HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017901.jpg

836
349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES

mainly banks in Arab and Islamic coun-
tries. Ashton Complaint ¶ 583; Burnett
Complaint ¶ 47. It also has banks in Chi-
cago, Illinois and Houston, Texas. Bur-
nett Complaint ¶ 47. Al Baraka allegedly
provided financial infrastructures in Sudan
to Osama bin Laden through Defendant
charity Al Haramain. Ashton Complaint
¶¶ 584, 585, 598; Burnett Complaint ¶¶ 48,
49, 62.

Plaintiffs do not offer any factual allega-
tions against Al Baraka or Mr. Kamel to
withstand their motions to dismiss. The
majority of the complaints’ allegations re-
garding Al Baraka actually concern Dallah
Albaraka. The specific allegations against
Al Baraka are that through Al Haramain it
provided financial infrastructures in Su-
dan, it provided support to Al Haramain,
and it is present in the Sudan banking
business through banks it holds. The
complaints do not allege that Al Baraka
knew or had any reason to know that Al
Haramain was supporting terrorism, nor
do they allege facts from which such an
inference could be drawn.

The allegation that an employee of a
Dallah Albaraka subsidiary financially sup-
ported two of the hijackers in San Diego
does not translate into an allegation that
Mr. Kamel provided material support to
terrorism or aided and abetted those that
provided material support. An employee’s
actions cannot be a basis for employer
liability unless the employee was acting in
furtherance of the employer’s business.
Tasso, 1997 WL 16066, at *6. There is no
allegation that Mr. Kamel knew Mr. al
Bayoumi or directed anyone at the Della
Albaraka subsidiary to support al Qaeda or
the hijackers. Similarly, the allegation
that Mr. Kamel was one of three founders
of Al Shamal Islamic Bank in 1983, without
additional allegations, does not state a
claim for relief. Thus, the Ashton and

Burnett claims against Al Baraka and Mr.
Kamel are dismissed in their entirety.

5. NCB

[99] The Ashton and Burnett Plain-
tiffs’ allegations against NCB are outlined
in Part I.B.4. The Court finds it would be
premature to analyze Plaintiffs’ largely
conclusory claims against NCB under Rule
12(b)(6) at this time. NCB may be im-
mune from suit and further discovery if it
is found to be an instrumentality of the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its actions
do not fit within the FSIA’s exceptions to
immunity. Additionally, the Court is not
yet convinced that it would be proper to
exercise personal jurisdiction over NCB.
Accordingly, NCB’s motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim is denied without
prejudice. NCB may renew its motion
upon completion of the limited jurisdiction-
al discovery—first with respect to its in-
strumentality status—outlined by the
Court above.

6. Saudi Binladin Group

[100] The Ashton and Burnett allega-
tions against the SBG are outlined in Part
II.C.8. The same allegations that warrant
limited jurisdictional discovery to investi-
gate whether SBG purposefully directed
its activities at the United States and its
contacts with the United States preclude
dismissal under 12(b)(6) at this time. SBG
provided construction support to Osama
bin Laden. Ashton Complaint ¶¶ 550,
552–53; Burnett Complaint ¶¶ 319–22. A
branch of SBG purportedly provided shel-
ter to an al Qaeda operative. Ashton
Complaint ¶ 555; Burnett Complaint ¶ 324.
SBG has, at some point, had a close rela-
tionship with Osama bin Laden, but the
complaints do not specify when or whether
the relationship continues. While these
allegations are certainly not sufficient to
reach a jury, if Plaintiffs demonstrate that

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017901