Epstein Secrets

ng con- clusion of jurisdictional discovery on that issue. In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Der. Corp. Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army Tremsky v. Qsama Bin Laden Salvo v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Der. Corp. Federal In- surance v. A

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.

estments, Mar-Jac Poultry, Reston Investments, Safa Trust, and York Foundation, move to dismiss the Burnett complaint. IIIT also moves to dismiss the Ashton complaint. In addition to its motion to dismiss Burnett, Mar—-Jac Poultry moves to dismiss the Ashton and Federal complaints. The Federal Plaintiffs

ry actions, even when that discretion is abused). Accordingly, the Court finds SHC is immune from suit in this litigation. Its motions to dismiss the Ashton, Burnett, and Federal complaints for lack subject matter jurisdiction are granted. 2. Prince Salman and Prince Naif M11 Similarly, even if Plaintiff

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)).

tional discovery on that issue, © & KEY NUMBER SYSTEM 40oms In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp. Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army Tremsky v. Qsama Bin Laden Salvo v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp. Federal In- surance v. Al Q

Second Circuit law after 28 U.S.C. 8 1407 transfer from a district court in the Fifth Circuit). 3. NCB moves to dismiss the complaints against it in Ashton and Burnett. 4. Prince Mohamed moves to dismiss the com- plaints against him in Ashton and Federal Insurance. 5. The estate of Mohammad Abdullah Al

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)).