HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017922.jpg

In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 392 F.Supp.2d 539 (2005)
10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 789

purposefully directed his activities toward the United
States by making personal contributions to several
Saudi-based charities. (Federal Compl. ¶¶ 442–43.)

[19] Plaintiffs must make a prima facie showing that Prince
Salman and Prince Naif have minimum contacts with the
United States. The minimum contacts requirement is
satisfied “if the defendant has ‘purposefully directed’ his
activities at the residents of the forum.” Burger King v.
Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85
L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). Foreseeability is not enough, there
must be “some act by which the defendant purposefully
avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within
the forum.” Id. Donating money to established
humanitarian organizations that may or may not have
been diverting funds to support al Qaeda cannot be
considered primary participation in intentional
wrongdoing expressly aimed at the United States.
Terrorist Attacks I, 349 F.Supp.2d at 809 (citing In re
Magnetic Audiotape Antitrust Litig., 334 F.3d 204, 208
(2d Cir.2003)).

As to Prince Salman’s various limited contacts with the
United States, they do not support general jurisdiction
over him. The 1989 visit to the White House and
Maryland is too far removed in time from the 2001
attacks. See, e.g., Metro. Life Ins. Co., 84 F.3d at 569
(explaining that a defendant’s “continuous and
systematic” contacts with a forum must be examined over
a period of time and finding a six-year period reasonable).
Prince Salman’s deceased son’s contacts with the United
States are irrelevant to this Court’s analysis. Keeton v.
Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 781 n. 13, 104
S.Ct. 1473, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (“Each defendant’s contacts
with the forum State must be assessed individually.”).
Prince Salman’s ownership of shares in Texas
corporations, on its own, cannot be considered
sufficiently systematic and continuous to establish general
jurisdiction. Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 414–16, 104 S.Ct.
1868 (finding CEO’s travel to forum for contract
negotiations, employees’ travel to forum for training,
receipt of funds drawn on forum bank accounts, and
purchase from forum companies were not contacts
sufficiently systematic and continuous to establish general
jurisdiction). Plaintiffs have not presented a genuine issue
of jurisdictional fact such that discovery is necessary.
Daventree, 349 F.Supp.2d at 761. Plaintiffs have not
satisfied the constitutional requirement of showing that
the Princes have minimum contacts with the United
States. Accordingly, Prince Salman’s and Prince Naif’s
motions to dismiss the Ashton, Burnett, and Federal
complaints for lack of personal jurisdiction are granted.

*560 B. Rabita Trust⁶
[20] Plaintiffs allege that Rabita Trust is

a charitable organization which was
created to organize the repatriation
and rehabilitation of stranded
Pakistanis from Bangladesh.
Founded in 1988, the trust fund
was started jointly by the
government of Pakistan and the
Saudi-based charity, [Defendant
MWL]. Rabita Trust received the
majority of its funding from the
MWL and the Saudis, and [has]
been involved with terrorism.

(Ashton Compl. ¶ 521; Burnett Compl. ¶ 268.) The
charity initially received funding from its founders to help
relocate 250,000 displaced refugees. (Ashton Compl. ¶
522; Burnett Compl. ¶ 269.) Plaintiffs assert that Rabita
Trust has actually relocated only a few hundred refugees.
(Ashton Compl. ¶ 522; Burnett Compl. ¶ 269.)

On October 12, 2001, the United States Treasury
Department designated Rabita Trust a Specially
Designated Global Terrorist Entity and froze its assets.⁷
(Ashton Compl. ¶ 312, 527; Burnett Compl. ¶ 236;
Federal Compl. ¶¶ 117, 214.) Rabita Trust is allegedly
related to various other charity Defendants and al Qaeda.
For instance, as a subsidiary of MWL, it is a “sibling
organization of the IIRO.” (Ashton Compl. ¶ 525; Burnett
Compl. ¶ 272; Federal Compl. ¶ 113.) Through MWL
and its own officers, Rabita Trust is also related to the
SAAR Network. (Ashton Compl. ¶¶ 338, 526–28; Burnett
Compl. ¶¶ 273–75; Federal Compl. ¶ 213.) Plaintiffs
claim that “Rabita Trust is an al Qaeda front” and that its
General Director, Wa’el Julaidan, is a known al Qaeda
member. (Ashton Compl. ¶ 523; Burnett Compl. ¶ 270;
Federal Compl. ¶¶ 100, 121, 210.) In a list of orders
obtained in a raid of BIF’s Sarajevo’s offices,
investigators allegedly recovered a document from Osama
bin Laden regarding the management of Islamic charities
in which he urged the creation of a committee to receive
and distribute donations to al Qaeda and suggests Rabita
Trust’s participation. (Federal Compl. ¶¶ 195, 211.)

Rabita Trust claims that it does not have an office in the
United States and that the complaints are devoid of any
allegations that it directed money to terrorists. It admits

WESTLAW © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 19
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017922