HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017932.jpg

In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 392 F.Supp.2d 539 (2005) 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 789 of this Court [that] has already entertained and rejected the same constitutional challenge to the same [governmental] provision.” Jd. at 195 (limiting holding to constitutional challenges to governmental provisions). NCB’s reliance on Bush cannot prevail here. The exception relied on in Bush is limited to constitutional challenges to governmental provisions. Bush, 304 F.3d at 195; see also Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 99, 118 S.Ct. 1003. Here, the merits of NCB’s liability for the attacks of September 11 do not present a constitutional challenge to a governmental provision such that skipping the jurisdiction question would be appropriate. In its alternative argument for reconsideration, NCB requests that the Court postpone resolution of the subject matter jurisdiction question posed by the FSIA until NCB’s personal jurisdiction defense is resolved. NCB argues that such a course would lead to its quicker dismissal from the litigation and would limit the intrusion into Saudi affairs since personal jurisdiction discovery would involve only NCB’s contacts with the United States and not Saudi Arabia’s relationship to NCB. The Supreme Court and Second Circuit agree that there are certain circumstances in which it is appropriate to give priority to the personal jurisdiction inquiry. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 578, 588, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 143 L.Ed.2d 760 (1999) (holding “there is no unyielding jurisdictional hierarchy ... [and] there are circumstances in which a district court appropriately accords priority to a personal jurisdiction inquiry” and finding no abuse of discretion where a court resolves a straightforward personal jurisdiction question before a novel subject matter jurisdiction question); Cantor Fitzgerald v. Peaslee, 88 F.3d 152, 155 (Qd Cir.1996) (upholding district court’s decision to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction before considering whether it had subject matter jurisdiction and finding “[o]n some occasions ... considerations of judicial economy and restraint may persuade the court to avoid a difficult question of subject-matter jurisdiction when the case may be disposed of on a simpler *575 ground”). Further, deference to foreign sovereigns under the FSIA “need not imply priority of immunity determination.... If one (or more) of the other jurisdictional defenses hold out the promise of being cheaply decisive, and the defendant wants it decided first, 1t may well be best to grapple with it (or them) first.” In re Minister Papandreou, 139 F.3d 247, 254 (D.C.Cir.1998). 461 Here, the Court finds that the personal jurisdiction issue raised by NCB 1s “straightforward” when compared to the more “difficult” subject matter jurisdiction question WESTLAW posed by NCB’s status within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. See Ruhrgas, 526 U.S. at 588, 119 S.Ct. 1563; see also Terrorist Attacks [| 349 F.Supp.2d at 789-792 (analyzing NCB’s status as a foreign sovereign). Additionally, NCB acknowledges that personal jurisdiction discovery will only involve it, its relationship to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is sufficiently remote that an inquiry into NCB’s contacts with the United States will not intrude on the inner workings of the Kingdom’s government. Finally, discovery regarding NCB’s FSIA defense would necessarily subject the Kingdom to discovery, which the Court is hesitant to do unnecessarily. See First City, Texas—Houston, N.A. v. Rafidain Bank, 150 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir.1998); see also Arriba Ltd. v. Petroleos Mexicanos, 962 F.2d 528, 534 (Sth Cir.1992) (recommending that “discovery should be ordered circumspectly and only to verify allegations of specific facts crucial to an immunity determination”). For all the foregoing reasons, the Court reconsiders its order regarding simultaneous subject matter and personal jurisdiction discovery. See Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257 (“{I]n light of [defendant’s] introduction of additional relevant case law ... we cannot say that reconsider[ation is] an abuse of discretion.”). Further inquiry into NCB’s status as a foreign sovereign is postponed until the parties have completed their personal jurisdiction discovery and this Court has determined whether it has personal jurisdiction over NCB. See Ruhrgas, 526 U.S. at 588, 119 S.Ct. 1563; In re Arbitration Between Monegasque De Reasurrances SAM, 311 F.3d 488, 498 (2d Cir.2002) (noting “dismissal for want of personal jurisdiction is independent of the merits and does not require subject-matter jurisdiction”) (quoting In re Minister Papandreou, 139 F.3d at 255-56). V. Conclusion For the reasons explained above, SHC’s motion to dismiss the Ashton, Burnett, and Federal complaints for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted. Prince Salman’s motion to dismiss the Ashton, Burnett, and Federal complaints for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction is granted. Prince Naif’s motion to dismiss the Ashton, Burnett, and Federal complaints for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction is granted. Rabita Trust’s motions to dismiss the Ashton, Burnett, and Federal complaints are denied without prejudice. Wa‘el Jalaidan’s motions to dismiss the Ashton, Burnett, and Federal complaints are denied, but the RICO, TVPA, negligence, and Federal intentional tort claims against him are dismissed. IIRO’s motions to dismiss the Ashton, HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017932