HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023371.jpg

In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001., 2012 WL 257568 (2012)

*1 Preliminary Statement

Plaintiffs-Appellants are family members of the nearly 3,000 people killed in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks; thousands of individuals who were severely injured as a result of the attacks; and commercial entities that incurred billions of dollars of property damage and other losses as a result of the attacks (collectively “the September 11th plaintiffs” and/or “plaintiffs”). Consistent with the rights conferred upon them by the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), Alien Tort Statute (ATS), and long-standing principles of common law concerted action liability, plaintiffs brought these lawsuits, which were consolidated below by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, to hold accountable the charities, financial institutions, individuals and other parties that knowingly provided material support or resources to al-Qaeda for more than a decade before September 11, 2001, and thereby provided al-Qaeda with the means to successfully conceive, plan, coordinate, and carry out the September 11th Attacks. The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against five defendants-appellees (“Defendants”) pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), holding that, despite the existence of remedies specifically designed for victims of terrorist attacks, plaintiffs *2 were entitled to seek no relief against those who had supported, conspired with, and/or aided and abetted al-Qaeda in carrying out the worst terrorist attack ever to take place on American soil.1 This Court should reverse the district court’s rulings with respect to these Defendants -- Al Rajhi Banking & Investment Corp. (“Al Rajhi Bank”), Saudi American Bank, Saleh Abdullah Kamel, Dallah al Baraka, and Dar-Al-Maal Al Islami (“DMI”) Trust -- because the pleadings sufficiently allege that each of these Defendants knowingly provided material support and resources to al Qaeda in the years leading up to the September 11th Attacks, so that each of them is properly held accountable under the ATA, the TVPA, RICO, the ATS, and/or the common law.

Taken collectively, the facts and allegations contained in the plaintiffs’ complaints, RICO and More Definite Statements, and extrinsic materials formed a vast record, spanning literally tens of thousands of *3 pages. Evaluated in a manner consistent with the standards of review for motions addressed to the adequacy of pleadings, the vast record presented by plaintiffs to the district court established that plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficient to state claims against the Defendants under the ATA and other relevant causes of action.

In the face of these extraordinarily detailed and supported pleadings, which more than satisfied the requirements of Rule 8, the district court nonetheless held plaintiffs to an improper heightened pleading standard, specially applicable to cases involving allegations of terrorism. Nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and no precedent of this Court or any other of which plaintiffs are aware, authorized this heightened standard, nor is such a heightened standard appropriate for plaintiffs who have suffered such grievous injuries or for defendants who are alleged to have committed such heinous acts.

The district court also ignored the wealth of details provided by plaintiffs in their supplemental filings, failed to credit the allegations in the pleadings, and failed to draw inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor. The court also misconstrued the scope of the Alien Tort Statute, under the erroneous belief that acts of international terrorism do not, in and of themselves, *4 violate the “laws of nations” unless they involve the hijacking of an airplane. The court also applied the wrong statute of limitations to certain of plaintiffs’ claims and misconstrued the scope of the TVPA. The combination of these errors resulted in the dismissal of all of plaintiffs’ claims against some of the most significant financial institutions that provided knowing support to al-Qaeda, enabling it to train the September 11 hijackers and plan and carry out the attacks. And, in dismissing three Defendants on the basis of sovereign immunity, the district court applied a decision of this Court that has since been overruled.

This Court should reverse the judgment of the district court and hold that plaintiffs may pursue their claims against these financial sponsors of terrorism.

Statement Of Subject Matter and Appellate Jurisdiction

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York had subject matter jurisdiction over these actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1330, 1331, 1332, 1350, 1367, 1407, and 1605, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1964 and 2338, and 49 U.S.C. §40101.

WESTLAW © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 11
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023371