The background of this case is set forth in Miller v. Arab Bank, PLC, 372 F.Supp.3d 33, 38 (E.D.N.Y. 2019). Briefly stated, Plaintiffs are American citizens who were either injured or had relatives who were injured in terrorist attacks that occurred in Israel and surrounding areas as “part of the Second Intifada, a terrorist campaign against the State of Israel from approximately 2000-2004.”

(“The four plaintiffs who allege a familial relationship with U.S. nationals that only were injured are thus neither survivors nor heirs and cannot state a claim for relief under JASTA.”); see also Miller v. Arab Bank, PLC, 372 F.Supp.3d 33, 42 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (concluding that a United States national who survived a suicide bombing has no survivors or heirs). The two cases that the plaintiffs cite in support of their position do not help them.

This Court has made such a finding before, reasoning that when banks such as BSPLC route payments and maintain accounts for terrorist organizations to enhance their ability to commit terrorist attacks, they are committing "acts dangerous to human life." Miller v. Arab Bank, PLC , 372 F. Supp. 3d 33, 45 (E.D.N.Y. 2019). The Court applies the same reasoning here.

which “provided the funds to the DPR before and after” the group killed hundreds with a rocket attack on a commercial airliner, which “were used to purchase lethal weapons prior to the attack”); Miller v. Arab Bank, PLC, 372 F.Supp.3d 33, 45 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (same where defendant allegedly “received lists for the Insurance Scheme that identified violent causes of death -- including ‘Martyr Operation'” and by providing payments “reward[ed] acts of terrorism” and “incentivized prospective ‘martyrs'”)

Thus, there is no common nucleus of facts that warrants the exercise of pendant jurisdiction over the Sixth Claim of Relief. SeeMiller v. Arab Bank, PLC , 372 F. Supp. 3d 33, 42–43 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) ("To exercise specific jurisdiction over a defendant consistent with the defendant's due process rights, ‘the defendant's suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum State.’ "

Under New York law, a single transaction is sufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction “provided the relevant claims arise from that transaction.” See Miler v. Arab Bank, PLC, 372 F.Supp.3d 33, 42 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (citing Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 171 F.3d 779, 787 (2d Cir. 1999)).

A plaintiff must allege that the “defendant's conduct was a proximate cause of plaintiff's harm, i.e. the conduct was a substantial factor in the sequence of responsible causation and whose injury was reasonably foreseeable or anticipated as a natural consequence.” Miller v. Arab Bank, PLC, 372 F.Supp.3d 33, 46 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (emphasis and quotation marks omitted); see also Gill v. Arab Bank, PLC, 893 F.Supp.2d 474, 481 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (“‘But for' cause cannot be required in the section 2333(a) context.”)

And when district courts in this Circuit have considered ATA and JASTA claims, they discussed proximate cause in regard to the ATA claims but not to the JASTA claims. See, e.g., Freeman v. HSBC Holdings PLC, 413 F.Supp.3d 67, 93-94, 97-98 (E.D.N.Y. 2019); O'Sullivan v. Deutsche Bank AG, No. 17 Civ. 8709 (LTS) (GWG), 2019 WL 1409446, at *5-7, *10 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2019); Miller v. Arab Bank, PLC, 372 F.Supp.3d 33, 46, 47-48 (E.D.N.Y. 2019); Lelchook v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 393 F.Supp.3d 261, 266-67 (E.D.N.Y. 2019). Accordingly, the JASTA imposes no proximate cause requirement on Plaintiffs.

In addition to those who were present during the ambush, courts addressing claims under the ATA have almost uniformly allowed “solatium damages in suits brought under the ATA regardless of the availability of such damages under the general tort law of the state in which the district court sits” as such damages evince the deterrent intent of the ATA as a mechanism in the fight against terrorism.See Rosenberg v. Lashkar-e-Taiba, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87724, at *75-*76 (E.D.N.Y. July 5, 2016); see also Miller v. Arab Bank, PLC, 372 F.Supp.3d 33, 41 (E.D.N.Y. 2019). 124. The following paragraphs will outline the relationships of the Plaintiffs to the victims of this action:

Courts have made such a finding before, reasoning that when banks such as Sberbank and VTB Bank route payments and maintain accounts for terrorist organizations to enhance their ability to commit terrorist attacks, they are committing "acts dangerous to human life." Miller v. Arab Bank , PLC, 372 F. Supp. 3d 33, 45 (E.D.N.Y. 2019). The Court applies the same reasoning here.