Epstein Secrets

tion to the FSIA applies to negate the Kingdom's immunity. "[S]overeign immunity under the FSIA is immunity from suit, not just from liabili- ty." Moran a Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 27 F.3d 169, 172 (5th Cir.1994). Because there were no factual disputes raised in the Court's resolution of this motion

int which consists of conclusory allegations unsupported by fac- tual assertions fails even on the liberal standard of Rule 12(b)(6)." De Jesus v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 87 F.3d 65, 70 (2d Cir.1996). This Court, like Judge Robertson before it, has found no basis for a bank's liability for injuries funded by money

opportunity to litigate his concerns in the other case, this Court need not — and should not — allow permissive intervention in this one. See. e.g., Morgan'. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 124 F.R.D. 231 (1988) (declining intervention in one case where litigation on a similar issue was already underway elsewhere

y to litigate his concerns in the other case, this Court need not — and should not — allow permissive intervention in this one. See. e.g., Morgan'. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 124 F.R.D. 231 (1988) (declining intervention in one case where litigation on a similar issue was already underway elsewhere). Permissive intervent

ception to the FSIA applies to negate the Kingdom’s immunity. “[Slovereion immunity under the FSIA is immunity from suit, not just from liabili- ty.” Moran v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 27 F.3d 169, 172 th Cir.1994). Because there were no factual disputes raised in the Court’s resolution of this motion, no

plaint which consists of conclusory allegations unsupported by fac- tual assertions fails even on the liberal standard of Rule 12(b)(6).” De Jesus v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 87 F.3d 65, 70 (2d Cir.1996). This Court, like Judge Robertson before it, has found no basis for a bank’s liability for injuries funded by money pas