Brown v. National Bank of Pakistan

Background

The plaintiffs sued National Bank of Pakistan under the Anti-Terrorism Act, as amended by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. They alleged that the bank financed, and therefore aided and abetted, international terrorism by providing banking services to Hafiz Khan, Al-Ramah Welfare Organisation, and Gulam Murtaza. The plaintiffs included six U.S. nationals injured in international terrorist attacks, family members of U.S. nationals killed in such attacks, and family members of U.S. nationals who survived their injuries.

Capacity to Sue

The court held that the six plaintiffs who were personally injured had capacity to sue. It also held that 263 family members of U.S. nationals killed in terrorist attacks could sue as family members, survivors, or heirs. The court stated that more than one family member may bring a separate claim based on the same deceased U.S. national and that the statute allows claims for both financial and emotional damages.

The court held that the four plaintiffs whose family members survived terrorist attacks lacked capacity to sue under the statute. They were not survivors or heirs because their family members had not died. The court granted the motion to dismiss as to those plaintiffs.

Personal Jurisdiction

The bank renewed its challenge to personal jurisdiction, which concerns a court’s authority over a defendant. The court had previously found that jurisdiction existed, but it reconsidered the issue because the plaintiffs had filed superseding amended complaints.

The court found that the Third Amended Complaint did not establish a preliminary showing of personal jurisdiction. The complaint relied on generalized allegations and assumptions that transactions involving currency conversions passed through the bank’s New York branch. It did not identify specific transfers, dates, numbers of transfers, or monetary amounts. The court held that these allegations were insufficient under New York’s jurisdictional statute and the constitutional requirement that the defendant have sufficient purposeful contacts with New York.

The court nevertheless found that the plaintiffs had alleged some facts suggesting that personal jurisdiction might exist. It stated that limited jurisdictional discovery could allow the plaintiffs to identify the missing supporting facts, and it scheduled that issue for discussion at the first status conference.

Failure to State a Claim

A claim under the relevant JASTA provision requires an injury from international terrorism, an act committed, planned, or authorized by a designated foreign terrorist organization, and knowing provision of substantial assistance by the defendant. The court identified the central issue as whether the bank had general awareness that the money or financial services it provided would support terrorism.

The court held that the bank’s general awareness began at different times for the three customers: May 2011 for Hafiz Khan, March 21, 2016, for Al-Ramah Welfare Organisation and certain of its leaders, and November 2011 for Gulam Murtaza. Under the standard applied by the court, the plaintiffs had to plausibly allege that the bank knew of the customers’ connections with the relevant foreign terrorist organization before the attacks at issue. Transactions occurring before those awareness dates could not satisfy that requirement. The court therefore directed that plaintiffs relying on those transactions be dropped and that the caption be amended.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint and granted leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint within 30 days. The court directed the plaintiffs to reattach a previously omitted appendix identifying their relationships to the U.S. nationals allegedly injured or killed. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 69.