Watson v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

1

BENJAMIN WATSON, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA, Defendant.

No. 3:21cv00329/MCR/ZCB

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division

May 11, 2023

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Zachary C. Bolitho, United States Magistrate Judge.

On December 6, 2019, Mohammed Saeed Al-Shamrani committed a terrorist attack at Naval Air Station Pensacola. Before he was killed by law enforcement, Al-Shamrani murdered three U.S. Navy servicemembers. He also injured other servicemembers, as well as law enforcement officers. The terrorist organization al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for Al-Shamrani's attack.

The tragic events of December 6, 2019 form the basis of this lawsuit. Plaintiffs are the deceased servicemembers' heirs, as well as the individuals who survived the attack. Defendant is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in whose military Al-Shamrani was enlisted at the time of the attack. In a 172-page amended complaint, Plaintiffs seek to hold Saudi Arabia responsible for Al-Shamrani's attack. (Doc. 5). Invoking the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Saudi Arabia has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc 46). Plaintiffs have responded in opposition, arguing that four exceptions to the Act apply. (Doc. 39). Plaintiffs have also moved for jurisdictional discovery, which Saudi Arabia has opposed. (Docs. 43, 44). The Court held a lengthy oral argument hearing (Doc. 53), and the matter is now ripe for resolution.

This is a difficult case. It is factually difficult because it involves an evil act committed on U.S. soil against members of the armed forces and law enforcement officers-the bravest among us. It is legally difficult because it involves a complex statutory scheme that reflects a longstanding presumption that foreign sovereigns are beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. Having exhaustively considered the matter and despite feeling great sympathy for Plaintiffs the Court believes the law precludes the exercise of jurisdiction over Saudi Arabia. The Court, therefore, recommends granting Saudi Arabia's motion to dismiss and denying Plaintiffs' motion for jurisdictional discovery.

I. Summary of Factual Allegations

A. Events before December 6, 2019

Mohammed Saeed Al-Shamrani was a member of the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF). (Doc. 5 at 18).^[1] He was selected to receive aviation training from the U.S. military through a Security Cooperation Education and Training Program. (Id. at 20). Al-Shamrani was assigned to complete that training at Naval Air Station Pensacola (NAS-P). (Id. at 24). Before being approved for the training program, Al-Shamrani was to be vetted by Saudi Arabia. (Id. at 26). Al-Shamrani subsequently received approval and was granted a U.S. visa. (Id.). He arrived in the U.S. on August 28, 2017, but he did not begin aviation training at NAS-P until May of 2018. (Id. at 27, 51).

From May of 2018 to December of 2019, Al-Shamrani participated in training at NAS-P. (Id. at 51). In July of 2019, Al-Shamrani purchased a 9mm handgun and ammunition. (Id. at 52). It is alleged that between July 2019 and December 6, 2019, Al-Shamrani regularly entered NAS-P with the handgun concealed in his pilot helmet bag. (Id.).

Plaintiffs allege that Al-Shamrani's supervising officer at NAS-P (a RSAF member tasked with overseeing Saudi Arabian trainees)^[2] knew Al-Shamrani had been carrying a handgun on base-something that violated both U.S. and RSAF policy. (Id.). Nonetheless, the supervising officer took no action. The supervising officer then departed from NAS-P in September of 2019, which Plaintiffs allege left Al-Shamrani and the other Saudi Arabian trainees with no RSAF oversight at NAS-P. (Id. at 52-53). According to Plaintiffs, Saudi Arabia did not assign a new supervising officer for NAS-P until nearly a month after Al-Shamrani's deadly attack. (Id. at 53).

In November of 2019, Al-Shamrani and some other RSAF trainees visited the 9/11 Memorial in New York City. (Id. at 53-54). Plaintiffs allege that during the trip, Al-Shamrani and other RSAF trainees praised the 9/11 hijackers and discussed plans for launching an attack at NAS-P. (Id. at 54).^[3]According to Plaintiffs, the trip to New York was unauthorized. (Id. at 53).

The night before the attack (December 5, 2019), Al-Shamrani dined with other RSAF trainees. (Id. at 54). During the dinner, Al-Shamrani allegedly discussed his plans to attack NAS-P the next morning.^[4] (Id.). Several of the RSAF trainees who dined with Al-Shamrani that night failed to report for duty on the morning of December 6, 2019. (Id.).

B. Events of December 6, 2019

In the early morning hours of December 6, 2019, Al-Shamrani used Twitter to send a series of anti-American messages that included the following: “I hate you because every day you (sic) supporting, funding and committing crimes not only against Muslims but also humanity. I am against evil, and America as a whole has turned into a nation of evil.” (Id. at 60). When Al-Shamrani arrived at NAS-P on December 6, 2019, he visited an Islamic prayer room. (Id. at 61). He then drove his car to Building 633. (Id.). At approximately 6:42 a.m., Al-Shamrani entered Building 633 wearing his RSAF uniform and carrying his flight bag. (Id.). Concealed in the flight bag was the 9mm handgun and ammunition. (Id.).

Once inside Building 633, Al-Shamrani withdrew the handgun and began shooting. (Id. at 62). Al-Shamrani chanted “Allahu Akbar”-an Islamic phrase meaning “God is great”-throughout his attack. (Id. at 65). Al-Shamrani's bullets struck and killed Ensign Joshua Kaleb Watson, Airman Cameron Scott Walters, and Airman Mohammed Haitham. (Id. at 62-64). He also shot and wounded Airman George Johnson, Ensign Breanna Thomas, Airman Ryan Blackwell, Ms. Jessica Pickett, and Ensign Kristy Lehmer. (Id.).

Soon after the attack began, law enforcement officers from the Department of Defense and the Escambia County Sheriff's Office arrived, engaged Al-Shamrani, and fatally shot him. (Id. at 64-65). While heroically working to neutralize Al-Shamrani, Captain Charles Hogue of the Department of Defense Police Force and Escambia County deputies Jonathan Glass, Matthew Tinch, Thomas Bortner, Grant Lopez, Matthew Housam, Michael Hoyland, and Matthew Keebler all suffered injuries. (Id. at 16-17).

C. Events after December 6, 2019

Saudi Arabia immediately denounced Al-Shamrani's actions. (Doc. 46 at 1718). The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigated the attack. Based on that investigation, the Attorney General announced that there was “no evidence of assistance or pre-knowledge of the attack” by the other RSAF members who were training in the United States. (Doc. 47-2 at 3). The Attorney General also stated that Saudi Arabia provided “complete and total support” for the investigation and had ordered all RSAF trainees “to fully cooperate.” (Id.). After gaining access to the contents of Al-Shamrani's cell phone, the FBI released a statement explaining that it appeared Al-Shamrani had “significant ties” to al-Qaeda. (Doc. 47-3 at 2).

The Navy also investigated the attack and issued a 267-page report. (Doc. 471). The Navy found that “[t]he self-radicalization” of Al-Shamrani was “the primary cause” of the attack. (Doc. 47-1 at 30). According to the Navy, “no one person or organization knew or could have known” of Al-Shamrani's plan to attack NAS-P. (Id.).

D. The legal proceedings

In their complaint, Plaintiffs seek to hold Saudi Arabia responsible for Al-Shamrani's attack. Plaintiffs allege Al-Shamrani was a “Trojan Horse sent by. . .the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and its proxy, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. . .under the auspices of a program tied to billions of dollars in military arms sales from the United States to [Saudi Arabia].” (Doc. 5 at 8). The complaint asserts the following causes of action:

1) Vicarious liability/respondeat superior (Id. at 86);

2) Violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2339 predicate (primary liability) (Id. at 96);

3) Violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2339A predicate (primary liability) (Id. at 100);

4) Violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2339B predicate (primary liability) (Id. at 105);

5) Violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2339C predicate (primary liability) (Id. at 109);

6) Violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act (aiding and abetting liability) (Id. at 113);

7) Loss of Solatium (Id. at 120);

8) Assault (Id. at 122);

9) Battery (Id. at 124);

10) False imprisonment (Id. at 126);

11) Intentional infliction of emotional distress (Id. at 131);

12) Violation of Florida's Civil Hate Crime Statute (Id. at 133);

13) Florida Civil Remedy for Terrorism or Facilitating Terrorism (Id. at 136);

14) Negligence and Gross Negligence (Id. at 138); 15) Negligent infliction of emotional distress (Id. at 151);

16) Wrongful death (Id. at 155);

17) Survival action (Id. at 162);

18) Loss of Consortium (Id. at 164); and

19) Breach of Contract (Id. at 166).

As relief, Plaintiffs ask for compensatory and solatium damages, treble damages, and attorneys' fees. (Id. at 170).

Saudi Arabia has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 46). Plaintiffs have responded in opposition and moved for jurisdictional discovery. (Docs. 39, 43).

II. Discussion

The motions currently before the Court focus on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. § 1604. Saudi Arabia claims the FSIA provides it with sovereign immunity and strips this Court of jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs parry by arguing that jurisdiction exists under four exceptions to the FSIA. Before delving into the particulars of the parties' arguments, an overview of the FSIA is in order.

Congress passed the FSIA in 1976, codifying ...