HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017840.jpg

IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 775 Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d_ 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) cient to establish personal jurisdiction in Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action over indi- viduals allegedly affiliated with Saudi Ara- bian construction company, inasmuch as complaint did not contain any factual alle- gations from which district court could in- fer that they purposefully directed their activities at United States, that they were members of conspiracy pursuant to New York long-arm statute, or that they had any general business contacts with United States. 18 US.C.A. § 2331 et seq; N.Y.McKinney’s CPLR 302(a)(2). 68. Federal Courts 97 Jurisdictional discovery was warrant- ed, at dismissal stage of Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, to determine if Saudi Arabian construction company purposefully directed its activities at Unit- ed States for purposes of personal jurisdic- tion. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. 69. Federal Courts ¢=97 Discovery would be permitted, at dis- missal stage of Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action by survivors of victims of Septem- ber 11, 2001 attacks, to determine which of charitable network’s entities had presence in Virginia, and which entities transferred money to alleged al Qaeda operatives, for purposes of determining whether personal jurisdiction existed over network. Fed. Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. 70. Federal Courts <-96 Survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks made prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over bank chairman in Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action, by al- leging, inter alia, that Department of Treasury designated him as Specially Des- ignated Global Terrorist, and that he was involved in United States operations of designated terrorist organization. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq. 71. War and National Emergency <=50 To prove that defendants provided material support to terrorists, in violation of Antiterrorism Act (ATA), plaintiffs were required to present sufficient causal con- nection between that support and injuries suffered by plaintiffs; proximate cause would support such connection. 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2339A(b), 2339B(e). 72. Conspiracy <-1.1 Torts 21 To be liable for conspiracy or aiding and abetting under New York law, a de- fendant must know the wrongful nature of the primary actor’s conduct, and the con- duct must be tied to a substantive cause of action. 73. International Law <10.11 Aircraft hijacking is generally recog- nized as violation of international law, for purposes of the requirement that an act be committed in violation of international law in order to be subject to the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA). 28 U.S.C.A. § 1850. 74. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations <=75 Survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks failed to allege injury from defendants’ alleged investment of racke- teering income, and thus failed to state cause of action in complaint for violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Or- ganizations Act (RICO) provision prohibit- ing receipt of income derived from pattern of racketeering activity. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1962(a). 75. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations €=50 A defendant must have had some part in directing the operation or management of the enterprise itself to be liable under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Or- ganizations Act (RICO) provision prohibit- HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017840