HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023372.jpg

In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001., 2012 WL 257568 (2012) Plaintiffs assert claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2331 ef seg., and under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) statute, *5 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 ef seg., which conferred jurisdiction on the district court through the specific grants of jurisdiction applicable to each statute and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In some of the underlying cases, plaintiffs and defendants were diverse, in that defendants were citizens of foreign states or of states different from the states in which plaintiffs were citizens. Plaintiffs who are not U.S. persons assert claims for violations of international law, over which the district court had jurisdiction pursuant to the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350. The district court further had supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Where defendants claimed immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and plaintiffs asserted the application of one or more exceptions to immunity, the court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330 & 1605. In addition, actions originally filed in other jurisdictions were transferred to the Southern District of New York by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. This Court has appellate jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court dismissed defendants in this case in six orders dated January 18, 2005 Un re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 349 F. Supp. 2d 765 (“Terrorist Attacks”) (S.D.N.Y 2005)); September *6 21, 2005 Un re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 392 F. Supp. 2d 539 (“Terrorist Attacks IP’) (S.D.N.Y 2005)); November 20, 2006 Un re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 462 F. Supp. 2d 561 (“SAMBA TP’) (S.D.N.Y. 2006)); December 14, 2006 Un re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 464 F. Supp. 2d 335 (“DMI-Kamel?’) (S.D.N.Y. 2006)); June 17, 2010 Wn re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 718 F. Supp. 2d 456 (“Terrorist Attacks IV’) (S.D.N.Y. 2010)); and September 13, 2010 Un re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 740 F. Supp. 2d 494 (“Terrorist Attacks V’) (S.D.N.Y. 2010)).? Additional defendants remain in the case, which is still pending below. On July 14, 2011, the district court entered a partial final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in favor of 75 defendants dismissed in those four orders, including each of the appellees. Plaintiffs timely filed their notices of appeal on August 9, 2011, August 10, 2011, and August 11, 2011. Statement of Issues Presented for Review 1. Whether plaintiffs’ allegations, accepted as true and with all reasonable inferences drawn from them in plaintiffs’ favor, constitute a *7 prima facie showing that each of five defendants, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 2333, knew that or recklessly disregarded whether al-Qaeda was the recipient of the financial and other support each defendant was providing to al-Qaeda. 2. Whether, for purposes of claims asserting violations of “the law of nations” under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, such violations include acts of international terrorism or are limited to the hijacking of commercial airplanes. 3. Whether claims arising under the Torture Victim Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note, can be asserted against defendants who are not natural persons, including corporations and other legal entities. 4. Whether plaintiffs’ allegations, accepted as true and with all reasonable inferences drawn from them in plaintiffs’ favor, constitute a prima facie showing that defendants who provided material support to al-Qaeda owed a duty of care, in relation to negligence claims, to victims of an al-Qaeda attack in the United States. 5. Whether plaintiffs’ intentional tort claims related to the September 11, 2001 attacks in Virginia and Pennsylvania are subject to New York’s one-year statute of limitations. *8 6. Whether plaintiffs’ intentional tort claims related to the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania are subject to equitable tolling even if subject to New York’s one-year statute of limitations. 7. Whether the dismissals of three defendants, based on a decision of this Court construing 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5), should be vacated because this Court has overruled that earlier decision since the filing of notices of appeals. Statement of The Case Nature of the Case and Course of Proceedings WESTLAW HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023372