Court limits jurisdiction over claims linking Saudi princes and charities to Al Qaeda funding

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