HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017882.jpg

IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 817 Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d_ 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) goods and services to large portions of Saudi Arabia. Jd. 94. In the past ten years he visited the United States three times for medical reasons. Jd. 115-6. Prior to these medical visits, he took a short trip to New York City in 1964. 7d. 17. He owned no property, held no bank accounts, and conducted no business in this country. Jd. 110. Mr. Aljomaih’s estate argues that there were problems with his service. He was served pursuant to Judge Robertson’s March 25, 2003 approving service by publi- cation. Under that order, Plaintiffs pub- lished a list of defendants in two publica- tions, The International Herald Tribune and Al Quds Al Arabia. The notice in The International Herald Tribune contained Mr. Aljomaih’s name in English, a lan- guage he could not read. 7d. 111. Al Quds Al Arabi is published in Arabic, but is not circulated in Saudi Arabia and the list did not include Mr. Aljomaih’s name. Even if service was proper, however, the estate of Mr. Aljomaih claims the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over it. Plaintiffs submit that Mr. Aljomaih is implicated by the “Golden Chain.” Plain- tiffs’ Opp. at 9. The “Golden Chain” is a eroup of documents that was discovered by Bosnian authorities searching the of- fices of charity Defendant BIF in March 2002. Plaintiffs claim the “Golden Chain” contains a list of early direct donors to al Qaeda. Plaintiffs’ Opp. at 9; see also Bi- erstein Aff. in Opp. to Al-Husani Motion to Dismiss, Ex. 2 (“Golden Chain” docu- ment). It includes the entry “Al-Jumaih. Jeddah (8.A.).” Plaintiffs do not dispute that “for more than sixty years [Mr. Aljo- maih] lived in Rihadh,” not Jeddah, Aljo- maih Decl. 13, yet they insist the docu- ment identifies him as a direct donor to al Qaeda. Additionally, Plaintiffs claim that My. Aljomaih’s company donated money to charity Defendant IIRO. Plaintiffs assert there are sufficient allegations against Mr. Aljomaih in the form of general allegations against all Defendants to put him on notice of the claims against him. They claim that jurisdiction over Mr. Aljomaih’s estate is proper because he “purposefully directed” his activities at the United States by sup- porting al Qaeda. Plaintiffs also submit that Mr. Aljomaih’s company does busi- ness with General Motors and Shell Corpo- ration and that, therefore, he must have had contacts with the United States. See Opp. at 11; Statement of Jamie L. Paye attached to Plaintiffs’ Opp. [63] The Court finds the Plaintiffs have not established a prima facie case of jurisdiction over Mr. Aljomaih to defeat his motion or warrant jurisdictional discov- ery. Their theory of jurisdiction rests al- most entirely on a document with serious foundational flaws. Even assuming, as the Court must, that the “Golden Chain” re- fers to Mr. Aljomaih, with no indication of who wrote the list, when it was written, or for what purpose, the Court cannot make the logical leap that the document is a list of early al Qaeda supporters. Mr. Aljo- maih’s motion to dismiss the Burnett com- plaint for lack of personal jurisdiction is accordingly granted. 5. Sheikh Hamad Al—Husani The posture of the Burnett Plaintiffs’ case against Sheikh Hamad Al-Husani is similar to that against Mr. Aljomaih. Mr. Al-Husani was also added to a list of defendants to be served by publication and the complaint contains no specific allega- tions against him. Al-Husani Decl. 110. He is a watch retailer residing in Saudi Arabia. Jd. 19134, 7. Mr. Al-Husani has never visited the United States, owns no real property here, holds no bank accounts or investments in the United States, and does not engage in transactions with any businesses in the United States. Id. 113, HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017882