Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army, 840 F. Supp. 2d 776

This multidistrict litigation alleges SBGroup provided material support to Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda before/around 9/11.
SBG moved to dismiss Ashton and Burnett complaints in 2003–2004 for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Judge Casey denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice in 2005 and allowed jurisdictional discovery.
Plaintiffs and SBG engaged in extensive jurisdictional discovery to determine if SBG directed activities at the U.S.
SBG renews its Rule 12(b)(2) motion asserting no personal jurisdiction and pleading deficiencies in plaintiffs’ detail.
Court grants SBG’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether general jurisdiction exists over SBG	Plaintiffs contend continuous contacts via U.S. subsidiary, Dr. Rihani, and trips.	SBG contends no continuous and systematic contacts; subsidiary ceased by 2000; limited U.S. activity.	No general jurisdiction; contacts insufficient.
Whether specific jurisdiction exists over SBG	SBG provided substantial pre-1993 support and post-1993 lifeline; ties to U.S. target harms.	Pre-1993 support too remote; post-1993 allegations lack evidentiary support.	No specific jurisdiction; actions too remote or unsubstantiated.
Whether the evidence after discovery supports jurisdiction	Evidence shows some U.S. activity tied to SBG.	Evidence does not meet prima facie showing of jurisdiction.	Insufficient evidence to establish jurisdiction.

In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 349 F.Supp.2d 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (initial jurisdictional discovery and framework for analysis)
Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 349 F.Supp.2d 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) ((Terrorist I); (reconsideration) 392 F.Supp.2d 539 (S.D.N.Y. 2005))
Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 538 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2008) (affirming on appeal; jurisdictional issues discussed)
Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 718 F.Supp.2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (Terrorist TV; due process in jurisdictional context)
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (intentional torts; effects in the forum)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and relatedness for specific jurisdiction)
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (general and specific jurisdiction framework)
Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 1996) (general jurisdiction standard; continuous and systematic contacts)
Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958) (minimum contacts and purposeful availment concepts)
Landoil Res. Corp. v. Alexander & Alexander Servs., Inc., 918 F.2d 1039 (2d Cir. 1990) (necessity of continuous and systematic contacts for general jurisdiction)
Melnick v. Adelson-Melnick, 346 F.Supp.2d 499 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (fact-based requirements for prima facie jurisdiction)