Saleh v. Bin Zayed Al Nahyan
Civil Action No. 2020-1168
| D.D.C. | Sep 22, 2021Background
- Plaintiffs Ayman (U.S.-UAE dual citizen) and Linda Saleh sued over Ayman’s alleged October 2015 kidnapping and torture in Abu Dhabi, asserting claims under the TVPA and other international and domestic laws.
- Defendants included DarkMatter (a UAE-founded cybersecurity company), the UAE, the UAE President, and the Crown Prince; DarkMatter was named only in the TVPA count (Count III) and a civil conspiracy count (Count VIII).
- Plaintiffs allege DarkMatter assisted UAE offensive mass-surveillance that led to Ayman being tracked and assaulted; the complaint is factually sparse as to DarkMatter’s overt acts following the alleged conspiracy.
- DarkMatter moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, improper service, and failure to state a claim (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1),(2),(5),(6)).
- The Court held DarkMatter’s TVPA claim must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the TVPA authorizes suits only against natural persons; the remaining civil-conspiracy claim was dismissed as time-barred under D.C. law for failure to state a claim. The Court did not reach personal-jurisdiction or service issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the TVPA authorizes suit against DarkMatter (a corporate/entity defendant) | TVPA claim against DarkMatter proceeds (plaintiffs did not meaningfully oppose in briefing) | TVPA limits liability to "individuals," so it does not permit corporate liability | Court: TVPA claims against DarkMatter dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (TVPA applies only to natural persons) |
| Whether the Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law civil-conspiracy claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) | Plaintiffs asserted supplemental jurisdiction exists and should be exercised | Def. urged the Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of federal claim | Court: Declining under § 1367 was discretionary; court proceeded to address the conspiracy claim on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds rather than dismissing it solely under § 1367(c)(3) |
| Whether the civil-conspiracy claim against DarkMatter survives Rule 12(b)(6) or is time-barred | Conspiracy claim arises from the 2015 assault and should proceed | Claim is conclusory and, on its face, barred by the applicable D.C. statutes of limitations | Court: Conspiracy claim dismissed for failure to state a claim because it is time‑barred under D.C. limitations law |
| Whether the Court should resolve personal jurisdiction and service challenges, or allow jurisdictional discovery | Plaintiffs requested jurisdictional discovery and opposed dismissal on those procedural grounds | Def. argued lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service | Court: Did not reach personal-jurisdiction or service issues because dismissal on jurisdictional (TVPA) and merits (statute of limitations) grounds rendered them moot; jurisdictional discovery denied as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 138 S. Ct. 1386 (2018) (TVPA liability is limited to natural persons, not corporations)
- Mohamed v. Palestinian Auth., 566 U.S. 449 (2012) (interpreting TVPA’s reference to "individual" as excluding non‑natural persons)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard; legal conclusions not assumed true)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (established plausibility standard for complaints)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (plaintiff bears burden to establish federal jurisdiction)
- Byrne v. Clinton, 410 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D.D.C. 2019) (statute-of-limitations defense apparent on face of complaint can be resolved on Rule 12(b)(6))