Burnett, et al. v. al Baraka Investment and Development Corp., et al., 1:02CV01616(JR)
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/burnettba81502cmp.pdf <- First Complaint
Burnett v. al Baraka Investment and Dev. Corp. - Third Amended Complaint
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/burnettba112202acmp.pdf
Havlish et al. v. Sheikh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Laden, et al., 1:02CV00305(JR)
http://www.lexnotes.com/misc/havlish2.pdf
CRS-RL31658 | Terrorist Financing: The U.S. and International Response | Dec. 6, 2002
List of additional cases ...
http://www.lexnotes.com/misc/unilateralism.htm
... and the judge agreed with their findings.
Saudi Charity Dropped From Suit Over Sept. 11 Attacks
Mark Hamblett - New York Law Journal
09-28-2005A Saudi charity that allegedly funded terror activities cannot be sued for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks because of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a federal judge has ruled. Southern District of New York Judge Richard Conway Casey found that the Saudi High Commission was shielded from suit under the act because it presented a prima facie case that it is a foreign sovereign.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1127811912376
November 15, 2003
Saudi Princes Dismissed From Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment SuitAn earlier post describes this lawsuit arising from the September 11 terrorist attack. In a recent decision [http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/02-1616c.pdf], U.S. District Judge James Robertson has granted the motions to dismiss filed on behalf of Prince Turki Al-Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud and Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud.
http://www.InsuranceDefenseBlog.net/insurancedefenseblog/2003/11/saudi_princes_d.html
August 18, 2003
Sept. 11 suit seeks 1 trillion in damagesIn a memorandum opinion in this case, U.S. District Court Judge Robertson neatly summarizes this remarkable action:
In this action, more than two thousand victims, family members of victims or representatives of victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, seek to hold accountable the persons and entities that funded and supported the international terrorist organization known as al Qaeda, which is now generally understood to have carried out the attacks. Plaintiffs have sued nearly two hundred entities or persons -- governments, government agencies, banks, charitable foundations, and individuals, including members of the Saudi royal family -- broadly alleging that each of them, in one way or another, directly or indirectly, provided material support, aided and abetted, or conspired with the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks.Damages claimed exceed one trillion dollars.
In this opinion, Judge Robertson decides the following:
that this Court does have subject matter jurisdiction of plaintiffs' claims; that this Court has personal jurisdiction of MWL, Khudeira, and AHIF; that personal jurisdiction of Al Rajhi is uncertain, and plaintiffs may take limited jurisdictional discovery with respect to that party; that venue is properly laid in the District of Columbia; that plaintiffs' civil RICO claims must be dismissed for want of standing; that the complaint adequately states ATA, ATCA, and common law intentional tort claims against AHIF; that plaintiffs' negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims against AHIF must be dismissed for failure to state a claim; and that Al Rajhi and Khudeira may move for more definite statements of plaintiffs' claims against them before they will be required to answer the complaint or respond to discovery.Burnett v Al Baraka, No. 02-1616 (D.D.C.)
I used to think these sort of lawsuits were futile, but I've seen newspaper reports of a number that ultimately yielded huge damages, and attorney's fee awards to boot, that ultimately were collected.
http://www.InsuranceDefenseBlog.net/insurancedefenseblog/2003/08/sept_11_suit_se.html
Ruling dismissing many defendants, but not dismissing the case ...
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rulings/03MDL1570_RCC_011905.PDF
See also 274 F.Supp.2d 86 (D.D.C. 2003) (upholding personal jurisdiction over three defendants and grant of discovery re personal jurisdiction over another defendant)
See also 292 F.Supp.2d 9 (D.D.C. 2003) (dismissing claims against high Saudi government officials based on the FSIA)
See also 349 F.Supp.2d 765 (SDNY 2005) (dismissal of nine defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction)
See also http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/september_11th/docs/summaryofcases2-4-04.pd <- P29-
Brief by the US Government requesting denial of certiorari to appellant in Acree v. Iraq and United States. Appellant desired to maintain a claim against a foreign state based on the Flatlow Act or common law. ...
http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2004/0responses/2004-0820.resp.pdf
DC Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion in Acree v. Iraq and United States - June 4, 2004
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200406/03-5232a.pdf
February 15, 2005University of Cincinnati Law review on the Acree case ...Marine Corps Lt. Col. Clifford Acree was shot down on Jan. 17, 1991, the first day of the war, savagely beaten, and tortured for most of the 47 days of his captivity. Acree and 16 other former POWs, most of them aviators, all of them subject to savage torture at the hands of the Iraqis, filed their suit under the terms of the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act, in which Congress authorized US courts to award "money damages ... against a foreign state for personal injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage [or] hostage taking." In July 2003, a federal judge awarded the former POWs nearly one billion dollars in punitive and compensatory damages. ...
The Americans were tortured in a prison in Iraq called Abu Ghraib.
Their claims against Iraq have been successfully contested by the Bush Administration, which immediately intervened in the case and argued before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that any and all such claims against the Saddam regime were voided by the US invasion.The judges ruled unanimously in favor of the President and against the American former POWs. The Administration then killed a congressional resolution supporting the POWs.
http://www.lawrence.com/blogs/patrickquinn/2005/feb/15/pows/
MONDAY, APRIL 25, 2005 CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITIONSACREE, CLIFFORD, ET AL. V. IRAQ, ET AL.
The motion of Washington Legal Foundation, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of St. Mary's University School of Law, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of Center for Justice & Accountability and International Law Scholars for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/042505pzor.pdf