Page 17

1

jurisdiction was therefore lacking over the claims against

2

the SHC and Princes Salman and Naif (in their official

3

capacities).

4

their personal capacity were dismissed for lack of personal

5

jurisdiction.

6

392 F. Supp. 2d 539 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (“In re Terrorist

7

Attacks II”).

8 9

The claims against Princes Salman and Naif in

In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001,

On December 16, 2005, the district court certified as “final” the orders of January 18, 2005 and September 21,

10

2005, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

11

Procedure, with respect to the Kingdom; Princes Sultan,

12

Turki, Salman and Naif; Mohamed and the SHC.8

13

the December 16, 2005 certification, this Court has

14

jurisdiction over the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

By virtue of

15 16

DISCUSSION

17

“The standard of review applicable to district court

18

decisions regarding subject matter jurisdiction under the

19

FSIA is clear error for factual findings and de novo for

20

legal conclusions.”

Robinson v. Gov’t of Malaysia,

8

Per stipulation, the plaintiffs with claims pending against Princes Salman and Naif will be bound by any appellate decision on the district court’s dismissals. 17

In Re Terrorist Attacks  

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: In Re Terrorist Attacks

In Re Terrorist Attacks  

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: In Re Terrorist Attacks

Advertisement