HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017848.jpg

IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 783 Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d_ 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (2d Cir.1998) (explaining, where there are factual disputes regarding the immunity question, the court may not “accept the mere allegations of the complaint as a basis for finding subject matter jurisdic- tion”). Thus, “on a ‘challenge to the dis- trict court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the court may resolve disputed jurisdictional fact issues by reference to evidence out- side the pleadings, such as affidavits. ” Filetech, 157 F.3d at 932 (explaining a court should consider all the submissions of the parties and may, if necessary, hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve the juris- dictional question) (quoting Antares Avr- craft, L.P. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 948 F.2d 90, 96 (2d Cir.1991)). The court must consult outside evidence if resolution of a proffered factual issue may result in the dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Robinson, 269 F.3d at 141 n. 6. Defendants here challenge both the le- gal and factual sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ claims. The Court will consider the affida- vits submitted by the parties as necessary. [8] Before turning to the allegations against the Defendants claiming immunity, the Court notes it is keenly aware of the “delicate balance] ‘between permitting discovery to substantiate exceptions to statutory foreign sovereign immunity and protecting a sovereign’s or sovereign’s agency’s legitimate claim to immunity from discovery.” First City, Texas—Houston, N.A. v. Rafidain Bank, 150 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir.1998) (ordering full discovery against defendant over whom court al- ready had subject matter jurisdiction be- cause such discovery would provide plain- tiff an opportunity to obtain jurisdictional discovery regarding potentially sovereign alter ego co-defendant without further im- pinging that defendant’s immunity) (quot- ing Arriba Ltd. v. Petroleos Mexicanos, 962 F.2d 528, 534 (th Cir.1992) (“At the very least, discovery should be ordered circumspectly and only to verify allega- tions of specific facts crucial to an immuni- ty determination.”)). The Second Circuit has instructed “that generally a plaintiff may be allowed limited discovery with re- spect to the jurisdictional issue; but until [plaintiff] has shown a reasonable basis for assuming jurisdiction, she is not entitled to any other discovery.” Furst City, 150 F.3d at 176-77 (quoting Filus v. Lot Polish Airlines, 907 F.2d 1328, 138382 (2d Cir. 1990)). Still, the Plaintiffs must allege sufficient facts to warrant jurisdictional discovery. Robinson, 269 F.3d at 146 (it- ing Jazini v. Nissan Motor Co., 148 F.3d 181, 185 @d Cir.1998) @efusing jurisdic- tional discovery where plaintiffs’ allega- tions lacked factual specificity to confer jurisdiction)); see also Burnett IT, 292 F.Supp.2d at 15 (denying Plaintiffs’ re- quest for discovery from Prince Turki where “suggestions of [his] individual ac- tivity are only conclusory”). B. Allegations Against Defendants Asserting Foreign Sovereign Im- munity 1. Prince Sultan Prince Sultan has been Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Defense and Aviation and In- spector General of its Armed Forces since 1962. Ashton Complaint 1265; Burnett Complaint 1352; Federal Complaint { 427; William H. Jeffress, Jr. Decl. 14 at Notice of HRH Prince Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Al- Saud’s Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint (hereinafter “Consolidated Jef- fress Decl.”); Andrea Bierstein Aff. in Opp. to Prince Sultan’s Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Complaints Ex. 1, Sultan Bio, available at http://saudiembassy.net/Coun- try/Government/SultanBio.asp. In 1982, his brother King Fahd bin Abdulaziz Al- Saud named him Second Deputy President of Saudi Arabia’s Council of Ministers, the Kingdom’s governing body. Nizar Bin HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017848