HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017878.jpg

IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 813 Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d_ 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) In ve Magnetic Audiotape, 334 F.3d at 208. Judge Robertson dismissed without prejudice the claims against Prince Sultan in his personal capacity for lack of person- al jurisdiction. Burnett I, 292 F.Supp.2d at 21-22. He rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that Prince Sultan had purposefully direct- ed his alleged activities at the United States. Jd. at 22-23. Judge Robertson found that the complaint’s claims that Prince Sultan donated money to founda- tions that allegedly funded al Qaeda “stop[ ] well short of alleging Prince Sul- tan’s actions were ‘expressly aimed’ or ‘purposefully directed’ at the United States.” Jd. at 23 (citing Burger King and Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774-75, 104 S.Ct. 1478, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984)). Judge Robertson also denied Plaintiffs’ request for discovery because they did not provide an “outline of how their showing of minimum contacts might be enhanced by jurisdictional discovery.” Id. at 22. This Court's record, which Plaintiffs claim is more extensive than that before Judge Robertson, contains many examples of Osama bin Laden’s and al Qaeda’s pub- lic targeting of the United States. See Bierstein Aff. in Opp. to Prince Sultan’s Motion to Dismiss, Exs. 1-24. The com- plaints also contain conclusory allegations that Prince Sultan aided and abetted ter- rorism. See, eg. Burnett Complaint 1363; Federal Complaint 11.429-31. But Plaintiffs do not offer any facts to lend support to their allegation that Prince Sul- tan purposefully directed his activities at this forum by donating to charities that he knew at the time supported international terrorism. See Exec. Order 13244 (desig- nating certain branches of Al Haramain in 2002 and later). “[Llegal conclusions done up as factual allegations are not facts and cannot substitute for facts.” Cornell, 2000 WL 284222, at *2 (citing Papasan v. Al- lain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986)). Plaintiffs have note provided an “outline of how their showing of minimum contacts might be enhanced by jurisdictional discovery.” Burnett IT 292 F.Supp.2d at 22. Accordingly, Prince Sultan’s motions to dismiss the certain consolidated and Federal complaints for lack of personal jurisdiction over the claims concerning his personal acts are granted. Plaintiffs’ request for jurisdic- tional discovery with respect to Prince Sul- tan is denied. Daventree, 349 F.Supp.2d 736, at 761, 2004 WL 2997881, at *20 (find- ing jurisdictional discovery is not neces- sary where the allegation of jurisdictional facts fails to state a basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction). 2. Prince Turki [59] The allegations against Prince Turki are outlined in Part I.B.2. Because the consolidated Plaintiffs do not allege any acts taken by Prince Turki in his personal capacity, the Court only considers the Federal Plaintiffs’ claim that Prince Turki made personal donations to certain Saudi charities. See Federal Complaint 1452. The Federal complaint does not make any specific jurisdictional allegations against Prince Turki. Rather, these Plain- tiffs rely on Calder, Rein, Daliberti, Pugh, and the modified due process standard for mass torts to argue that the September 11 attacks were a foreseeable result of Prince Turki’s alleged support of certain Saudi charities. See Federal Opp. to Prince Turki’s Motion to Dismiss at 22-23. The Federal Plaintiffs have not present- ed any specific facts from which this Court could infer Prince Turki's primary and personal involvement in, or support of, in- ternational terrorism and al Qaeda. Con- clusory allegations that he donated money to charities, without specific factual allega- HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017878