The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has partially reversed a lower court’s decision regarding a lawsuit against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The case stems from a tragic shooting on December 6, 2019, at Pensacola Naval Air Station (NAS Pensacola), Florida, where a Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) officer, Second Lieutenant Mohammed Saeed Al-Shamrani, opened fire, resulting in multiple deaths and injuries. The court found that while most claims against Saudi Arabia are barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), one specific group of claims, centered on the alleged gross negligence of the Kingdom in vetting, hiring, and sending Al-Shamrani to the United States, can move forward.
Background of the Case
The lawsuit was filed by survivors of the shooting and the families of the victims. They alleged various tort and contract claims against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, claiming the Kingdom was liable for the actions of Al-Shamrani. The district court initially dismissed the entire complaint, arguing that the claims were insufficient to establish jurisdiction under U.S. law, particularly due to the FSIA, which generally protects foreign governments from lawsuits in U.S. courts. The plaintiffs then appealed this decision.
The Shooting and the Allegations
The court opinion details the events of the shooting and the extensive allegations made by the plaintiffs. Al-Shamrani, a member of the RSAF and allegedly affiliated with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), opened fire with a Glock 45 9-millimeter pistol. The attack resulted in the deaths of U.S. Military Officer Joshua Kaleb Watson and Airman Apprentices Cameron Scott Walters and Mohammed Sameh Haitham. Several others sustained serious injuries.
The plaintiffs’ amended complaint, a lengthy 172-page document, outlined nineteen counts against the Kingdom, broken down into six broad theories of liability. These included claims of negligence, gross negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, vicarious liability for Al-Shamrani’s actions, support of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), and breach of contract.
The plaintiffs argued that Saudi Arabia was negligent in several ways. First, they asserted that the Kingdom failed to properly vet Al-Shamrani before sending him to the United States for flight training. Second, they claimed that the Kingdom failed to monitor Al-Shamrani’s activities while he was in the U.S., particularly his social media activity, which allegedly showed signs of radicalization. Third, the plaintiffs alleged that the Saudi Country Liaison Officer (CLO) at NAS Pensacola failed to properly supervise Al-Shamrani. Finally, they claimed that the Kingdom breached a contract with the U.S. government.
The Court’s Ruling: Partial Reversal
The Eleventh Circuit partially reversed the district court’s decision. The appeals court agreed that most of the plaintiffs’ claims were properly dismissed due to the FSIA. However, the court found that one specific set of claims could proceed.
Claims That Can Proceed
The court ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims alleging gross negligence in the Kingdom’s vetting, hiring, and dispatching of Al-Shamrani to the United States could move forward. The court reasoned that under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), a specific exception to foreign sovereign immunity may apply. JASTA allows lawsuits against foreign states for acts of international terrorism. The court found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that the Kingdom’s actions in hiring and vetting Al-Shamrani rose to the level of gross negligence under Florida law.
The court stated that the plaintiffs’ allegations of the Kingdom’s failure to properly vet Al-Shamrani, including his history of expressing extremist views, were sufficient to establish a claim of negligent hiring under Florida law. The court also found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that the Kingdom’s actions constituted gross negligence, which is a higher degree of negligence. The court also found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that the Kingdom’s negligent hiring caused the deaths and injuries.
Claims That Were Dismissed
The court affirmed the dismissal of the other claims. The court found that the claims related to the Kingdom’s failure to continue to monitor and vet Al-Shamrani’s social media activity were based on omissions, which are generally not actionable under JASTA. The court also found that the claims based on the CLO’s conduct were based on discretionary functions, which are also protected by the FSIA. The court further found that the intentional torts committed by Al-Shamrani were not within the scope of his employment, and therefore, the Kingdom could not be held vicariously liable. Finally, the court found that the plaintiffs’ claim for breach of contract failed to state a claim as a matter of law.
Next Steps
The case is now remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The district court will need to address the factual challenges to the remaining claims regarding the Kingdom’s gross negligence in hiring and vetting Al-Shamrani.
Legal Framework: FSIA and JASTA
The FSIA is a critical piece of legislation in this case. It establishes the general rule that foreign states are immune from lawsuits in U.S. courts. However, the FSIA includes exceptions, allowing lawsuits under specific circumstances. The plaintiffs in this case invoked two exceptions under the FSIA: waiver and the non-commercial tort exception. They also invoked an exception provided by JASTA, which was enacted in 2016. JASTA provides an additional exception to foreign sovereign immunity in cases where money damages are sought against a foreign state for physical injury or death occurring in the United States and caused by an act of international terrorism.
Key Issues and Arguments
The central legal issues in this case revolved around the interpretation and application of the FSIA and JASTA. The court had to determine whether the plaintiffs’ claims fell within any of the exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity.
The plaintiffs argued that the Kingdom’s actions in hiring and vetting Al-Shamrani constituted gross negligence and therefore fell within the JASTA exception. They further argued that the Kingdom’s failure to monitor Al-Shamrani’s activities and the CLO’s failure to supervise him also constituted negligence. The plaintiffs also asserted a breach of contract claim, arguing that the Kingdom had waived its sovereign immunity.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia argued that it was immune from suit under the FSIA and that the plaintiffs’ claims did not fall within any of the exceptions. The Kingdom maintained that Al-Shamrani’s actions were outside the scope of his employment and that the Kingdom’s actions were discretionary functions.