Court rulings on RICO and FSIA defenses in 9/11 support lawsuits

In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 392 F.Supp.2d 539 (2005) 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 789 [43] [44] [45] internationally for terrorist purposes was sufficient to state a claim under Antiterrorism Act (ATA), in action alleging provision of support for September 11th attacks. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2339(A). 2 Cases that cite this headnote Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations @ Association or participation Absent any allegation that defendant participated in the operation or management of alleged terrorist enterprise, allegation that he controlled several bank accounts and transmitted money internationally for terrorist purposes failed to state a claim under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), for purposes of action alleging provision of support for terrorists involved in September 11th attacks. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1961 et seq. 1 Cases that cite this headnote Federal Civil Procedure Error by court A motion for reconsideration is appropriate where a court overlooks controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion and which, had they been considered, might have reasonably altered the result before the court. Cases that cite this headnote Federal Civil Procedure @ Justice; prevention of injustice Federal Civil Procedure Error by court A motion for reconsideration may be granted to correct a clear error or prevent manifest WESTLAW injustice. Cases that cite this headnote [6] International Law Proceedings to determine immunity On reconsideration of prior order, District Court would postpone further inquiry into bank’s status as a foreign sovereign, for purposes of its assertion that it was entitled to immunity, under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), in action alleging it provided support for terrorists involved in September 11th attacks, until completion of personal jurisdiction discovery; personal jurisdiction issue was more straightforward and Court was hesitant to subject Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to discovery. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1602 et seq. 3 Cases that cite this headnote Attorneys and Law Firms *345 Andrew J. Maloney, II, Blanca I. Rodriguez, Brian J. Alexander, *546 David Beekman, David C. Cook, Francis G. Fleming, James P. Kreindler, Justin Timothy Green, Lee S. Kreindler, Marc S. Moller, Milton G. Sincoff, Noah H. Kushlefsky, Paul S. Edelman, Robert James Spragg, Steven R. Pounian, Kreindler & Kreindler, New York City, Elliot R. Feldman, J. Scott Tarbutton, John M. Popilock, Sean P. Carter, Stephen A. Cozen O’Connor (Philadelphia), Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiffs. David P. Gersch, Arnold & Porter, L.L.P.. Donna M. Sheinbach, Michael D. McNeely, Nancy Luque, Steven A. Maddox, Gray Cary Ware and Friedenrich LLP (DC), Mitchell Rand Berger, Ronald Stanley Liebman, Patton Boggs LLP (DC), Martin Francis McMahon, Stephanie Wall Fell, Martin F. McMahon, and Associates, Thomas Peter Steindler, McDermott, Will and Emery (DC), James Ermest Gauch, Jennifer Allyson Shumaker, Jonathan Chapman Rose, Melissa Danielle Stear, Michael Peter Gurdak, Michael Rollin Shumaker, Stephen Joseph Brogan, Timothy John Finn, Jones Day (DC), Louis Richard Cohen, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (Washington), William Horace Jeffress, Jr., Christopher R. Cooper, Sara E. Kropf, Jamie S. Kilberg, Baker Botts HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017912