HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017848.jpg

IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 783
Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)

(2d Cir.1998) (explaining, where there are
factual disputes regarding the immunity
question, the court may not “accept the
mere allegations of the complaint as a
basis for finding subject matter jurisdic-
tion”). Thus, “on a ‘challenge to the dis-
trict court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the
court may resolve disputed jurisdictional
fact issues by reference to evidence out-
side the pleadings, such as affidavits.’”
Filetech, 157 F.3d at 932 (explaining a
court should consider all the submissions
of the parties and may, if necessary, hold
an evidentiary hearing to resolve the juris-
dictional question) (quoting Antares Air-
craft, L.P. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria,
948 F.2d 90, 96 (2d Cir.1991)). The court
must consult outside evidence if resolution
of a proffered factual issue may result in
the dismissal of the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction. Robinson, 269 F.3d at 141 n.
6. Defendants here challenge both the le-
gal and factual sufficiency of Plaintiffs’
claims. The Court will consider the affida-
vits submitted by the parties as necessary.

[8] Before turning to the allegations
against the Defendants claiming immunity,
the Court notes it is keenly aware of the
“delicate balanc[e] ‘between permitting
discovery to substantiate exceptions to
statutory foreign sovereign immunity and
protecting a sovereign’s or sovereign’s
agency’s legitimate claim to immunity from
discovery.’” First City, Texas–Houston,
N.A. v. Rafidain Bank, 150 F.3d 172, 176
(2d Cir.1998) (ordering full discovery
against defendant over whom court al-
ready had subject matter jurisdiction be-
cause such discovery would provide plain-
tiff an opportunity to obtain jurisdictional
discovery regarding potentially sovereign
alter ego co-defendant without further im-
pinging that defendant’s immunity) (quot-
ing Arriba Ltd. v. Petroleos Mexicanos,
962 F.2d 528, 534 (5th Cir.1992) (“At the
very least, discovery should be ordered

circumspectly and only to verify allega-
tions of specific facts crucial to an immuni-
ty determination.”)). The Second Circuit
has instructed “that generally a plaintiff
may be allowed limited discovery with re-
spect to the jurisdictional issue; but until
[plaintiff] has shown a reasonable basis for
assuming jurisdiction, she is not entitled to
any other discovery.” First City, 150 F.3d
at 176–77 (quoting Filus v. Lot Polish
Airlines, 907 F.2d 1328, 1332 (2d Cir.
1990)). Still, the Plaintiffs must allege
sufficient facts to warrant jurisdictional
discovery. Robinson, 269 F.3d at 146 (cit-
ing Jazini v. Nissan Motor Co., 148 F.3d
181, 185 (2d Cir.1998) (refusing jurisdic-
tional discovery where plaintiffs’ allega-
tions lacked factual specificity to confer
jurisdiction)); see also Burnett II, 292
F.Supp.2d at 15 (denying Plaintiffs’ re-
quest for discovery from Prince Turki
where “suggestions of [his] individual ac-
tivity are only conclusory”).

B. Allegations Against Defendants
Asserting Foreign Sovereign Im-
munity

1. Prince Sultan

Prince Sultan has been Saudi Arabia’s
Minister of Defense and Aviation and In-
spector General of its Armed Forces since
1962. Ashton Complaint ¶ 265; Burnett
Complaint ¶ 352; Federal Complaint ¶ 427;
William H. Jeffress, Jr. Decl. ¶ 4 at Notice
of HRH Prince Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Al-
Saud’s Motion to Dismiss Consolidated
Complaint (hereinafter “Consolidated Jef-
fress Decl.”); Andrea Bierstein Aff. in
Opp. to Prince Sultan’s Motion to Dismiss
Consolidated Complaints Ex. 1, Sultan Bio,
available at http://saudiembassy.net/Coun-
try/Government/SultanBio.asp. In 1982,
his brother King Fahd bin Abdulaziz Al-
Saud named him Second Deputy President
of Saudi Arabia’s Council of Ministers, the
Kingdom’s governing body. Nizar Bin

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017848