In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 392 F.Supp.2d 539 (2005) 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 789 decisions were grounded in government’s social, 3 Cases that cite this headnote economic, and political policy. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605(a)(5). 5 Cases that cite this headnote I International Law @Extent and effect of immunity Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s (FSIA) discretionary function exception, acts 2] Federal Courts which are performed at the planning level of ®Presumptions and burden of proof government, as opposed to those at the operational level, are entitled to immunity. 28 In considering a motion to dismiss for lack of US.C.A. § 1605(a)(5). personal jurisdiction, court reviews the complaints and affidavits in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, but does not accept Cases that cite this headnote conclusory allegations or draw argumentative inferences. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2), 28 ULS.C.A, [10] International Law 8 Cases that cite this headnote @ Extent and effect of immunity Relief agency established by government of Saudi Arabia was entitled to immunity, under discretionary function exception to Foreign 131 Constitutional Law Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), in action Non-residents in general alleging it had provided funding for terrorist Federal Courts organization responsible for September 11th Contacts with United States as a whole; attacks; agency’s decisions regarding the nationwide jurisdiction distribution of humanitarian relief funds were within the discretion of its chairman and his For jurisdiction to exist under rule establishing advisors and were guided by government personal jurisdiction m any district court for policies. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605(a)(5). cases arising under federal law where defendant has sufficient contacts with the United States as a whole but is not subject to jurisdiction in any 1 Cases that cite this headnote particular state, there must be a federal claim, personal jurisdiction must not exist over defendant in any sta