In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 (Asat Trust Reg.)
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7671
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Multi-district 9/11 litigation involving ATA/ATS/TVPA and related tort claims against charities, banks, and others tied to al Qaeda; district court dismissed 76 defendants for various reasons; this opinion focuses on 37 Personal Jurisdiction defendants dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; several categories of defendants alleged to have funded or facilitated al Qaeda; initial rulings largely align with In re Terrorist Attacks III (2008) on insufficient US-directed targeting; jurisdictional discovery ordered for 12 defendants; proceedings remanded for jurisdictional discovery as to those twelve defendants.
- Plaintiffs allege knowledge by defendants of al Qaeda’s global campaign and that charitable/banking entities knowingly funded it; defendants include Charity Official, Sudanese, Al Rajhi, NCB, Bin Laden, SBG, Liechtenstein, Jameel, and Dallah Avco groups.
- Court reviews specific vs general personal jurisdiction, applying Calder v. Jones and Burger King standards; In re Terrorist Attacks III set the bar for expressly aimed conduct and US-directed injuries; court finds most allegations insufficient for specific jurisdiction but allows discovery for twelve defendants; general jurisdiction also rejected for NCB, Abdullah Bin Laden, Yeslam Bin Laden, and SBG.
- The decision preserves remand for jurisdictional discovery as to twelve defendants; sustains dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction as to Sudanese defendants, Sulaiman Bin Abdul Aziz Al Rajhi, Saleh Abdul Aziz Al Rajhi, Abdullah Salaiman Al Rajhi, NCB, Liechtenstein defendants, and Yousef Jameel; vacates and remands as to Charity Official defendants, Yassin Abdullah Al Kadi, Saleh Al-Hussayen, and Dallah Avco.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sudanese defendants have specific jurisdiction | Plaintiffs argue defendants knowingly funded al Qaeda via US-based charities or accounts | Defendants contend alleged banking support is insufficient to show express aiming at US | Lack of specific jurisdiction for Sudanese defendants (with discovery limited to twelve defendants) |
| Whether NCB and Bin Laden relatives have specific jurisdiction | Plaintiffs claim targeted US activities through NCB and Bin Laden affiliates | Arguments show insufficient expressly aimed conduct toward US | Lack of specific jurisdiction for NCB and Bin Laden defendants |
| Whether Charity Official defendants and Al Kadi warrant jurisdictional discovery | Charity Official defendants directly controlled charities funding al Qaeda; Al Kadi ran Muwafaq Foundation | Allegations not clearly show express aiming; discovery unnecessary | Jurisdictional discovery warranted for Charity Official defendants and Al Kadi |
| Whether certain defendants qualify for general jurisdiction | Plaintiffs contend broad US contacts (office, website, loans) establish general jurisdiction | Contacts are insufficient to meet continuous and systematic general jurisdiction | No general jurisdiction over NCB, Abdullah Bin Laden, Yeslam Bin Laden, or SBG |
| Overall disposition of personal jurisdiction appeals | Many defendants should be subject to jurisdiction based on direct support to al Qaeda | Most allegations fail to show express aiming or general contacts | Affirm dismissal for most defendants; remand for limited jurisdictional discovery for twelve defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (express aiming standard for jurisdiction existence)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful direction and fair warning principle)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (minimum contacts for general jurisdiction standard)
- In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 538 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2008) (held allegations insufficient to show express aiming for some defendants)
- Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, S.A.L., 673 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2012) (discusses limits of certain US contacts for jurisdiction)
- Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, 20 N.Y.3d 327 (N.Y. 2012) (NY Court of Appeals on related jurisdictional issues)