Federal Insurance v. al Qaida, 134 F. Supp. 3d 774

Plaintiffs are families, estates, injured individuals, and commercial entities harmed by the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks who allege Saudi Arabia and the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia & Herzegovina (SHC) provided material/financial support to al Qaeda and the hijackers.
Defendants moved to dismiss under FSIA sovereign immunity; plaintiffs invoke the FSIA noncommercial tort exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5).
Controlling FSIA issues: (1) the "entire tort" rule (the tort must occur in the U.S.), and (2) the discretionary-function exclusion to the tort exception.
Lower courts (Judge Casey and the Second Circuit) previously dismissed Saudi and SHC; Second Circuit decisions created tension later affected by Doe v. Bin Laden (2011) and subsequent remand; this motion is on renewed FSIA grounds and a proffered 587-paragraph Averment of Facts.
The court found the Complaint and the proposed Averment of Facts fail to show that tortious acts of the foreign state or its officials occurred in the U.S. (entire tort rule) or that specific individuals acted as officials/employees within the scope of employment while committing torts in the U.S.; thus FSIA immunity stands.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the FSIA noncommercial tort exception applies	Alleged Saudi support (via charities and individuals) caused the U.S.-based injuries; some operational acts occurred in the U.S.	The tortious conduct attributed to defendants occurred abroad or was by third parties; FSIA immunity applies	Held for Defendants — plaintiffs failed the "entire tort" rule
Whether alleged individuals were officials/employees acting within scope of employment	Individuals (e.g., al Bayoumi, al Thumairy) were Saudi agents/employees who aided hijackers in the U.S.	Plaintiffs offer only conclusory or insufficient facts tying those acts to official duties; no show of scope of employment	Held for Defendants — allegations insufficient to impute acts to Saudi Arabia
Whether plaintiffs may amend/submit Averment of Facts to cure jurisdictional defects	Averment contains intelligence reports, testimony, and other materials that establish in‑US tortious acts by Saudi actors	Defendants say allegations remain speculative and do not meet FSIA requirements	Denied — amendment/averment futile; still no jurisdiction
Whether jurisdictional discovery is warranted	Plaintiffs seek discovery to develop facts tying defendants to in‑US torts	Defendants argue plaintiffs have not shown a reasonable basis for jurisdictional discovery	Denied — no genuine issue of jurisdictional fact to justify discovery

In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 714 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2013) (entire‑tort and FSIA analysis dismissing certain Saudi instrumentalities)
In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 538 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2008) (earlier Second Circuit decision on FSIA exceptions)
Doe v. Bin Laden, 663 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2011) (treating terrorism exception as additional basis for jurisdiction and affecting prior circuit precedent)
Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. v. Argentine Republic, 488 U.S. 428 (1989) (FSIA is sole basis for jurisdiction over foreign states)
Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480 (1983) (restrictive theory of sovereign immunity and background of modern FSIA)
Robinson v. Government of Malaysia, 269 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2001) (district court may consider extrinsic evidence in FSIA jurisdictional inquiry)
First Nat'l City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba (Bancec), 462 U.S. 611 (1983) (standards for piercing instrumentality corporate form)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive dismissal)