The Eleventh Circuit on Monday revived a lawsuit against Saudi Arabia alleging its responsibility for a deadly shooting attack at a Florida Navy base, saying the country must face claims over gross negligent hiring practices.

Writing for a three-judge panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus said the victims and their families sufficiently alleged the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia took active steps to hire, but failed to vet, the Royal Air Force officer who committed the shooting.

"One group or bundle of the Plaintiffs' claims — those based on the theory that the Kingdom had been grossly negligent in vetting, hiring, and sending Airman Al-Shamrani to the United States — is facially sufficient to survive the jurisdictional attack," Judge Marcus said. "These claims are facially sufficient because they are based on a series of acts of commission (rather than acts of omission) taken by the Kingdom in hiring and vetting Al-Shamrani that rose to the level of gross negligence under Florida law."

A graduate of the Royal Saudi Air Force Academy, Mohammed Saeed Al-Shamrani was stationed at Pensacola Naval Air Station to receive flight training as part of the U.S. Department of Defense's Security Cooperation Education and Training Program.

The shooting attack occurred on Dec. 6, 2019, when Al-Shamrani killed Navy Ensign Joshua Kaleb Watson and Navy petty officers Mohammed Sameh Haitham and Cameron Scott Walters. Several more people were injured before Escambia County, Florida, police shot and killed Al-Shamrani.

Following an investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice determined Al-Shamrani's attack was an act of terrorism.

In February 2021, survivors and victims' families brought a 19-count lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, alleging Al-Shamrani was a member of al-Qaida and that Saudi Arabia helped plan the attack.

The lower court tossed the suit in its entirety in March 2024 after Saudi Arabia brought a motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to establish exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity in their claims. In its ruling, the lower court determined Al-Shamrani acted outside his scope of employment because he was hired to fly airplanes, not engage in a terrorist attack.

After oral arguments in June, Judge Marcus said the lower court must answer whether the plaintiffs' negligent hiring claims can "survive the factual challenges."

In their complaint, the plaintiffs claimed Saudi Arabia knew that Al-Shamrani listed false information about his background in a visa application, including in a questionnaire pertaining to terrorism, espionage and illegal activities.

The lower court ruled that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the exception to foreign sovereign immunity under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act due to "acts of omission by the Saudi government, not acts of commission," but Judge Marcus disagreed.

Saudi Arabia allegedly committed acts of commission because the country nominated and awarded Al-Shamrani a scholarship that allowed him to enter the U.S. and sent his visa application containing false information, even though it represented that Al-Shamrani was thoroughly vetted, according to the opinion.

Judge Marcus explained that these allegations were "affirmative acts ... designed to accomplish an objective" that substantially contributed to and are directly tied to Al-Shamrani's shooting rampage.

In addition, Judge Marcus said the plaintiffs plausibly alleged Saudi Arabia had a duty to properly investigate Al-Shamrani and that the country should have known he was a "ticking time bomb" given his violent statements he posted to social media, which showed he "posed a clear and immediate danger" to U.S. military personnel.

Judge Marcus, however, said plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege foreign sovereign immunity exceptions on claims that Saudi Arabia had an obligation to continuously vet Al-Shamrani once he was in the U.S., that he was not properly supervised by a Saudi country liaison officer and on intentional torts committed by Al-Shamrani.

Stephen I. Vladeck of the Georgetown University Law Center, representing the plaintiffs, told Law360 that the ruling gives a measure of justice for the victims.

"We are very pleased that the Eleventh Circuit unanimously revived our lawsuit against Saudi Arabia, and we're looking forward to securing a long-overdue measure of justice for the victims of the 2019 NAS Pensacola shooting and their families when we go to trial in the district court," Vladeck said.

Counsel for Saudi Arabia declined to comment on Monday.

U.S. Circuit Judges Stanley Marcus, Jill Pryor and Britt C. Grant sat for the Eleventh Circuit panel.

The plaintiffs are represented by Christopher G. Pauls of Paulos Law PA, Jeffrey E. McFadden of the Law Offices of Jeffrey E. McFadden LLC, Matthew S. Mokwa of The Maher Law Firm PA and Stephen I. Vladeck of the Georgetown University Law Center.

Saudi Arabia is represented by Gregory G. Rapawy, Michael K. Kellogg and Andrew C. Shen of Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel & Frederick PLLC.

The case is Watson et al. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, case number 24-11310, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.