O'Neill v. Asat Trust Reg. (In re Terrorist Attacks on Sep. 11, 2001), Docket No. 11–3294–cv(L).

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
Writing for the CourtJOSÉ A. CABRANES
Citation714 F.3d 659
PartiesIn re TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 (Asat Trust Reg., et al.) John Patrick O'Neill, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Asat Trust Reg., Al Shamal Islamic Bank, also known as Shamel Bank, also known as Bank El Shamar, Schreiber & Zindel, Frank Zindel, Engelbert Schreiber, Sr., Engelbert Schreiber, Jr., Martin Watcher, Erwin Watcher, Sercor Treuhand Anstalt, Yassin Abdullah Al Kadi, Khaled Bin Mahfouz, National Commercial Bank, Faisal Islamic Sulaiman Al–Ali, Aqeel Al–Aqeel, Soliman H.S. Al–Buthe, Abdullah Bin Laden, Abdulrahman Bin Mahfouz, Sulaiman Bin Abdul Aziz Al Rajhi, Saleh Abdul Aziz Al Rajhi, Abdullah Salaiman Al Rajhi, Abdullah Omar Naseef, Tadamon Islamic Bank, Abdullah Muhsen Al Turki, Adnan Basha, Mohamad Jamal Khalifa, Bakr M. Bin Laden, Tarek M. Bin Laden, Omar M. Bin Laden, Dallah Avco Trans Arabia Co. Ltd., DMI Administrative Services S.A., Abdullah Bin Saleh Al Obaid, Abdul Rahman Al Swailem, Saleh Al–Hussayen, Yeslam M. Bin Laden, Yousef Jameel, Saudi Binladin Group, Defendants–Appellees.
Decision Date16 April 2013
Docket NumberDocket No. 12–1458–cv.,Docket No. 11–3505–cv.,Docket No. 11–3511–cv.,Docket No. 11–3494–cv.,Docket No. 11–3502–cv.,Docket No. 11–3495–cv.,Docket No. 11–3503–cv.,Docket No. 11–3506–cv.,Docket No. 11–3508–cv.,Docket No. 11–3510–cv.,Docket No. 12–949–cv.,Docket No. 11–3500–cv.,Docket No. 11–3496–cv.,Docket No. 11–3509–cv.,Docket No. 11–3294–cv(L).,Docket No. 11–3501–cv.,Docket No. 11–3490–cv.,Docket No. 11–3507–cv.,Docket No. 11–3407–cv.,Docket No. 12–1457–cv.,Docket No. 12–1459–cv.

714 F.3d 659

In re TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 (Asat Trust Reg., et al.)
John Patrick O'Neill, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants,
v.
Asat Trust Reg., Al Shamal Islamic Bank, also known as Shamel Bank, also known as Bank El Shamar, Schreiber & Zindel, Frank Zindel, Engelbert Schreiber, Sr., Engelbert Schreiber, Jr., Martin Watcher, Erwin Watcher, Sercor Treuhand Anstalt, Yassin Abdullah Al Kadi, Khaled Bin Mahfouz, National Commercial Bank, Faisal Islamic Sulaiman Al–Ali, Aqeel Al–Aqeel, Soliman H.S. Al–Buthe, Abdullah Bin Laden, Abdulrahman Bin Mahfouz, Sulaiman Bin Abdul Aziz Al Rajhi, Saleh Abdul Aziz Al Rajhi, Abdullah Salaiman Al Rajhi, Abdullah Omar Naseef, Tadamon Islamic Bank, Abdullah Muhsen Al Turki, Adnan Basha, Mohamad Jamal Khalifa, Bakr M. Bin Laden, Tarek M. Bin Laden, Omar M. Bin Laden, Dallah Avco Trans Arabia Co. Ltd., DMI Administrative Services S.A., Abdullah Bin Saleh Al Obaid, Abdul Rahman Al Swailem, Saleh Al–Hussayen, Yeslam M. Bin Laden, Yousef Jameel, Saudi Binladin Group, Defendants–Appellees.
*

Docket Nos. 11–3294–cv(L), 11–3407–cv, 11–3490–cv, 11–3494–cv, 11–3495–cv, 11–3496–cv, 11–3500–cv, 11–3501–cv, 11–3502–cv, 11–3503–cv, 11–3505–cv, 11–3506–cv, 11–3507–cv, 11–3508–cv, 11–3509–cv, 11–3510–cv, 11–3511–cv, 12–949–cv, 12–1457–cv, 12–1458–cv, 12–1459–cv.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued: Dec. 4, 2012.
Decided: April 16, 2013.


[714 F.3d 664]


Richard Klingler (Sean P. Carter, Stephen A. Cozen, Elliott R. Feldman, Cozen O'Connor, Philadelphia, PA; Ronald L. Motley, Robert T. Haefele, Motley Rice, LLC, Mount Pleasant, SC; Carter G. Phillips, Sidley Austin, LLP, Washington, DC; Andrea Bierstein, Hanly Conroy Bierstein Sheridan Fisher & Hayes, LLP, New York, NY; Robert M. Kaplan, Ferber Chan Essner & Coller, LLP, New York, NY; James P. Kreindler, Justin T. Green, Andrew J. Maloney, III, Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, New York, NY; Jerry S. Goldman, Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C., New York, NY; Chris Leonardo, Adams Holcomb LLP, Washington, DC, on the brief), Sidley Austin, LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs–Appellants on Personal Jurisdiction Issues.

James E. Gauch (Mary Ellen Powers, Stephen J. Brogan, Timothy J. Finn, on the brief), Jones Day, Washington, DC, for Defendants–Appellees Saudi Binladin Group, Abdullah Bin Laden, Bakr M. Bin Laden, Omar M. Bin Laden, Tarek M. Bin Laden, Yeslam M. Bin Laden, and Khaled Bin Mahfouz.


Barry Coburn, Coburn & Greenbaum, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Defendants–Appellees Asat Trust Reg., Martin Watcher, Erwin Watcher, and Secor Treuhand Anstalt.

Martin F. McMahon, Martin F. McMahon & Associates, Washington, DC, for Defendants–Appellees Al Shamal Islamic Bank, Tadamon Islamic Bank, and Dallah Avco Trans Arabia Co. Ltd.

John N. Scholnick, Ayad P. Jacob, Schiff Hardin LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendants–Appellees Schreiber & Zindel Treuhand Anstalt, Frank Zindel, Engelbert Schreiber, Sr., and Engelbert Schreiber, Jr.

Daniel L. Brown, David Geneson, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant–Appellee Yassin Abdullah Al Kadi.

Lawrence H. Schoenbach, Law Offices of Lawrence H. Schoenbach, PLLC, New York, NY, for Defendant–Appellee Yeslam M. Bin Laden.

Mitchell R. Berger, Alan T. Dickey, Patton Boggs, LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant–Appellee National Commercial Bank.

John F. Lauro, Lauro Law Firm, Tampa, FL and New York, NY, for Defendant–Appellee Faisal Islamic Bank.

Lynne Bernabei, Alan R. Kabat, Bernabei & Wachtel, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Defendants–Appellees Abdul Rahman Al Swailem, Abdullah Muhsen Al Turki, Abdullah Bin Saleh Al Obaid, Saleh Al–Hussayen, Soliman H.S. Al–Buthe, Adnan Basha, and Abdullah Omar Naseef.

Peter J. Kahn, Edward C. Reddington, David S. Kurtzer–Ellenbogen, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant–Appellee Abdulrahman Bin Mahfouz.

V. Thomas Lankford, Terrance G. Reed, Lankford & Reed, PLLC, Alexandria, VA, for Defendants–Appellees Sulaiman Bin Abdul Aziz Al Rajhi, and Abdullah Salaiman Al Rajhi.

David R. Francescani, Thomas M. Melsheimer, Fish & Richardson P.C., New York, NY, for Defendant–Appellee Saleh Abdul Aziz Al Rajhi.

Kenneth A. Caruso, White & Case LLP, New York, NY; Viet D. Dinh, Lizette Benedi, D. Zachary Hudson, Bancroft PLLC, Washington, DC, for Defendant–Appellee Yousef Jameel.

James J. McGuire, Timothy J. McCarthy, Aimee R. Kahn, Daniel A. Mandell, Mishcon de Reya New York LLP, New

[714 F.3d 665]

York, NY, for Defendant–Appellee DMI Administrative Services S.A.**

Before: CABRANES, RAGGI, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, District Judge.
1

JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge:

These appeals involve claims by families and estates of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, individuals injured by the attacks, and various commercial entities that incurred damages and losses as a result of the attacks (jointly, “plaintiffs”). Before us are claims under the Anti–Terrorism Act (“ATA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2333, the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, and the Torture Victim Protection Act (“TVPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note, as well as various common law tort claims against purported charities, financial institutions, and other individuals who are alleged to have provided support and resources to Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (George B. Daniels, Judge ), granted judgment in favor of seventy-six defendants, dismissing them on various grounds, including: (1) lack of personal jurisdiction; (2) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (3) immunity from suit pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”).

Due to the logistical challenges associated with these appeals, we address the various issues they raise in separate decisions. This opinion addresses only the claims against the thirty-seven defendants dismissed by the District Court for lack of personal jurisdiction (jointly, “Personal Jurisdiction defendants”). In separate opinions filed today, we address the claims against the defendants dismissed by the District Court for want of jurisdiction pursuant to the FSIA, as well as the claims against the defendants dismissed by the District Court for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

We agree with the District Court that we lack personal jurisdiction over most of the Personal Jurisdiction defendants pursuant to our decision in In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 538 F.3d 71 (2d Cir.2008) (“In re Terrorist Attacks III ”), because plaintiffs have failed to plead facts sufficient to show that most of these defendants expressly aimed their allegedly tortious conduct at the United States. However, we conclude that jurisdictional discovery is warranted with regard to twelve of them. Accordingly, we (1) affirm the judgment of the District Court insofar as it dismissed plaintiffs' claims against Faisal Islamic Bank, Al Shamal Islamic Bank, Tadamon Islamic Bank, DMI Administrative Services S.A., Sulaiman Bin Abdul Aziz Al Rajhi, Saleh Abdul Aziz Al Rajhi, Abdullah Salaiman Al Rajhi, the National Commercial Bank, Schreiber & Zindel Treuhand Anstalt, Sercor Treuhand Anstalt, Asat Trust Reg., Frank Zindel, Engelbert Schreiber, Sr., Engelbert Schreiber, Jr., Martin Wachter, Erwin Wachter, Yousef Jameel, the Saudi Bin Laden Group, Abdullah Bin Laden, Bakr Bin Laden, Tarek Bin Laden, Omar Bin Laden, Yeslam Bin Laden, Khaled Bin Mahfouz, and Abdulrahman Bin Mahfouz for lack of personal jurisdiction; and (2) vacate the judgment of the District Court

[714 F.3d 666]

insofar as it dismissed plaintiffs' claims against Aqeel Al–Aqeel, Soliman H.S. Al–Buthe, Abdullah Omar Naseef, Abdullah Bin Saleh Al Obaid, Abdullah Muhsen Al Turki, Adnan Basha, Mohamad Jamal Khalifa, Abdul Rahman Al Swailem, Suleiman Al–Ali, Yassin Abdullah Al Kadi, Saleh Al–Hussayen, and Dallah Avco Trans Arabia Co. Ltd. for lack of personal jurisdiction and, as to these claims only, remand the cause to the District Court, pursuant to United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19 (2d Cir.1994), for the prompt commencement of a course of judicially-supervised jurisdictional discovery.

BACKGROUND

In this sprawling multi-district litigation, plaintiffs, who allege that they suffered injuries as a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks, seek money damages from several hundred defendants that are alleged to have provided financial and other material support to al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.2 Although these appeals address some of the defendants involved in this litigation, claims against many more remain pending before the District Court.

Plaintiffs assert that “since at least the mid–1990's, it has been publicly known that Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network were engaged in a global campaign of terror directed at its proclaimed enemy, the United States.” In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 718 F.Supp.2d 456, 464 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (“In re Terrorist Attacks IV ”). Because the aim of al Qaeda allegedly was known in the mid–1990s, plaintiffs contend that “those who directly or indirectly provided material support to them, during that period of time, plainly knew they were assisting al Qaeda with its terrorist agenda.” Id. Plaintiffs allege, moreover, that the September 11, 2001 attacks “could not have been possible had it not been for the knowing material support provided to al Qaeda by [the] charities, banks, [and] foreign officials” who are the subject of these appeals. Id.

A. Personal Jurisdiction Defendants

The thirty-seven Personal Jurisdiction defendants involved in these appeals can be grouped generally into nine categories based on their alleged actions.

(1) The nine “Charity Official defendants” allegedly controlled and managed purported charitable organizations that provided support and funding to al Qaeda.

(2) The “Sudanese defendants” are four financial institutions that are alleged to have knowingly provided banking services to al Qaeda and other groups that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
325 practice notes
  • Franklin v. X Gear 101, LLC, 17 Civ. 6452 (GBD) (GWG)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • July 23, 2018
    ...the ultimate trier of fact, would suffice to establish jurisdiction over the defendant.'" In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 714 F.3d 659, 673 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Chloé v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, 616 F.3d 158, 163 (2d Cir. 2010)). Plaintiff can also "make this......
  • In re Libor-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig., 11 MDL 2262 (NRB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • August 4, 2015
    ...took 'intentional, and allegedly tortious, actions . . . expressly aimed' at the forum," In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 714 F.3d 659, 674 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789 (1984)). Personal jurisdiction may not be exercised on the basis of a defenda......
  • Hosking v. TPG Capital Mgmt., L.P. (In re Hellas Telecomms. (Luxembourg) II Sca), Case No. 12–10631 (MG)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York
    • January 29, 2015
    ...relevant forum, and (2) that the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable in the circumstances.” In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 714 F.3d 659, 673 (2d Cir.2013) (citing Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v.......
  • In re Aegean Marine Petroleum Network, Inc. Sec. Litig., 18 Civ. 4993 (NRB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • March 29, 2021
    ...for the purpose of establishing specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant." In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 714 F.3d 659, 674 (2d Cir. 2013). If a Court finds that the plaintiff has alleged that defendant has minimum contacts with the forum sufficient to establish pers......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
316 cases
  • Franklin v. X Gear 101, LLC, 17 Civ. 6452 (GBD) (GWG)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • July 23, 2018
    ...by the ultimate trier of fact, would suffice to establish jurisdiction over the defendant.'" In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 714 F.3d 659, 673 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Chloé v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, 616 F.3d 158, 163 (2d Cir. 2010)). Plaintiff can also "make this showin......
  • In re Libor-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig., 11 MDL 2262 (NRB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • August 4, 2015
    ...took 'intentional, and allegedly tortious, actions . . . expressly aimed' at the forum," In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 714 F.3d 659, 674 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789 (1984)). Personal jurisdiction may not be exercised on the basis of a defendant's ......
  • Hosking v. TPG Capital Mgmt., L.P. (In re Hellas Telecomms. (Luxembourg) II Sca), Case No. 12–10631 (MG)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York
    • January 29, 2015
    ...relevant forum, and (2) that the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable in the circumstances.” In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 714 F.3d 659, 673 (2d Cir.2013) (citing Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v.......
  • In re Aegean Marine Petroleum Network, Inc. Sec. Litig., 18 Civ. 4993 (NRB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • March 29, 2021
    ...insufficient for the purpose of establishing specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant." In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 714 F.3d 659, 674 (2d Cir. 2013). If a Court finds that the plaintiff has alleged that defendant has minimum contacts with the forum sufficient to establ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT