SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiffs Moses Strauss, et al., and Estate of Bernice Wolf, et al., who were injured, or represent persons who were injured, in terrorist attacks in Israel and Palestine in 2001-2004, allegedly committed by Hamas, jointly appeal from a March 31, 2019 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in these consolidated actions, Dora L. Irizarry, then-Chief Judge, (A) dismissing the complaints seeking damages against defendant Crédit Lyonnais, S.A. (“CL”), under the Antiterrorism Act of 1990 (“ATA”), see 18 U.S.C. §§ 2333(a), 2331(1), and 2339B, for providing banking services to a charitable organization that allegedly had ties to Hamas; and (B) denying leave to amend the complaints to allege aiding-and-abetting claims against CL under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (“JASTA”), see id. § 2333(d). The district court granted CLs motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaints, relying principally on this Courts decision in Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 882 F.3d 314 (2d Cir. 2018), and concluding that plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence sufficient to permit an inference that CL had committed an act involving violence, danger to human life, or an appearance of intent to intimidate or coerce a population or a government-elements of an international terrorism claim under the ATA. The court also denied plaintiffs motion for leave to file an amended complaint to allege that CL is liable for the attacks as an aider and abetter, concluding that, given the record on the summary judgment motion, such an amendment would be futile. See Strauss v. Crédit Lyonnais, S.A., 379 F.Supp.3d 148 (E.D.N.Y. 2019).
On appeal, plaintiffs argue principally that the district court erred by misapplying Linde and concluding that plaintiffs evidence of CLs violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B was insufficient to permit inferences either that CL itself engaged in terrorist activity or that it had the requisite state of mind to make it liable for aiding and abetting that activity. In its cross-appeal, CL argues that if we do not affirm the judgment of the district court, we should reverse that courts denial of CLs motion to dismiss the actions for lack of personal jurisdiction; however, CL urges that “[g]iven the number of years during which these cases have already been pending, this Court can and should assume jurisdiction and affirm on the ․ merits ․ as a means of preventing waste of judicial resources.” (CL brief on appeal at 61-62 (other internal quotation marks omitted).)
This appeal was argued in tandem with the appeal in Weiss v. National Westminster Bank PLC, Nos. 19-863, -1159, which we have decided today in a published opinion, see 993 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2021) (“Weiss”). Although CL is not the defendant against which the Weiss actions were brought, both sets of actions were commenced in the mid-2000s asserting ATA claims premised on international terrorist attacks attributed to Hamas; the actions proceeded largely along parallel lines (sometimes with coordinated pretrial discovery proceedings), involved the same legal issues, and were dismissed by the same district judge in opinions filed on the same day, with the opinion in the present case frequently citing past decisions and reasoning in the Weiss actions.
The issues in these two sets of actions were the same; the issues in both appeals are the same; the arguments made by both sets of appellants are the same; and the two appellees pursue virtually identical conditional cross-appeals. We conclude, for the reasons discussed in Weiss, that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment dismissing the Strauss and Wolf plaintiffs complaints under the ATA or in denying their request for leave to amend in order to bring claims under JASTA. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court; CLs cross-appeal is thus moot.
We have considered all of plaintiffs arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed; the cross-appeal is dismissed.