Epstein Secrets

be incompatible with the purpose of the FSIA, which is to grant governmental, not private corporate immunity, and ... would reflect infidelity to the Supreme Court's reasoning in Dole Food" Id. at 218. Accordingly, it reiterated that "'a subsidiary of an instrumentality is not it- self entitled to instrumentalit

able to Plaintiffs. PDK Labs, 103 F.3cl at 1108. It will not, however, accept legally conclusory assertions or draw "argumenta- tive inferences." Mende v. Milestone Tech, Inc-, 269 F.Supp.2d 246, 251 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (citing Robinson v. Over Military Sales Coip., 21 F.3d 502, 507 (2d Cir.1994)). A.

ious banks are not identical. In Bush, following the Supreme Court’s instructions in Steel Co., the district court dis

laints and affidavits in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, id., but it does not accept conclusory allegations or draw “argumentative inferences.” Mende v. Milestone Tech., Inc., 269 F.Supp.2d 246, 251 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (citing Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502, 507 (2d Cir.1994)).

other Saudi banks’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions cannot apply to NCB because the allegations against the various banks are not identical. In Bush, following the Supreme Court’s instructions in Steel Co., the district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after finding plaintiffs lacked standing to

upport of this argument, the Federal Plaintiffs cite Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468, 480, 123 S.Ct. 1655, 155 L.Ed.2d 643 (2003), in which the Supreme Court held that instrumentality status is determined at the time of the filing of the complaint. has specifically addressed the issue. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_01

03 F.3d at 1108. It will not, however, accept legally 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES conclusory assertions or draw “argumenta- tive inferences.” Mende v. Milestone Tech, Inc, 269 F.Supp.2d 246, 251 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (citing Robinson v. Over- seas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502, 507 (2d Cir.1994)).