Case 1:03-md-01570-GBD-FM Document 2140 Filed 10/17/2008 Page 1 of 39 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) IN RE: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON ) Civil Action No. 03 MDL 1570 (GBD) SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 ) ) ) This document relates to: All Actions SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON SECOND CIRCUIT DECISION October 17, 2008 Case 1:03-md-01570-GBD-FM Document 2140 Filed 10/17/2008 Page 2 of 39 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY............................................................................................1 ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................4 I. THE SECOND CIRCUIT’S DECISION COMPELS DISMISSAL OF ALL OFFICIAL-CAPACITY CLAIMS AGAINST REMAINING FSIA DEFENDANTS ...................................................................................................................4 A. The FSIA Protects Individuals Acting in Their Official Capacity ..........................5 B. The Two Remaining Saudi Entities Are “Agencies or Instrumentalities” of Saudi Arabia...........................................................................6 C. The FSIA’s Torts Exception Does Not Apply Here ................................................9 D. The Commercial Activities Exception to the FSIA Does Not Apply Here.............................................................................................................11 II. THE SECOND CIRCUIT’S PERSONAL JURISDICTION DECISION IS DISPOSITIVE OF MANY PENDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS ...................................12 A. The Second Circuit’s Personal Jurisdiction Rulings..............................................13 1. The Court of Appeals Rejected Plaintiffs’ Reliance on Terrorism Cases Where Defendants Were Primary Participants in the Terrorist Acts ...............................................................16 2. Specific Jurisdiction Here Requires Intentional and Tortious Conduct Expressly Aimed at the United States from Which Plaintiffs’ Injuries Arise ........................................................17 3. Plaintiffs’ Mere Assertions of Support for Terrorism Do Not Warrant Jurisdictional Discovery .......................................................21 B. The Court Of Appeals’ Rulings Dispose of Many Motions to Dismiss...................................................................................................................21 1. Alleged Support to al Qaeda through Charities .........................................22 2. Alleged Provision of Banking Services to al Qaeda..................................28 3. Even More Remote Allegations.................................................................30 CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................34 Case 1:03-md-01570-GBD-FM Document 2140 Filed 10/17/2008 Page 3 of 39 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases: Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428 (1989) ..................................9 Bigio v. Coca-Cola Co., 239 F.3d 440 (2d Cir. 2000).....................................................................5 Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985)...............................................................15, 17, 18 Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984)......................................................................................17, 20 Daliberti v. Republic of Iraq, 97 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D.D.C. 2000) ...................................................16 Filler v. Hanvit Bank, 378 F.3d 213 (2d Cir. 2004).........................................................................7 Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) .............................15, 22 Jazini v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 148 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 1998) .....................................................21 Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984)................................................................15 Letelier v. Republic of Chile, 748 F.2d 790 (2d Cir. 1984) ...........................................................11 Morris v. Khadr, 415 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (D. Utah 2006)................................................................16 Murphy v. Korea Asset Mgmt. Corp., 421 F. Supp. 2d 627 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) .................................7 Mwani v. bin Laden, 417 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2005).........................................................................16 Pugh v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 290 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D.D.C. 2003) ....................................................................................................................16 Rein v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 995 F. Supp. 325 (E.D.N.Y.), aff’d in part, dismissed in part, 162 F.3d 748 (2d Cir. 1998)............................................16 Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607 (1992) ......................................................11 Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977) ........................................................................................15 Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, In re: 349 F. Supp. 2d 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), aff’d, 538 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2008)................. passim 392 F. Supp. 2d 539, 572 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), aff’d, 538 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2008).......................................................................................................4, 6 538 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2008)......................................................................................... passim ii Case 1:03-md-01570-GBD-FM Document 2140 Filed 10/17/2008 Page 4 of 39 Toys “R” Us, Inc. v Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 2003).................................................21 Statutes and Rules: 28 U.S.C. § 1603(b) .........................................................................................................................7 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2)...............................................................................................................2, 11 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5).................................................................................................................2, 9 28 U.S.C. § 1605A.......................................................................................................................1, 9 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(1)................................................................................................................10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)....................................................................................................................4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)....................................................................................................................6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5)....................................................................................................................6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)....................................................................................................................6 Other Materials: The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (2004) ..............................................................33 U.S. Dep’t of State, State Sponsors of Terrorism, http://www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm (last visited Oct. 14, 2008)....................................10 iii Case 1:03-md-01570-GBD-FM Document 2140 Filed 10/17/2008 Page 5 of 39 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Consistent with this Court’s September 15, 2008 order (Dkt. # 2133)1, this supplemental brief “address[es] the import” of the recent opinion by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 538 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2008) (“Terrorist Attacks III”), with respect to pending motions to dismiss. This brief first addresses the Second Circuit’s holdings as to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) and then addresses the Court’s holdings relating to the exercise of personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. 1. With respect to the FSIA, a straightforward application of the Second Circuit’s decision requires the dismissal of the remaining FSIA defendants. The Second Circuit held, first, that an individual official of a foreign state, acting in his official capacity, is an “agency or instrumentality” of the foreign state, and is thereby protected by the FSIA’s grant of immunity with respect to official-capacity acts. That holding conclusively establishes that remaining official-capacity allegations against individual defendants are covered by the FSIA. In addition, the Second Circuit held that an entity that, under the traditional five-factor test, is an organ of the foreign state is also an “agency or instrumentality” of that state protected by the FSIA. That holding establishes that the two remaining FSIA defendants that are not individuals – the Saudi Red Crescent Society (“SRCS”) and the Saudi Joint Relief Committee (“SJRC”) – are likewise protected by the FSIA. The Second Circuit’s decision also forecloses plaintiffs’ arguments that any exception to immunity applies here and divests the FSIA defendants of their immunity from suit. To begin with, the Second Circuit made clear what is apparent from the text of the FSIA: the FSIA’s Terrorism Exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605A (formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7)), cannot be applied to 1 Unless otherwise noted, all docket