Every indexed document

available at http:// www.911commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

only five of which are the subject of this appeal. The district court also granted motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) filed by approximately 60 defendants

the Court should reverse the district court’s dismissal of certain defendants from these proceedings

which the Court found required jurisdictional discovery.116 Cf. Doe

reversal and remand is appropriate relief. See id. at 71; also see Carter v. Barry

plaintiffs conceded before the district court that

this Court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s (“FSIA”) torts exception

“Sovereign Defendants”) and National Commercial Bank (“NCB”) -- and remand for jurisdictional discovery on the basis of this Court’s recent *152 holding in Doe v. Bin Laden

then Judge Daniels -- who took over the MDL litigation after Judge Casey passed away -- advances a line of reasoning never endorsed by his predecessor. Indeed

the district court should have applied equitable tolling principles. All of plaintiffs’ claims arise from the defendants’ participation in the conspiracy to conduct terrorist attacks against the United States

the clear existence of defendants’ duty under traditional tort principles

the district court itself recognized that under New York law

it did not conduct an analysis of whether defendants did

which provides a cause of action for victims of torture or extrajudicial killings perpetrated by “individual[s]” acting “under actual or apparent authority

1999) (1999 Financing Terrorism Convention)

the Security Council has continued to condemn international terrorism and the provision of material support for terrorism and to assert that it poses a serious threat to peace and security. See

this Court has looked to three factors to determine whether a claim adequately alleges a violation of customary international law that is cognizable in a tort action under the ATS. To state an ATS claim

the inference that support for al-Qaeda in the early and mid 1990s contributed to al-Qaeda’s capabilities and terrorist activities only a few years later

which only require that a plaintiff plead facts that permit “the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal

such that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that it was more likely than not that the support provided by the defendant assisted the terrorists in the commission of the terrorist act.