Epstein Secrets

B O'NEAL,ALLEN VANGIESON,ANN GIBSON,SUSAN STEWARD,CAMPBELL GURRENTZ,MAR

ROSENFELD,MARC COCHRANE,MARY M BURDETT,DR ARTHUR C HAUSTRUP DEV CORP PHILL

enewal pending con- clusion of jurisdictional 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. &

(S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs in these cases filed consolidated responses to Prince Sultan’s and Prince Turki’s motions. In Plaintiffs’ words, the New York Burnett action is materially identical to the D.C. Burnett action and was filed as a “prophylactic’’ measure in the event the D.C. court found that it lacked

t, “even when the complaint is liberally con- strued, that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief.” Id.; Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain stat

tate a claim. Other Defendants move to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim. Tarik Hamdi and Abdulrahman Alamoudi move to dismiss the Burnett and Federal complaints. Success Foundation moves to dismiss the Burnett complaint. The Burnett Plaintiffs denominate certain Defendants as the “SAAR

ns, 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 Plaintiffs adequat

sues and to dispose of unmeritorious claims.” Swierkiewicz vy. Sorema, N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957), Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168-69, 11