Opinion ID: 858092
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: To summarize, we hold that: (1) In light of our decision in Rothstein v. UBS AG, 708 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2013), plaintiffs cannot allege aiding-and-abetting claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act, and moreover, plaintiffs do not make the necessary allegation under the Anti-Terrorism Act that the actions of the Rule 12(b)(6) defendants proximately caused their injuries. (2) Plaintiffs have not pleaded a violation of the Alien Tort Statute because, as we held in United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 106-08 (2d Cir. 2003), no universal norm against “terrorism” existed under customary international law (i.e., the “law of nations”) as of September 11, 2001. (3) Plaintiffs’ Torture Victim Protection Act claims against Al Rajhi Bank, Saudi American Bank, DMI Trust, and Dallah Al Baraka Group LLC fail in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, 132 S. Ct. 1702, 1710-11 (2012), which held that the TVPA only imposes liability on natural persons, and plaintiffs’ Torture Victim Protection Act claims against Saleh Abdullah Kamel fail because they do not allege that he acted under color of law. (4) Plaintiffs’ common law tort claims were properly dismissed because plaintiffs failed to plead that the Rule 12(b)(6) defendants owed them a duty or that the actions of the Rule 12(b)(6) defendants proximately caused their injuries. For these reasons, we AFFIRM the District Court’s July 14, 2011 judgment insofar as it dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against the Rule 12(b)(6) defendants. 202 requires the cause of action to be timely under the limitation periods of both New York and the jurisdiction where the cause of action accrued.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis supplied)). 13