Court opinion discusses legal standards for aiding and abetting and FSIA defenses, referencing Prince Sultan and Prince Turki

798 Rastelli v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 79 N.Y.2d 289, 295, 582 N.Y.S.2d 378, 591 N.E.2d 222 (1992)). Conspiracy “requires an agreement to commit a tortious act.” Id. at 122-23. Aiding and abetting “re- quires that the defendant have given sub- stantial assistance or encouragement to the primary wrongdoer.” Jd. at 123. “[U]nder either theory, the defendant must know the wrongful nature of the primary actor’s conduct.” Jd. (finding no concerted action liability where airline had no knowledge mother was removing daughter from country without father’s ap- proval). i. Causation Judge Robertson found his consideration of Prince Sultan’s and Prince Turki’s FSIA defenses did not present an opportunity for a general discourse on causation since Plaintiffs’ theory would stretch causation to “terra incognita.” Burnett I, 292 F.Supp.2d at 20. This Court agrees with Judge Robertson’s conclusion, but it un- dertakes the causation analysis because a similar review will be necessary in its con- sideration of the Defendants’ motions for failure to state a claim. See Part III below. Plaintiffs place great reliance on Halber- stam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472 (D.C.Cir.1983) and Bowm v. Quranic Literacy Institute. & Holy Land Foundation for Relief & Devel- opment, 291 F.3d 1000, 1028 (7th Cir.2002) (“Bowm IT”). Neither of these cases con- cern the tortious activity exception to the FSIA, but they do explain liability under 28. The court in Halberstam outlined the ele- ments of aiding and abetting as: “(1) the party whom the defendant aids must perform a wrongful act that causes an injury; (2) the defendant must be generally aware of his role as part of an overall illegal or tortious activity at the time that he provides the assistance; (3) the defendant must knowingly and sub- stantially assist the principal violation.’’ Hal- 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES the ATA and for aiding and abetting and conspiracy.“ In Halberstam, the defen- dant was found liable as a joint venturer for a killing that occurred during a burgla- ry at which she was not present. Halber- stam, 705 F.2d at 488; see also Lumbard v. Maglia, Inc, 621 F.Supp. 1529, 1536 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (““[T]hose who aid or abet or conspire in tortious conduct are jointly and severally liable with other participants in the tortious conduct, regardless of the degree of their participation or culpability in the overall scheme.”). The court found that the defendant’s intimate relationship with the burglar and her assistance in his other illegal ventures “defie[d] credulity that [she] did not know that something illegal was afoot.” Halberstam, 705 F.2d at 486. In Boim, the district court had denied a motion to dismiss by U.S.-based charities alleged to have aided and abetted interna- tional terrorism. Bowm v. Quranic Litera- cy Inst. & Holy Land Found. 127 F.Supp.2d 1002, 1018 (N.D.IIL2001) (“Bom I”). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision and held that the parents of a yeshiva student killed in 1996 in Israel by members of the military wing of Hamas could prove that the defendants aided and abetted their son’s murder under the ATA if they could demonstrate that the chari- ties “knew of Hamas’ illegal activities, that they desired to help those activities suc- ceed, and they engaged in some act of helping the illegal activities.” Bowm I], 291 F.3d at 1023. The court explained that “[floreseeability is the cornerstone of berstam, 705 F.2d at 477. It described the elements of civil conspiracy as: “(1) an agree- ment between two or more persons; (2) to participate in an unlawful act, or a lawful act in an unlawful manner; (3) an injury caused by an unlawful overt act performed by one of the parties to the agreement; (4) which overt act was done pursuant to and in furtherance of the common scheme.” Jd. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017863