HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017835.jpg

770 27. International Law <10.43 Plaintiffs may not circumvent the ju- risdictional hurdle of the Foreign Sover- eign Immunities Act (FSIA) by inserting vague and conclusory allegations of tor- tious conduct in their complaints, and then relying on the federal courts to conclude that some conceivable non-discretionary tortious act falls within the purview of these generic allegations under the appli- cable substantive law. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605(a)(5). 28. International Law ¢-10.33 In determining whether functions are discretionary, for purposes of the discre- tionary function exception to the torts ex- ception of the Foreign Sovereign Immuni- ties Act (FSIA), the District Court must decide whether the actions involved an ele- ment of choice or judgment based on con- siderations of public policy. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605(a)(5). 29. International Law 10.33 Alleged decisions to make charitable contributions to terrorist organizations, made by Saudi Arabian Prince, as chair- man of Supreme Council of Islamic Af- fairs, which was charged with making recommendations to Council of Ministers regarding requests for aid from Islamic organizations located abroad, and as head of Special Committee of Council of Minis- ters, which was charged with deciding which grants should be made to Islamic charities, were discretionary, such that Antiterrorism Act (ATA) claims against Prince by survivors of victims of Septem- ber 11, 2001 attacks arising from such alleged contributions were barred by dis- cretionary function exception to torts ex- ception of Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.; 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605(a)(2). 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES 30. International Law ¢=10.33 Alleged decisions regarding treatment of Taliban and al Qaeda leader made by Saudi Prince, as head of Saudi Arabia’s Department of General Intelligence (DGI), were discretionary, such that Antiterror- ism Act (ATA) claims against Prince by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks arising from such alleged decisions were barred by discretionary function ex- ception to torts exception of Foreign Sov- ereion Immunities Act (FSIA). 18 U.S.C.A. § 2831 et seq.; 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605(a)(2). 31. International Law <-10.33 Saudi Arabia’s decisions to make char- itable contributions to organizations that allegedly supported terrorism were discre- tionary, such that Antiterrorism Act (ATA) claims against Saudi Arabia by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks arising from contributions were barred by discretionary function exception to torts exception of Foreign Sovereign Immuni- ties Act (FSIA). 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.; 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605(a)(2). 32. International Law <-10.32 A waiver of Foreign Sovereign Immu- nities Act (FSIA) immunity must be ex- plicit. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1602 et seq. 33. Federal Courts ¢=96 Because motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction were brought before discovery and decided without evidentiary hearing, plaintiffs were required only to make prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction existed in order to survive mo- tions. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(), 28 US.C.A. 34. Federal Courts <-96 In responding to motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction brought before discovery and decided without evi- dentiary hearing, plaintiffs could rely en- HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017835