Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)

IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 773 Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) Clause, a distinction is made between spe- cific and general jurisdiction, such that “specific jurisdiction” exists when the fo- rum exercises jurisdiction over the defen- dant in a suit arising out of the defendant’s contacts with that forum, while “general jurisdiction” is based on the defendant’s general business contacts with the forum; because the defendant’s contacts are not related to the suit, a considerably higher level of contacts is generally required for general jurisdiction. U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 5, 14. See publication Words and Phras- es for other judicial constructions and definitions. 53. Constitutional Law ¢=305(5) In determining whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction is reasonable under the Due Process Clause, a court is to consider: (1) the burden that the exercise of jurisdiction will impose on the defen- dant; (2) the interests in the forum state in adjudicating the case; (3) the plaintiffs interest in obtaining convenient and effec- tive relief; (4) the interstate judicial sys- tem’s interest in obtaining the most effi- cient resolution of the controversy; and (5) the shared interest of the states in further- ing substantive social policies. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14. 54. Federal Courts <-86 In general, great care and reserve should be exercised when extending no- tions of personal jurisdiction into the inter- national field. 55. Federal Civil Procedure €-1267.1 In evaluating jurisdictional motions, district courts enjoy broad discretion in deciding whether to order discovery. 56. Federal Civil Procedure €-1269.1 Courts are not obligated to subject a foreign defendant to discovery where the allegations of jurisdictional facts, con- strued in plaintiffs’ favor, fail to state a basis for the exercise of jurisdiction or where discovery would not uncover suffi- cient facts to sustain jurisdiction. 57. Federal Courts <=94 Allegations that Saudi Royal Family members owned substantial assets in and did substantial business in United States, and used profits therefrom to fund inter- national terrorist acts, including those leading to September 11 attacks, and that Saudi Arabian Prince was ex-officio Chair- man of Board of Saudi Arabia Airlines, which did business in United States and internationally, were insufficient to estab- lish general personal jurisdiction over Prince in Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action by survivors of victims of September 11 attacks. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq. 58. Federal Courts <-94 Allegations that Saudi Arabian Prince aided and abetted terrorism, and that he donated to charities that he knew to be supporters of international terrorism, were insufficient to establish personal jurisdic- tion under “purposefully directed activi- ties” theory in Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action by survivors of victims of Septem- ber 11, 2001 attacks. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq. 59. Federal Courts <=94 Allegations that Saudi Arabian Prince donated money to charities were insuffi- cient to establish personal jurisdiction in Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action by surviv- ors of victims of September 11, 2001 at- tacks, absent specific factual allegations that he knew charities were funding mon- ey to terrorists. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq. 60. Federal Courts <86 Saudi Arabian Prince’s alleged con- tacts with United States, during ten-year period prior to September 11, 2001 at- HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017838