See 18 U.S.C. § 2334(a); Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(1)(D). In situations in which Defendants were not served in the United States pursuant to the ATA, Rule 4(k)(2) acts as a personal jurisdiction gap-filler “in the enforcement of federal law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(kK)(2) advisory committee’s note. For the Court to exercise personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 4(k)(2), “there must be a federal claim, personal jurisdiction must not exist over the defendant in New York or any other state, and the defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the United States as a whole such that the exercise of jurisdiction does not violate Fifth Amendment due process.” Terrorist Attacks I, 349 F.Supp.2d at 807 (citing United States v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 945 F.Supp. 609, 617 (S.D.N.Y.1996)). 71 Under either basis offered by Plaintiffs, the exercise of personal jurisdiction must comport with due process requirements—there must be minimum contacts and the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson—Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560, 567 (2d Cir.1996); see also Terrorist Attacks I, 349 F.Supp.2d at 810-11 (reviewing due process requirements); Ungar v. Palestinian Auth., 153 F.Supp.2d 76, 87 (D.R.1.2001) (requiring minimum contacts with the United States for personal jurisdiction under *558 ATA). If personal jurisdiction is based on New York’s long-arm statute, the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process standards apply. If jurisdiction is based on Rule 4(k), the Fifth Amendment applies. The analysis is essentially the same. “The principal difference is that under the Fifth Amendment the court can consider the defendant’s contacts throughout the United States, while under the Fourteenth Amendment only contacts with the forum state may be considered.” Chew v. Dietrich, 143 F.3d 24, 28 n. 4 (2d Cir.1998). Plaintiffs claim that Rule 4(k)’s minimum contacts requirement is satisfied because the Defendants have purposefully directed their activities at the United States. See Terrorist Attacks 1, 349 F.Supp.2d at 807 (reviewing the purposefully directed activities theory). This Court has held that to succeed on this theory, “Plaintiffs must make a prima facie showing of each Defendant’s personal or direct participation in the conduct giving rise to Plaintiffs’ injuries.” Jd. at 809.° The Court does not require direct WESTLAW participation in the attacks themselves, but at least participation im al Qaeda’s terrorist agenda. 181 Tn analyzing a defendant’s minimum contacts, courts distinguish between specific and general jurisdiction. “Specific jurisdiction exists when the forum exercises jurisdiction over the defendant in a suit arising out of the defendant’s contacts with that forum.” Terrorist Attacks I, 349 F.Supp.2d at 811 (citing Metro. Life Ins. 84 F.3d at 567-68). General jurisdiction is based on a defendant’s general business contacts with the forum. Because the defendant’s contacts are not related to the suit, a considerably higher level of contacts is generally required and the plaintiff must demonstrate the defendant’s continuous and systematic general business contacts with the forum. Metro. Life. Ins., 84 F.3d at 568; see also Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A., 466 U.S. 408, 414-16, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L-Ed.2d 404 (1984). In most instances, Plaintiffs do not specify which basis for personal jurisdiction applies to each Defendant, or whether the Defendant was served in the United States pursuant to the ATA’s nationwide service of process provision. Accordingly, in analyzing Defendants’ motions, the Court considers as a threshold matter whether Plaintiffs have made a prima facie showing of the Defendant’s minimum contacts with the United States as a whole. A. Prince Salman and Prince Naif Plaintiffs seek to hold Prince Salman responsible for the attacks of September 11, theorizing that Prince Salman purposefully directed his activities at the United *559 States by contributing to and raising funds for HIRO, Sanabel-al Kheer, WAMY, and Al-Haramain. As for other contacts with the United States, Prince Salman owns stock in two United States corporations based in Texas, and, during a trip to the United States in 1989, he met with President George H.W. Bush and the governor of Maryland. (Plaintiffs’ Opp’n to Prince Salman Mot. to Dismiss at 21-22; see generally Parrett Aff.) Additionally, Plaintiffs claim that Prince Salman’s son attended school in California, had a residence in the United States, owned a corporation that breeds race horses in the United States, and is involved, through his estate, in a New Jersey lawsuit with a former employee. Id. They seek jurisdictional discovery to determine if Prince Salman has other contacts here. Plaintiffs do not allege that Prince Naif has any general contacts with the United States. Rather, they claim that he HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017921