HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017905.jpg

In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 392 F.Supp.2d 539 (2005)
10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 789

Matters considered in general

Article stating that Islamic aid organizations in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Somalia, and Tajikistan provided funds and cover to terrorists would not be admitted to supplement record on motion to dismiss in action, arising out of the September 11 terrorist attacks, alleging that two Saudi officials involved with Islamic charities were knowingly providing funding for terrorists; plaintiffs failed to explain why they were only able to obtain and translate the article on eve of oral argument, article and its translation were not authenticated, and article did not say officials were put on notice regarding specific charities or that they continued to contribute to those charities with intent that donations would assist terrorists.

Cases that cite this headnote

[4] International Law
Extent and effect of immunity

Immunity under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) extends to agents of a foreign state acting in their official capacities, inasmuch as a suit against an individual acting in his official capacity is the practical equivalent of a suit against the sovereign directly. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1602 et seq.

1 Cases that cite this headnote

[5] International Law
Evidence of immunity, and fact questions

Court is required to give great weight, in determining whether foreign defendants are entitled to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), to any extrinsic submissions made by the foreign defendants regarding the scope of their official responsibilities. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1602 et seq.

2 Cases that cite this headnote

[6] International Law
Corporations and other instrumentalities

Saudi High Commission (SHC) made prima facie showing it was entitled to immunity, under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), in action alleging it had provided funding for terrorists; SHC was created by the Council of Ministers of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to provide Kingdom's aid to Bosnia and was governed by a Saudi official, its employees were Saudi civil servants, and it could be sued in the Kingdom's administrative court like other Saudi government agencies, and SHC made no explicit waiver of its sovereign immunity inasmuch as any contrary representations by SHC were made prior to the action. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1602 et seq.

Cases that cite this headnote

[7] International Law
Extent and effect of immunity

To extent that complaint, in action alleging support for terrorist organizations, alleged that two Saudi officials provided such support through actions undertaken in their government positions, officials made prima facie showing of entitlement to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). 28 U.S.C.A. § 1602 et seq.

Cases that cite this headnote

[8] International Law
Extent and effect of immunity

For jurisdiction over agents of a foreign government to be proper under torts exception to Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), plaintiffs must show that defendants' tortious acts caused plaintiffs' injuries and that defendants' actions were not discretionary, i.e., not grounded in their governments' social, economic, or political policies. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605(a)(5).

WESTLAW © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017905