HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017890.jpg

IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 825
Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)

available to the world community. Addi-
tionally, Plaintiffs submit that these cases
have been widely reported in the Arabic
media and the complaints have been avail-
able on numerous websites for over two
years. In light of these considerations and
Judge Robertson’s March 23, 2003 order
approving service by publication for De-
fendants including Mr. Batterjee, the
Court denies Mr. Batterjee’s motion to
quash service.

[70] The Court finds the Burnett
Plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of
personal jurisdiction over Mr. Batterjee.
While perhaps not dispositive on its own,
Mr. Batterjee’s designation as a terrorist
lends substantial weight to Plaintiffs’
claims that he purposefully directed his
activities at the United States and that the
exercise of personal jurisdiction over him
comports with due process. See Biton,
310 F.Supp.2d at 178. Mr. Batterjee pur-
portedly commissioned a book about al
Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. He is the
chairman of Al Shamal Islamic Bank, a
bank with admitted and substantial ties to
Osama bin Laden. Burnett Complaint
¶¶ 70, 79. Additionally, he is involved in
the United States operations of designated
terrorist, BIF. In the ten years leading up
to the commencement of this action, Mr.
Batterjee has had contacts with the United
States that could be related to the terror-
ist attacks inasmuch as BIF participated in
those attacks. Specifically, Mr. Batterjee
traveled to Chicago for BIF and had an
address in Florida for BIF. Accordingly,
Mr. Batterjee’s motion to dismiss the Bur-
nett complaint for lack of personal jurisdic-
tion is denied.

III. Failure to State a Claim

In considering Defendants’ motions to
dismiss for failure to state a claim under
Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must “accept all of
Plaintiffs’ factual allegations in the com-

plaint as true and draw inferences from
those allegations in the light most favor-
able to the Plaintiffs.” Desiderio v. Nat’l
Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 191 F.3d 198,
202 (2d Cir.1999). Dismissal is not appro-
priate unless it appears beyond doubt,
“even when the complaint is liberally con-
strued, that the plaintiff can prove no set
of facts which would entitle him to relief.”
Id.; Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45–46,
78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that
a complaint contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2). The Supreme Court reinforced
these liberal pleading standards in Swier-
kiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512,
122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (ob-
serving the “short and plain statement”
required by Rule 8 “must simply ‘give the
defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s
claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests’”) (quoting Conley, 355 U.S. at 47, 78
S.Ct. 99). When presented with a 12(b)(6)
motion, the district court may not consider
matters outside of the pleadings without
converting the motion into a motion for
summary judgment. Courtenay Commu-
nications Corp. v. Hall, 334 F.3d 210, 213
(2d Cir.2003); Friedl v. City of New York,
210 F.3d 79, 83–84 (2d Cir.2000).

A. Elements of Claims

[71] Plaintiffs claim that each Defen-
dant provided material support to the al
Qaeda terrorists who perpetrated the at-
tacks on September 11, 2001. Under the
ATA, material support includes money, fi-
nancial services, lodging, training, safe-
houses, and false documentation or identi-
fication. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2339A(b), 2339B(g).
Assuming such support is alleged, Plain-
tiffs will have to present a sufficient causal
connection between that support and the
injuries suffered by Plaintiffs. See Bur-

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017890