HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017928.jpg

In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 392 F.Supp.2d 539 (2005) 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 789 C. Success Foundation" S41 The Burnett Plaintiffs claim that Success Foundation is a sister company to Defendant ITRO and that it “sends money back and forth with the RO and IRO” and other sponsors of terror. (Burnett Compl. § 235.) If given the opportunity to replead its allegations against Success, the Plaintiffs would allege that, in 1998, Success Foundation entered into a contract to act as an agent for Defendant Taibah, which has since been designated a global terrorist. The complaint does not allege that Success Foundation knew the money it was transferring between ITRO and IRO would somehow assist al Qaeda, nor does it allege facts showing that Success Foundation knew the other unnamed organizations to which it transferred money were in the business of supporting terrorism. See Boim IT, 291 F.3d at 1012 (“To hold the defendants liable for donating money without knowledge of the donee’s intended criminal use of the funds would impose strict liability. Nothing in the language of the statute or its structure or history supports that formulation.”). The Burnett complaint is against Success Foundation is dismissed without prejudice. D. Wa‘el Jalaidan 35] For the reasons the Court found that it has personal jurisdiction over Mr. Jalaidan, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief against him. Plaintiffs have alleged facts, that if true, would be sufficient to prove that he knowingly provided material support to al Qaeda in the form of financial and logistical support. See 18 U.S.C. § 2339(A) (including *569 “currency or other financial securities, financial services, . weapons, [and] personnel” in definition of material support). The Federal complaint does not allege that Jalaidan directed an enterprise and the RICO claim is dismissed. Wa‘el Jalaidan’s motions to dismiss the Ashton, Burnett, and Federal complaints are denied E. IIRO 361 Similarly, for the reasons the Court found that Plaintiffs made a prima facie demonstration that ITRO has purposefully directed its activities at the United States, the Court finds they have stated a claim under the ATA in that ITRO has allegedly funded al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, supported al Qaeda guest houses, and been involved in other terrorist attacks and plots. See 18 U.S.C. WESTLAW § 2339(A) (including “currency or other financial securities, financial services, weapons, [and] personnel” in definition of material support). IIRO’s motions to dismiss the Ashton, Burnett, and Federal complaints are denied. F. Rabita Trust 371 Rabita Trust moves to dismiss the complaints against it for failure to state a claim. These motions are denied without prejudice until this Court determines whether it has personal jurisdiction over Rabita Trust. G. SAAR Network Defendants" 1. Entities The Burnett and Ashton complaints’ allegations against the SAAR Network entities are substantially similar to one another.’ Paragraph 267 of the Burnett complaint and paragraph 339 of the Ashton complaint both state: Co-conspirators, material sponsors, and/or aiders and abettors of the SAAR Network include Defendants ... African Muslim Agency, ... Grove Corporate, Inc., Heritage Education Trust, International Institute of Islamic Thought, Mar—Jac Investments, Inc., Mar—Jac Poultry, Inc., ... Reston Investments, Inc., ... Safa Trust, .. and York Foundation, all located doing business or registered to do business in the United States. In support of their claims against these Defendants, Plaintiffs rely primarily on their allegations against the “SAAR Foundation and network.” (See Burnett Compl. {{ 261-67; Ashton Compl. Jf 333-39.) The SAAR Foundation, allegedly a financial sponsor of terror, was formed in the 1970s by a group of Muslim scholars and scientists. (Burnett Compl. J 261; Ashton Compl. § 333.) It was incorporated in Virginia in 1983 and dissolved in December 2000. (Burnett Compl. § 261; Ashton Compl. J 333.) Its largest donor is the al Rajhi family of Saudi Arabia. (Burnett Compl. § 261; Ashton Compl. § 333.) The complaints claim that over one hundred “affiliated organizations” are registered or are doing business at one of the SAAR Foundation’s addresses in Herndon, Virginia, but many “do not maintain a physical presence HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017928