HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017845.jpg

780 lege that over two hundred defendants directly or indirectly provided material support to Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorists. Generally, these defen- dants fall into one of several categories: al Qaeda and its members and associates; state sponsors of terrorism; and individu- als and entities, including charities, banks, front organizations, terrorist organizations, and financiers who provided financial, lo- gistical, and other support to al Qaeda.! See, e.g. Ashton Complaint 15; Burnett Complaint “Introduction”; Federal Com- plaint 1142-66. The complaints assert subject matter jurisdiction under the For- eign Sovereign Immunities Act (““FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seg; and causes of action under the Torture Victim Protection Act (““TVPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1850 note; the Antiterrorism Act (“ATA”), 18 U.S.C. 1. According to Plaintiffs, Osama bin Laden formed al Qaeda, which means “the Base” or “the Vanguard,” into an international terror- ist organization with the aim of violently op- posing non-Islam governments and Islamic states too beholden to the West. See, e.g., Burnett Complaint at 275. 2. Before the Multidistrict Panel transferred Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp., 02 Civ. 1616, to this Court, Judge Robertson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the claims against Prince Sultan relating to acts performed in his offi- cial capacity for lack of subject matter juris- diction. Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp. 292 FSupp.2d 9, 23 (D.D.C.2003) (hereinafter “Burnett IT’). Finding that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Prince Sultan, Judge Robertson dismissed without prejudice the allegations concerning acts tak- en in his personal, as opposed to official, capacity. Id. Judge Robertson dismissed the complaint against Prince Turki for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as well. Id. Prince Sultan and Prince Turki both move to dismiss the complaints against them in Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army, 02 Civ. 6977 (S.D.N.Y.); Barrera v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army, 03 Civ. 7036 (S.D.N.Y.); Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp., 02 Civ. 1616 (D.D.C.); Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES § 2331 et seq; the Alien Tort Claims Act (“ATCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1350; the Racke- teer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq; theories of aiding and abetting, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, survival, wrongful death, tres- pass, and assault and battery. [1] Several motions to dismiss are pending before the Court. At the sugges- tion of counsel, the Court scheduled oral arguments in groups organized generally by grounds for dismissal. On September 14, 2004, the Court heard oral argument on the motions to dismiss for lack of sub- ject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA by HRH Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud (“Prince Sultan”), HRH Prince Turki Al- Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud (“Prince Turki”), and the National Commercial Corp., 03 Civ. 5738 (S.D.N.Y.); Salvo v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army, 03 Civ. 5071 (S.D.N.Y.); and Tremsky v. Osama bin Laden, 02 Civ. 7300 (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs in these cases filed consolidated responses to Prince Sultan’s and Prince Turki’s motions. In Plaintiffs’ words, the New York Burnett action is materially identical to the D.C. Burnett action and was filed as a “prophylactic’’ measure in the event the D.C. court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Burnett Complaint at 265. Additionally, at Plaintiffs’ counsel re- quest, this Court ordered the Barrera action consolidated with the Ashton case on Decem- ber 6, 2004. Prince Sultan and Prince Turki have each also filed a separate motion to dismiss in Federal Insurance v. Al Qaida, 03 Civ. 6978 (S.D.N.Y.), both of which are fully submitted and are resolved in this opinion. The Federal Insurance Plaintiffs are forty-one insurance companies that have paid and reserved claims in excess of $4.5 billion as a result of the September 11 attacks. The Burnett Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration in conjunction with Prince Sultan’s and Prince Turki’s motions to dis- miss certain consolidated complaints. While this Court reviews and gives deference to Judge Robertson’s thoughtful opinion, it must evaluate Prince Sultan’s and Prince Turki’s HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017845