Epstein Secrets

tter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Haul brook v. Michelin North Amer., Inc., 252 F.3d 696, 700 (4th Cir2001) (citing McKinney v. lid of Trustees of Mayland Only. Colt, 955 F.2d 924, 928 (4th Cir. 1992)) (stating that "summary judgment should be granted only when it is perfectly clear that no issue of

ffense; EFTA00226275 616 376 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES procedural error by the Plaintiff. Plain- tiffs situation is very similar to that in Burnett and other cases where equitable tolling has been found to apply. See Bur- nett, 380 U.S. at 434-35, 85 S.Ct. 1050; Berry v. Pacific Sportfishing, I

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

d Resource’s Chairman by an executive of SBG. Ashton Complaint 1459; Burnett Complaint { 328. Plaintiffs claim that SBG had an address in Rockville, Maryland until very recently. Ashton Complaint 1545; Burnett Com- plaint 1318. SBG claims the Rockville address was the headquarters of a sepa- rately incorpo

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

nited States corporations based in Texas, and, during a trip to the United States in 1989, he met with President George H.W. Bush and the governor of Maryland. (Plaintiffs’ Opp’n to Prince Salman Mot. to Dismiss at 21-22; see generally Parrett Aff.) Additionally, Plaintiffs claim that Prince Salman’s son at