HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017891.jpg

826 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES

nett I, 274 F.Supp.2d at 104. Proximate
cause will support this connection. See
First Nationwide Bank v. Gelt Funding
Corp., 27 F.3d 763, 769 (2d Cir.1994)
(“Central to the notion of proximate cause
is the idea that a person is not liable to all
those who may have been injured by his
conduct, but only to those with respect to
whom his acts were a substantial factor in
the sequence of responsible causation, and
whose injury was reasonably foreseeable
or anticipated as a natural consequence.”).
In light of al Qaeda’s public acknowledg-
ments of its war against the United States,
the September 11 attacks may be the natu-
ral and probable consequence of knowingly
and intentionally providing material sup-
port to al Qaeda. Burnett I, 274
F.Supp.2d at 104.

[72] Plaintiffs rely on theories of con-
certed action liability—conspiracy and aid-
ing and abetting—in support of this causal
link. “Concerted action liability under
New York law is based on the principle
that ‘[a]ll those who, in pursuance of a
common plan or design to commit a tor-
tious act, actively take part in it, or further
it by cooperation or request, or who lend
aid or encouragement to the wrongdoer
. . . are equally liable with him.’” Pitt-
man, 149 F.3d at 122 (quoting Bichler v.
Eli Lilly & Co., 55 N.Y.2d 571, 580, 450
N.Y.S.2d 776, 436 N.E.2d 182 (1982)). To
be liable under either conspiracy or aiding
and abetting, however, the defendant
“must know the wrongful nature of the
primary actor’s conduct,” id. at 123, and
the conduct must be tied to a substantive
cause of action, Chrysler Capital Corp.,
778 F.Supp. at 1267. In this regard, Plain-
tiffs rely on the ATCA, RICO, the TVPA,
the ATA, and various state laws, including
wrongful death, survival, intentional inflic-
tion of emotional distress, trespass, assault
and battery, negligence, and negligent in-
fliction of emotional distress.

1. ATCA

[73] The Alien Tort Claims Act pro-
vides that “[t]he district courts shall have
original jurisdiction of any civil action by
an alien for a tort only, committed in viola-
tion of the law of nations or a treaty of the
United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1350. “This
statute confers subject matter jurisdiction
when the following three conditions are
satisfied: (1) an alien sues (2) for a tort (3)
committed in violation of the law of nations
(i.e., international law).” Kadic v. Karad-
zic, 70 F.3d 232, 238 (2d Cir.1995); see
also Flores v. Southern Peru Corp., 343
F.3d 140, 143 n. 2 (2d Cir.2003). Certain
Plaintiffs in these actions are aliens and
the complaints all allege common law torts.
The Court finds that “aircraft hijacking is
generally recognized as a violation of inter-
national law.” Burnett I, 274 F.Supp.2d at
100 (citing Kadic, 70 F.3d at 240; Bigio v.
Coca-Cola Co., 239 F.3d 440, 447–49 (2d
Cir.2000)). Further, “courts, including the
Second Circuit, have almost unanimously
permitted actions premised on a theory of
aiding and abetting and conspiracy.”
Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talis-
man Energy, Inc., 244 F.Supp.2d 289, 311
(S.D.N.Y.2003). Accordingly, the ATCA
may provide a basis for a concerted action
claim of material support by alien-Plain-
tiffs here. See Burnett I, 274 F.Supp.2d at
100.

2. RICO

“To state a claim under civil RICO, a
plaintiff must plead seven elements: (1)
that the defendant (2) through the commis-
sion of two or more acts (3) constituting a
‘pattern’ (4) of ‘racketeering activity’ (5)
directly or indirectly invests in, maintains
an interest in, or participates in (6) an
‘enterprise’ (7) the activities of which affect
interstate or foreign commerce.” Berk v.
Tradewell, Inc., Nos. 01 Civ. 9035, 01 Civ.

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017891