In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 (Al Rajhi Bank)
714 F.3d 118
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Appeals involve ATA, ATS, TVPA, and common law claims by 9/11 victims’ families, injured individuals, and businesses.
- District Court granted judgment for 76 defendants; five Rule 12(b)(6) defendants prevailed on failure to state a claim.
- Rule 12(b)(6) defendants are Al Rajhi Bank, Saudi American Bank, Saleh Abdullah Kamel, Dallah al Baraka Group LLC, and DMI Trust.
- This opinion addresses only Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals; other defenses (personal jurisdiction, FSIA) are addressed in separate opinions.
- Court applies Rothstein v. UBS AG to evaluate aiding-and-abetting and proximate-causation theories under the ATA.
- Court concludes no universal norm against terrorism under customary international law existed as of 9/11/2001 for ATS.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ATA aiding-and-abetting liability | Plaintiffs claim Rule 12(b)(6) defendants aided al Qaeda. | Defendants contend no aiding-and-abetting liability under § 2333(a) and no proximate causation. | Affirmed dismissal; no aiding-and-abetting or proximate-causation liability. |
| ATA proximate causation standard | Plaintiffs argue causal link to 9/11 injuries is proximate. | Defendants rely on Rothstein requiring proximate causation. | Affirmed; plaintiffs fail to plead proximate causation. |
| ATS universal norm requirement | Plaintiffs contend terrorism violates law of nations. | Defendants argue no universal norm existed at 9/11. | Affirmed; no universal norm existed as of 9/11. |
| TVPA liability and color of law | Plaintiffs seek TVPA relief against organizations and Saleh Kamel. | Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority limits TVPA to natural persons; color-of-law requirement not met for Kamel. | Affirmed; TVPA claims fail against organizations and Kamel. |
| Common law duty and causation | Plaintiffs allege duty and proximate causation by Rule 12(b)(6) defendants. | Defendant argues no duty owed and no proximate causation. | Affirmed; claims dismissed for lack of duty/causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rothstein v. UBS AG, 708 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2013) (proximate causation and aiding-and-abetting limitations under § 2333(a))
- United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003) (terrorism lacks universal norm under law of nations as of 9/11)
- Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, 132 S. Ct. 1702 (2012) (TVPA liability limited to natural persons)
- Boim v. Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev., 549 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2008) (secondary liability not inferred from statutory silence)
- In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 349 F. Supp. 2d 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (relevant authority on color-of-law and TVPA context)
- Lerner v. Fleet Bank, N.A., 459 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006) (bank owes non-customers duty limitations)
- Holmes v. S.I.P.C., 503 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1992) (interpretation of 'by reason of' requiring proximate causation)