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

0 (hereinafter "Supp. Al-Wohai- bi Aff."). a. Status of the PIF In Filler v. Hanvit Bank, a case with facts very similar to those presented here, the Second Circuit reiterated Dole Food's requirement of direct ownership for instru- mentality status. Two defendants were commercial banks majority-owned by the Ko

he orders dismissing those defendants should be vacated so that the district court can apply current law to defendants’ motions. Standard of Review The Second Circuit “review[s] de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual a

STLAW HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023373 --- PAGE BREAK --- In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001., 2012 WL 257568 (2012) On January 18, 2005, Judge Casey issued his decision in Terrorist Attacks I, dismissing claims against, inter alia, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and several Saudi Princes on sovereign

favor.” Amaker v. N.Y. State Dep’t of *63 Corr. Servs., 435 F. App’x 52, 54 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002)). WESTLAW HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023384 --- PAGE BREAK --- In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001., 2012 WL 257568 (2012) Argument I. Th

t of the Princes’ ac- tions. [22-24] Pursuant to the Second Cir- cuit’s instruction, the Court must first de- termine whe

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

very least, discovery should be ordered circumspectly and only to verify allega- tions of specific facts crucial to an immuni- ty determination.”)). The Second Circuit has instructed “that generally a plaintiff may be allowed limited discovery with re- spect to the jurisdictional issue; but until [plaintiff] has sho

bia’s relationship to NCB. The Supreme Court and Second Circuit agree that there are certain circumstances in whi

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 (

Accordingly, the only dispute regarding SHC’s status is whether it is an organ of the Kingdom. In Filler v. Hanvit Bank, 378 F.3d 213 (2d Cir.2004), the Second Circuit considered various factors to determine whether an entity could be considered an organ of a foreign sovereign. Jd. at 217. The factors include: (1)

nt asserts has been harmed by a crime or who self-identifies as such qualifies as a "victim"); cf. In re WR. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., 409 F.3d 555, 561 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that the CVRA does not grant victims any rights against individuals not convicted of a crime, but the government can attempt to obtain

n 22 Mich. J.L. & Reform 773 (1989). 50 See United States v. Sells Eng., Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 466 (Burger, C.J., dissenting). 5! See, e.g., State v. Casey, 44 P.3d 756 (Utah 2002), discussed infra notes 163-66 and accompanying text. 32 18 U.S.C.A. 3771(a)(4) (West 2004 & Supp. 2005); see In re Kari Ann

h is consistent with the leading case of State v. Casey, !7! which considered whether a victim's request

ongressional determination, blocking defense efforts to obtain pretrial discovery about government witnesses. For example, in United States v. Coppa, the Second Circuit overturned the district court's approval of a scheduling order requiring the government to identify its witnesses in advance of trial. +3? The distri