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

IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 825 Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) available to the world community. Addi- tionally, Plaintiffs submit that these cases have been widely reported in the Arabic media and the complaints have been avail- able on numerous websites for over two years. In light of these considerations and Judge Robertson’s March 23, 2003 order approving service by publication for De- fendants including Mr. Batterjee, the Court denies Mr. Batterjee’s motion to quash service. [70] The Court finds the Burnett Plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over Mr. Batterjee. While perhaps not dispositive on its own, Mr. Batterjee’s designation as a terrorist lends substantial weight to Plaintiffs’ claims that he purposefully directed his activities at the United States and that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over him comports with due process. See Biton, 310 F.Supp.2d at 178. Mr. Batterjee pur- portedly commissioned a book about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. He is the chairman of Al Shamal Islamic Bank, a bank with admitted and substantial ties to Osama bin Laden. Burnett Complaint 1170, 79. Additionally, he is involved in the United States operations of designated terrorist, BIF. In the ten years leading up to the commencement of this action, Mr. Batterjee has had contacts with the United States that could be related to the terror- ist attacks inasmuch as BIF participated in those attacks. Specifically, Mr. Batterjee traveled to Chicago for BIF and had an address in Florida for BIF. Accordingly, Mr. Batterjee’s motion to dismiss the Bur- nett complaint for lack of personal jurisdic- tion is denied. IIT. In considering Defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must “accept all of Plaintiffs’ factual allegations in the com- Failure to State a Claim plaint as true and draw inferences from those allegations in the light most favor- able to the Plaintiffs.” Desiderio v. Natl Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 191 F.3d 198, 202 (2d Cir.1999). Dismissal is not appro- priate unless it appears beyond doubt, “even when the complaint is liberally con- strued, that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief.” Id.; Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The Supreme Court reinforced these liberal pleading standards in Swier- kiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (ob- serving the “short and plain statement” required by Rule 8 “must simply ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests’ ”) (quoting Conley, 355 U.S. at 47, 78 8.Ct. 99). When presented with a 12(b)(6) motion, the district court may not consider matters outside of the pleadings without converting the motion into a motion for summary judgment. Courtenay Commu- nications Corp. v. Hall, 334 F.3d 210, 213 (2d Cir.2003); Friedl v. City of New York, 210 F.3d 79, 83-84 (2d Cir.2000). A. Elements of Claims [71] Plaintiffs claim that each Defen- dant provided material support to the al Qaeda terrorists who perpetrated the at- tacks on September 11, 2001. Under the ATA, material support includes money, fi- nancial services, lodging, training, safe- houses, and false documentation or identi- fication. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2339A(b), 2339B(¢). Assuming such support is alleged, Plain- tiffs will have to present a sufficient causal connection between that support and the injuries suffered by Plaintiffs. See Bur- HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017890