Epstein Secrets

attery. Actions were consoliclab ed by Multiclistrict Litigation Panel. Vari- ous defendants fded motions to dismiss. Holdings: The District Court, Casey, J., held that (1) jurisdictional discovery was warranted on issue whether Saudi Arabian bank was immune under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

28 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES Plaintiffs have failed to state a RICO claim against the moving Defendants. See id.; Beata' Leasing, Inc. v. Bellezza, 95 Civ. 5191(JFK), 1997 WL 603496, at *5 (S.D.N.Y.1997) ("A defendant does not 'di- rect' an enterprise's affairs under § 1962(c) merely by e

Actions were consolidated, various defendants filed motions to dismiss, and plaintiffs moved to supplement the record. Holdings: The District Court, Casey, J., held that: “1 Saudi High Commission (SHC) was entitled to immunity under discretionary function exception to Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (

the enterprise itself,’ which requires that these Defendants must have had some part in directing the enterprise’s affairs.” Redtail Leasing, Inc. v. Bellezza, No. 95 Civ. 51910FK), 1997 WL 603496, at *5 (S.D.N-Y. Sept.30, 1997). 25] 26] The TVPA provides a cause of action against individuals who under act

amdi participated in the operation or management of any enterprise. The RICO claims against Mr. Hamdi must be dismissed. See Redtail Leasing, Inc. v. Bellezza, 1997 WL 603496 at *5. Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Hamdi knew about bin Laden’s terrorist activities at the time he procured a phone for him because t

battery. Actions were consolidat- ed by Multidistrict Litigation Panel. Vari- ous defendants filed motions to dismiss. Holdings: The District Court, Casey, J., held that: (1) jurisdictional discovery was warranted on issue whether Saudi Arabian bank was immune under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FS

RSIGHT_017892 --- PAGE BREAK --- 828 Plaintiffs have failed to state a RICO claim against the moving Defendants. See id.; Redtail Leasing, Inc. v. Bellezza, 95 Civ. 5191JFK), 1997 WL 603496, at *5 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (“A defendant does not ‘di- rect? an enterprise’s affairs under § 1962(c) merely by engaging