HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017922.jpg

In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 392 F.Supp.2d 539 (2005) 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 789 purposefully directed his activities toward the United States by making personal contributions to several Saudi-based charities. (Federal Compl. §§ 442-43.) 19! Plaintiffs must make a prima facie showing that Prince Salman and Prince Naif have minimum contacts with the United States. The minimum contacts requirement is satisfied “if the defendant has ‘purposefully directed’ his activities at the residents of the forum.” Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). Foreseeability is not enough, there must be “some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum.” Jd Donating money to established humanitarian organizations that may or may not have been diverting funds to support al Qaeda cannot be considered primary participation in intentional wrongdoing expressly aimed at the United States. Terrorist Attacks I, 349 F.Supp.2d at 809 (citing In re Magnetic Audiotape Antitrust Litig., 334 F.3d 204, 208 (2d Cir.2003)). As to Prince Salman’s various limited contacts with the United States, they do not support general jurisdiction over him. The 1989 visit to the White House and Maryland is too far removed in time from the 2001 attacks. See, e.g., Metro. Life Ins. Co., 84 F.3d at 569 (explaining that a defendant’s “continuous and systematic” contacts with a forum must be examined over a period of time and finding a six-year period reasonable). Prince Salman’s deceased son’s contacts with the United States are irrelevant to this Court’s analysis. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 781 n. 13, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (“Each defendant’s contacts with the forum State must be assessed individually.”). Prince Salman’s ownership of shares m Texas corporations, on its own, cannot be considered sufficiently systematic and continuous to establish general jurisdiction. Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 414-16, 104 S.Ct. 1868 (finding CEO’s travel to forum for contract negotiations, employees’ travel to forum for training, receipt of funds drawn on forum bank accounts, and purchase from forum companies were not contacts sufficiently systematic and continuous to establish general jurisdiction). Plaintiffs have not presented a genuine issue of jurisdictional fact such that discovery is necessary. Daventree, 349 F.Supp.2d at 761. Plaintiffs have not satisfied the constitutional requirement of showing that the Princes have minimum contacts with the United States. Accordingly, Prince Salman’s and Prince Naif’s motions to dismiss the Ashton, Burnett, and Federal complaints for lack of personal jurisdiction are granted. WESTLAW *360 B. Rabita Trust® 1 Plaintiffs allege that Rabita Trust is a charitable organization which was created to organize the repatriation and rehabilitation of stranded Pakistanis from Bangladesh. Founded in 1988, the trust fund was started jointly by the government of Pakistan and the Saudi-based charity, [Defendant MWL]. Rabita Trust received the majority of its funding from the MWL and the Saudis, and [has] been involved with terrorism. (Ashton Compl. § 521; Burnett Compl. J 268.) The charity initially recetved funding from its founders to help relocate 250,000 displaced refugees. (Ashton Compl. J 522; Burnett Compl. J 269.) Plaintiffs assert that Rabita Trust has actually relocated only a few hundred refugees. (Ashton Compl. 9 522; Burnett Compl. § 269.) On October 12, 2001, the United States Treasury Department designated Rabita Trust a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entity and froze its assets.’ (Ashton Compl. § 312, 527; Burnett Compl. § 236; Federal Compl. J§ 117, 214.) Rabita Trust is allegedly related to various other charity Defendants and al Qaeda. For instance, as a subsidiary of MWL, it is a “sibling organization of the RO.” (Ashton Compl. § 525; Burnett Compl. § 272; Federal Compl. § 113.) Through MWL and its own officers, Rabita Trust is also related to the SAAR Network. (Ashton Compl. [§ 338, 526-28; Burnett Compl. §§ 273-75; Federal Compl. § 213.) Plaintiffs claim that “Rabita Trust is an al Qaeda front” and that its General Director, Wa‘el Julaidan, is a known al Qaeda member. (Ashton Compl. § 523; Burnett Compl. J 270; Federal Compl. §§ 100, 121, 210.) In a list of orders obtained in a raid of BIF’s Sarajevo’s offices, investigators allegedly recovered a document from Osama bin Laden regarding the management of Islamic charities in which he urged the creation of a committee to receive and distribute donations to al Qaeda and suggests Rabita Trust’s participation. (Federal Compl. Jf 195, 211.) Rabita Trust claims that it does not have an office in the United States and that the complaints are devoid of any allegations that it directed money to terrorists. It admits HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017922