Multiple Saudi princes, banks and the Binladin Group file jurisdiction defenses in 9/11‑related lawsuits

IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 781 Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) Bank (““NCB”).2 On October 12, 2004 the Court heard oral argument from Defen- dants who filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, including Prince Sultan, HRH Prince Mohamed Al-Faisal Al-Saud (“Prince Mohamed”),’ the estate of Mohammad Abdullah Aljomaih,> Sheikh Hamad Al-Husani,®° NCB, Abdulrahman bin Mahfouz,’ the Saudi Binladin Group, Tariq Binladin, Omar Binladin, and Bakr Binladin.’ Although their counsel did not argue on that day, motions to dismiss by the African Muslim Agency, Grove Corpo- rate, Inc., Heritage Education Trust, In- ternational Institute of Islamic Thought, Mar-—Jac Investments, Inc., Mena Corpo- ration, Reston Investments, Inc., Safa Trust, Sana—Bell Inc., Sterling Charitable motions on the merits de novo. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Kluger), 827 F.2d 868, 871 n. 3 (2d Cir.1987) (“A transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 ‘transfers the action lock, stock, and barrel. The transferee district court has the power and the obligation to modify or rescind any orders in effect in the transferred case which it concludes are incor- rect.’’’) (internal citations omitted). The Court bears in mind that it is bound by Sec- ond Circuit precedent while Judge Robertson applied D.C. Circuit law. Menowitz v. Brown, 991 F.2d 36, 40-41 (2d Cir.1993) (explaining transferee court is to apply its interpretation of federal law, not that of the transferor cir- cuit); In re Air Crash at Belle Harbor, New York, No. 02 Civ. 8411(RWS), 2003 WL 124677, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2003) (apply- ing Second Circuit law after 28 U.S.C. 8 1407 transfer from a district court in the Fifth Circuit). 3. NCB moves to dismiss the complaints against it in Ashton and Burnett. 4. Prince Mohamed moves to dismiss the com- plaints against him in Ashton and Federal Insurance. 5. The estate of Mohammad Abdullah Aljo- maih moves to dismiss the complaint in Bur- nett. 6. Sheikh Hamad Al-Husani moves dismiss the complaint in Burnett. Gift Fund, Sterling Management Group, Ine., and York Foundation, (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “SAAR Net- work”),® Prince Turki, and Adel A.J. Bat- terjee,!’ also raised personal jurisdiction defenses. On October 14, 2004 the Court heard oral argument from certain Defen- dants arguing Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim, including Al Rajhi Banking & Investment Corporation (hereinafter “Al Rajhi Bank”)," the Saudi American Bank,” Arab Bank,” NCB, the SAAR Network, Prince Mohamed, Al Baraka In- vestment & Development Corporation and Saleh Abdullah Kamel," Abdulrahman bin Mahfouz, the Saudi Binladin Group, and Adel A.J. Batterjee. Finally, the last of this group of motions was entertained on 7. Abdulrahman bin Mahfouz moves to dismiss the complaint in Burnett. 8. The Saudi Binladin Group moves to dismiss the complaints against it in Burnett and Ash- ton. Tariq Binladin, Omar Binladin, and Bakr Binladin move to dismiss the Burnett complaint. 9. The SAAR Network moves to dismiss the Federal Insurance complaint. 10. Adel A.J. Batterjee moves to dismiss the complaint in Burnett. 11. Al Rajhi Bank renews its motion to dismiss the Burnett complaint. Judge Robertson de- nied its original motion and permitted it to serve a Rule 12(e) request on the Burnett Plaintiffs. Burnett v. Al Baraka Invest. & Dev. Corp., 274 F.Supp.2d 86, 110 (D.D.C.2003) (hereinafter “Burnett I’’). 12. Saudi American Bank moves to dismiss the Ashton and Burnett complaints. 13. Arab Bank moves to dismiss the Burnett and Federal Insurance complaints. 14. Al Baraka Investment & Development Cor- poration and Saleh Abdullah Kamel move to dismiss the Ashton and Burnett complaints. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017846