Page 58

1 2

A

3

The plaintiffs rely on five opinions from other

4

circuits for the idea that the Four Princes’ alleged

5

involvement in a terrorist attack on a citizen of the United

6

States constitutes purposeful direction at this forum, “such

7

that [they] should reasonably anticipate being haled into

8

court” here.

9

all addressed defendants who were primary participants in

Burger King, 471 U.S. at 474.

But those cases

10

terrorist acts.

11

Cir. 2005), the court exercised personal jurisdiction over

12

al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden for injuries arising out of the

13

bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, reasoning

14

that their “decision to purposefully direct their terror at

15

the United States, and the fact that the plaintiffs’

16

injuries arose out of one of those terrorist activities,

17

should suffice to cause the defendants to ‘reasonably

18

anticipate being haled into’ an American court.”

19

(quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 474).

20

defendant in Morris v. Khadr, 415 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (D. Utah

21

2006), was an al Qaeda member who “actively participated in

22

and helped plan al Qaeda’s terrorist agenda--so much so, in

In Mwani v. bin Laden, 417 F.3d 1 (D.C.

58

Id. at 14

Similarly, the

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