HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017887.jpg

822 the Global Diamond Resource’s Chairman by an executive of SBG. Ashton Complaint 1459; Burnett Complaint { 328. Plaintiffs claim that SBG had an address in Rockville, Maryland until very recently. Ashton Complaint 1545; Burnett Com- plaint 13138. SBG claims the Rockville address was the headquarters of a sepa- rately incorporated company, SBG USA, which was formally dissolved in December 1999. See SBG Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Ashton Complaint at 7 & Ex. 2 (articles of dissolution); see also Klinghoffer v. S.N.C. Achille Lawro, 937 F.2d 44, 52 (2d Cir.1991) (personal juris- diction contacts determined at time com- plaint is filed); but see Metro. Life, 84 F.3d at 569 (holding courts should examine a defendant’s contacts with the forum for a reasonable period prior to year of lawsuit and finding six years was reasonable). [67] The Burnett complaint does not contain any factual allegations against Tar- iq, Omar, or Bakr Binladin from which the Court could infer that they purposefully directed their activities at the United States, that they were members of a con- spiracy pursuant to the New York long- arm statute, or that they have any general business contacts with the United States. Accordingly, the Burnett complaint against these three individuals is dismissed. [68] Rather than permitting a 12(e) statement, the Court finds jurisdictional discovery is warranted to determine if SBG purposefully directed its activities at the United States. See Asip v. Nrelsen Media Research, No. 03 Civ. 5866(SAS), 2004 WL 315269, at *2 (S.D.N-Y. Feb. 18, 2004) (noting the purpose of Rule 12(e) is to “strike at unintelligibility rather than want of detail and ... allegations that are unclear due to lack of specificity are more appropriately clarified by discovery”). Specifically, although the complaints are not specific about when, at the very least, 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES SBG provided construction support to Osa- ma bin Laden. Ashton Complaint 19550, 552-53; Burnett Complaint 11319-22. A branch of SBG allegedly look in an al Qaeda operative who listed the SBG branch address on his visa application. Ashton Complaint 1555; Burnett Com- plaint 1324. It is alleged to have ties to U.S.-designated terrorist Yassin Abdullah Al-Kadi. Ashton Complaint 1459; Bur- nett Complaint 1328. At this stage, the Court must accept as true Plaintiffs’ con- tentions that SBG still contains Osama bin Laden’s name in its corporate documents. Ashton Complaint 1558; Burnett Com- plaint 1329. Additionally, although it would not satisfy the due process requi- sites on its own, SBG’s presence in Mary- land three years before the complaints were filed, also warrants some discovery. Accordingly, SBG’s motion to dismiss the Ashton and Burnett complaints are denied without prejudice. 9. SAAR Network The Federal Plaintiffs claim the SAAR Network is a network of “interrelated os- tensible charities” that was established in the 1980s “to generate and surreptitiously transfer funds to terrorist organizations, including al-Qaeda.” Federal Complaint 222. Several organizations within the SAAR Network, including SAAR Founda- tion, SAAR International, Safa Group, Mar—Jac Poultry, Mar—Jac Holdings, Inc., Safa Trust, Inc. and Aradi, Inc., were es- tablished, funded or closely affiliated with Defendant Suleiman Abdul Aziz al Rajhi. Id. at. 1223. By September 11, 2001, there were allegedly over one hundred entities in this network, “including the U.S. branches of MWL, IIRO and WAMY, [and the SAAR Network Defendants moving to dis- miss here,] African Muslim Agency, Grove Corporate, Inc., Heritage Education Trust, International Institute of Islamic Thought, HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017887