Schneider, et al v. Al Qaeda Islamic, et al

Filing 81

ORDER terminating (951) Motion for Judgment; terminating (958) Motion for Default Judgment; terminating (962) Motion for Default Judgment in case 1:03-cv-09849-GBD-SN; terminating (7489) Motion for Default Judgment; terminating (7516) Motion fo r Default Judgment; terminating (7594) Motion for Default Judgment; terminating (7634) Motion for Judgment; terminating (7652) Motion re: (951 in 1:03-cv-09849-GBD-SN, 7805 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 615 in 1:04-cv-01076-GBD-SN, 381 in 1:11-cv-07 550-GBD-SN, 1622 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-SN, 76 in 1:02-cv-07209-GBD-SN, 197 in 1:02-cv-07230-GBD-SN, 143 in 1:02-cv-07236-GBD, 85 in 1:20-cv-00266-GBD-SN, 39 in 1:20-cv-10366-GBD-SN) MOTION for Judgment against Taliban and Muhammed Omar, (958 in 1:03-cv-09849-GBD-SN, 7843 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN) MOTION for Default Judgment as to the Taliban for Burnett Plaintiffs with Liability Defaults and Final Judgments Against Iran Defendants, (962 in 1:03-cv-09849-GBD-SN, 7847 in 1:03-md-0 1570-GBD-SN) MOTION for Default Judgment as to the Taliban for Certain Burnett Plaintiffs, (7489 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 1576 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-SN) MOTION for Default Judgment as to Ashton Plaintiffs Against the Taliban and Muhamm ad Omar, (7516 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 1581 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-SN, 132 in 1:02-cv-07236-GBD) MOTION for Default Judgment as to Bauer Plaintiffs Against the Taliban and Muhammad Omar, (7594 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 1588 in 1:02-cv-069 77-GBD-SN, 182 in 1:02-cv-07230-GBD-SN) MOTION for Default Judgment as to Burlingame Plaintiffs Against the Taliban and Muhammad Omar, (7634 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 1597 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-SN, 187 in 1:02-cv-07230-GBD-SN) MOTION for Judgment Burlingame II Plaintiffs Against the Taliban and Muhammad Omar, (7652 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 604 in 1:04-cv-01076-GBD-SN) MOTION Partial Final Judgment for Damages, (7756 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 1616 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-S N, 194 in 1:02-cv-07230-GBD-SN, 80 in 1:20-cv-00266-GBD-SN) MOTION for Entry of Default as to Kristen Breitweiser, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ronald Breitweiser, Deceased, Kristen Breitweiser, and Caroline Breitweiser The Breitw eiser Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Final Default, (7758 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 1618 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-SN, 139 in 1:02-cv-07236-GBD, 82 in 1:20-cv-00266-GBD-SN) MOTION for Entry of Default as to Patricia Ryan, as Personal Representat ive of the Estate of John J. Ryan, Deceased, Patricia Ryan, Kristen Ryan, Laura Ryan, Colin Ryan, Katherine Maher, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Daniel L. Maher, D, (8181 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 646 in 1:04-cv-01076-GBD-SN) MOTION Partial Final Judgment Against the Taliban. ; terminating (7756) Motion for Entry of Default; terminating (7758) Motion for Entry of Default; terminating (7805) Motion for Judgment; terminating (7843) Motion for Default Judgment; terminati ng (7847) Motion for Default Judgment; terminating (8181) Motion re: (951 in 1:03-cv-09849-GBD-SN, 7805 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 615 in 1:04-cv-01076-GBD-SN, 381 in 1:11-cv-07550-GBD-SN, 1622 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-SN, 76 in 1:02-cv-07209-GBD-SN, 197 in 1:02-cv-07230-GBD-SN, 143 in 1:02-cv-07236-GBD, 85 in 1:20-cv-00266-GBD-SN, 39 in 1:20-cv-10366-GBD-SN) MOTION for Judgment against Taliban and Muhammed Omar, (958 in 1:03-cv-09849-GBD-SN, 7843 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN) MOTION for Default Judgment as to the Taliban for Burnett Plaintiffs with Liability Defaults and Final Judgments Against Iran Defendants, (962 in 1:03-cv-09849-GBD-SN, 7847 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN) MOTION for Default Judgment as to the Taliban for C ertain Burnett Plaintiffs, (7489 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 1576 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-SN) MOTION for Default Judgment as to Ashton Plaintiffs Against the Taliban and Muhammad Omar, (7516 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 1581 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD- SN, 132 in 1:02-cv-07236-GBD) MOTION for Default Judgment as to Bauer Plaintiffs Against the Taliban and Muhammad Omar, (7594 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 1588 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-SN, 182 in 1:02-cv-07230-GBD-SN) MOTION for Default Judgme nt as to Burlingame Plaintiffs Against the Taliban and Muhammad Omar, (7634 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 1597 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-SN, 187 in 1:02-cv-07230-GBD-SN) MOTION for Judgment Burlingame II Plaintiffs Against the Taliban and Muhammad Om ar, (7652 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 604 in 1:04-cv-01076-GBD-SN) MOTION Partial Final Judgment for Damages, (7756 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 1616 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-SN, 194 in 1:02-cv-07230-GBD-SN, 80 in 1:20-cv-00266-GBD-SN) MOTION for Entry of Default as to Kristen Breitweiser, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ronald Breitweiser, Deceased, Kristen Breitweiser, and Caroline Breitweiser The Breitweiser Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Final Default, (7758 in 1:03 -md-01570-GBD-SN, 1618 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-SN, 139 in 1:02-cv-07236-GBD, 82 in 1:20-cv-00266-GBD-SN) MOTION for Entry of Default as to Patricia Ryan, as Personal Representative of the Estate of John J. Ryan, Deceased, Patricia Ryan, Kristen Rya n, Laura Ryan, Colin Ryan, Katherine Maher, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Daniel L. Maher, D, (8181 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 646 in 1:04-cv-01076-GBD-SN) MOTION Partial Final Judgment Against the Taliban. in case 1:03-md-0157 0-GBD-SN; terminating (604) Motion re: (951 in 1:03-cv-09849-GBD-SN, 7805 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 615 in 1:04-cv-01076-GBD-SN, 381 in 1:11-cv-07550-GBD-SN, 1622 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-SN, 76 in 1:02-cv-07209-GBD-SN, 197 in 1:02-cv-07230-GBD-SN, 14 3 in 1:02-cv-07236-GBD, 85 in 1:20-cv-00266-GBD-SN, 39 in 1:20-cv-10366-GBD-SN) MOTION for Judgment against Taliban and Muhammed Omar, (958 in 1:03-cv-09849-GBD-SN, 7843 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN) MOTION for Default Judgment as to the Ta liban for Burnett Plaintiffs with Liability Defaults and Final Judgments Against Iran Defendants, (962 in 1:03-cv-09849-GBD-SN, 7847 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN) MOTION for Default Judgment as to the Taliban for Certain Burnett Plaintiffs, (7489 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 1576 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-SN) MOTION for Default Judgment as to Ashton Plaintiffs Against the Taliban and Muhammad Omar, (7516 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 1581 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-SN, 132 in 1:02-cv-07236-GBD) MOTION for Default Judgment as to Bauer Plaintiffs Against the Taliban and Muhammad Omar, (7594 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 1588 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-SN, 182 in 1:02-cv-07230-GBD-SN) MOTION for Default Judgment as to Burlingame Plaintiffs Against the Taliban and Muhammad Omar, (7634 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 1597 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-SN, 187 in 1:02-cv-07230-GBD-SN) MOTION for Judgment Burlingame II Plaintiffs Against the Taliban and Muhammad Omar, (7652 in 1:03-md-01570-G BD-SN, 604 in 1:04-cv-01076-GBD-SN) MOTION Partial Final Judgment for Damages, (7756 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 1616 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-SN, 194 in 1:02-cv-07230-GBD-SN, 80 in 1:20-cv-00266-GBD-SN) MOTION for Entry of Default as to Kri sten Breitweiser, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ronald Breitweiser, Deceased, Kristen Breitweiser, and Caroline Breitweiser The Breitweiser Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Final Default, (7758 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 1618 in 1:02- cv-06977-GBD-SN, 139 in 1:02-cv-07236-GBD, 82 in 1:20-cv-00266-GBD-SN) MOTION for Entry of Default as to Patricia Ryan, as Personal Representative of the Estate of John J. Ryan, Deceased, Patricia Ryan, Kristen Ryan, Laura Ryan, Colin Ryan, Kath erine Maher, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Daniel L. Maher, D, (8181 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 646 in 1:04-cv-01076-GBD-SN) MOTION Partial Final Judgment Against the Taliban. ; terminating (615) Motion for Judgment; terminati ng (646) Motion re: (951 in 1:03-cv-09849-GBD-SN, 7805 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 615 in 1:04-cv-01076-GBD-SN, 381 in 1:11-cv-07550-GBD-SN, 1622 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-SN, 76 in 1:02-cv-07209-GBD-SN, 197 in 1:02-cv-07230-GBD-SN, 143 in 1:02-cv-07236- GBD, 85 in 1:20-cv-00266-GBD-SN, 39 in 1:20-cv-10366-GBD-SN) MOTION for Judgment against Taliban and Muhammed Omar, (958 in 1:03-cv-09849-GBD-SN, 7843 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN) MOTION for Default Judgment as to the Taliban for Burnett P laintiffs with Liability Defaults and Final Judgments Against Iran Defendants, (962 in 1:03-cv-09849-GBD-SN, 7847 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN) MOTION for Default Judgment as to the Taliban for Certain Burnett Plaintiffs, (7489 in 1:03-md-01 570-GBD-SN, 1576 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-SN) MOTION for Default Judgment as to Ashton Plaintiffs Against the Taliban and Muhammad Omar, (7516 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 1581 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-SN, 132 in 1:02-cv-07236-GBD) MOTION for Defa ult Judgment as to Bauer Plaintiffs Against the Taliban and Muhammad Omar, (7594 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 1588 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-SN, 182 in 1:02-cv-07230-GBD-SN) MOTION for Default Judgment as to Burlingame Plaintiffs Against the Taliba n and Muhammad Omar, (7634 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 1597 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-SN, 187 in 1:02-cv-07230-GBD-SN) MOTION for Judgment Burlingame II Plaintiffs Against the Taliban and Muhammad Omar, (7652 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 604 in 1:04 -cv-01076-GBD-SN) MOTION Partial Final Judgment for Damages, (7756 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 1616 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-SN, 194 in 1:02-cv-07230-GBD-SN, 80 in 1:20-cv-00266-GBD-SN) MOTION for Entry of Default as to Kristen Breitweiser, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ronald Breitweiser, Deceased, Kristen Breitweiser, and Caroline Breitweiser The Breitweiser Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Final Default, (7758 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 1618 in 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-SN, 1 39 in 1:02-cv-07236-GBD, 82 in 1:20-cv-00266-GBD-SN) MOTION for Entry of Default as to Patricia Ryan, as Personal Representative of the Estate of John J. Ryan, Deceased, Patricia Ryan, Kristen Ryan, Laura Ryan, Colin Ryan, Katherine Maher, as Pe rsonal Representative of the Estate of Daniel L. Maher, D, (8181 in 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, 646 in 1:04-cv-01076-GBD-SN) MOTION Partial Final Judgment Against the Taliban. in case 1:04-cv-01076-GBD-SN; terminating (381) Motion for Judgment in case 1:11-cv-07550-GBD-SN; terminating (1576) Motion for Default Judgment; terminating (1581) Motion for Default Judgment; terminating (1588) Motion for Default Judgment; terminating (1597) Motion for Judgment; terminating (1616) Motion for E ntry of Default; terminating (1618) Motion for Entry of Default; terminating (1622) Motion for Judgment in case 1:02-cv-06977-GBD-SN; terminating (76) Motion for Judgment in case 1:02-cv-07209-GBD-SN; terminating (182) Motion for Default Judgment ; terminating (187) Motion for Judgment; terminating (194) Motion for Entry of Default; terminating (197) Motion for Judgment in case 1:02-cv-07230-GBD-SN; terminating (132) Motion for Default Judgment; terminating (139) Motion for Entry of Defa ult; terminating (143) Motion for Judgment in case 1:02-cv-07236-GBD; terminating (80) Motion for Entry of Default; terminating (82) Motion for Entry of Default; terminating (85) Motion for Judgment in case 1:20-cv-00266-GBD-SN; terminating (39) Motion for Judgment in case 1:20-cv-10366-GBD-SN. The motions in Table 1 are dismissed without prejudice to renew. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate them. These motions may be refiled in compliance with this order. This order applies to all future motions seeking default judgments against non-sovereign defendants. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 7/11/2022) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN, et al. (ras)

Case 1:02-cv-07209-GBD-SN Document 81-1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
In re:

7/11/2022

03-MD-01570 (GBD)(SN)
TERRORIST ATTACKS ON
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

ORDER

-----------------------------------------------------------------X
SARAH NETBURN, United States Magistrate Judge:
This document relates to:
Ashton, et al., v. al Qaeda Islamic Army, et al., No. 02-cv-6977
Schneider, et al., v. al Qaeda Islamic Army, et al., No. 02-cv-7209
Bauer, et al., v. al Qaeda Islamic Army, et al., No. 02-cv-7236
Burlingame, et al., v. Bin Laden, et al., No. 02-cv-7230
Burnett, et al., v. Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp., et al., No. 03-cv-9849
Estate of John P. O’Neil, Sr., et al., v. the Republic of Iraq, et al., No. 04-cv-1076
Hoglan, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al., No. 11-cv-07550
Ryan, et al., v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., No. 20-cv-0266
Hamilton, et al., v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 20-cv-10366
The fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban prompted numerous motions for default judgments
against this terror group. Default judgments have already been issued against the Islamic
Republic of Iran, and many of these new defaults follow the form of those motions. The Court’s
review, however, demonstrates that this format is not viable for a non-sovereign defendant like
the Taliban. Additionally, the format of these motions, particularly when applied to thousands of
plaintiffs, makes it impossible for the Court to adjudicate these motions efficiently. Accordingly,
the pending default judgment motions against the Taliban are denied with leave to refile
according to this Order’s requirements.
The plaintiffs in Burnett, et al. v. Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp., et al., No. 03-cv-9849,
(the “Burnett Plaintiffs”) also request guidance on obtaining default for plaintiffs who are not a

Case 1:02-cv-07209-GBD-SN Document 81-1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 2 of 8

party to an action against the Taliban or whose motion requires a case-by-case adjudication. The
Court also addresses these issues. ECF No. 7847.
BACKGROUND
The Court assumes familiarity with the general background of this multidistrict litigation
(“MDL”). It addresses only the facts germane to this order. These default judgments came about
because of the collapse of Afghanistan and concomitant rise of the Taliban. In August 2021, the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Afghanistan’s former government, fell after a sustained
Taliban assault. Very shortly after, plaintiffs in the Havlish member case, who had a default
judgment against the Taliban, obtained a writ of execution. This writ targets assets held by Da
Afghanistan Bank, the Afghan central bank. On the heels of that writ, a large number of
plaintiffs moved for similar default judgments against the Taliban. ECF Nos. 7489, 7516, 7594,
7634, 7652, 7756, 7758, 7805, 7843, 7847. These defaults seek economic, compensatory, and
solatium damages. Some also seek treble damages under the Antiterrorism Act (“ATA”).
The Burnett Plaintiffs make two further requests. First, they ask the Court to extend
liability and damages determinations to entities that are not presently included in actions against
the Taliban. Second, they request guidance on applying for default judgments for plaintiffs with
personal injury claims against the Taliban, and claims based on a plaintiff being functionally
equivalent to the immediate family of a person who died in the September 11 terrorist attacks.
DISCUSSION
I.

Default Judgment Format For Non-Sovereign Defendants
The default judgment motions made by the plaintiffs do not provide the Court with
sufficient information to adjudicate these motions accurately or efficiently. The parties seek
damages against the Taliban on a variety of theories of liability including the ATA. Under this
statute“[a]ny national of the United States injured in his or her person, property . . . shall recover
2

Case 1:02-cv-07209-GBD-SN Document 81-1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 3 of 8

threefold the damages he or she sustains and the cost of the suit, including attorney’s fees.” 18
U.S.C. § 2333(a). “Shall” indicates awarding treble damages is mandatory if liability is
established. United States v. Kahn, 5 F.4th 167, 174 (2d Cir. 2021) (“The word ‘shall,’ in a
statute, indicates a command; what follows the word ‘shall’ is ‘mandatory, not precatory.’”)
(quoting Mach Mining, LLC v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 575 U.S. 480, 486
(2015)).
In several of the pending requests, the plaintiffs’ complaint includes a cause of action
under the ATA. See, e.g., ECF No. 1463 at ¶¶ 476–79. Judgments, however, are sought on behalf
of both parties who are eligible for the ATA’s mandatory treble damages award and parties who
are not be eligible because neither they nor any relevant decedent is a U.S. national. Thus, to
accurately assess when the ATA’s mandatory treble damages provision applies to a plaintiff, the
Court needs to know whether a party seeks damages under the ATA, and if so, the U.S. national
status of the party and any relevant decedent. The existing motions do not consistently provide
this information.
Additionally, these motions do not contain sufficient information for the Court to
adjudicate these motions efficiently. Several motions seek damages based on a prior award
against Iran. Supporting materials, however, frequently do not indicate where the document
reflecting that award is on ECF. In several cases, a party’s name is listed differently on that
original award and the one now sought. It is also unclear from the parties’ papers if a plaintiff
was added to a complaint against the Taliban and if so, where and when they were added. The
Court has addressed issues such as these in default actions against Iran with case-by-case orders.
Even with the aid of a special master, this one-off approach is not viable where defaults are being
sought for several thousand plaintiffs simultaneously.

3

Case 1:02-cv-07209-GBD-SN Document 81-1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 4 of 8

Given these issues, all future motions for default against non-sovereign defendants shall
comply with the requirements in this section. Motions for default judgments against nonsovereign defendants must include the following information as part of the supporting exhibits
for each plaintiff for whom a judgment is sought:
x

The ECF number of the document adding the plaintiff to the complaint against the
relevant defendant. It is not sufficient that a plaintiff was added to an action against a
different defendant;1

x

The ECF number of the document (if any) determining liability between that plaintiff and
defendant;

x

The nationality of the plaintiff and any decedent relevant to the adjudication of liability
and damages;

x

The cause of action or causes of action for which the plaintiffs seek damages, including
whether damages are sought under the ATA. If damages for multiple causes of action are
identical, only the causes of action relevant to the sum of damages sought must be listed;

x

If damages are sought under the ATA, the calculation of trebled damages;

x

If damages are sought based in part on a prior award of damages (e.g., personal injury or
economic damages), the case and ECF numbers of that award;

x

If damages or liability are sought in part based on a prior entry of default judgment, and
the plaintiff’s name differs, the name under which judgment was previously entered as
well as an affirmation in the supporting declaration that all such parties are the same;2
and

x

If damages are sought based in part on a prior determination that the plaintiff is
functionally equivalent to an immediate family member, the case and ECF numbers of
that determination.

1

Several short form complaints and notices of amendment authorized by the Court note that the
complaint or amendment relates solely to a specific defendant and does not apply to any other defendant.
See, e.g., ECF No. 5234 at 7, 26, 31.

2

This requirement may be relevant when a default judgment was obtained for a minor child, referred to
only by their initials, who now moves under their full name. Another example is when the plaintiff’s
name has changed in the intervening years.

4

Case 1:02-cv-07209-GBD-SN Document 81-1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 5 of 8

For all ECF citations, if the document is not contained on the main MDL docket, 03-md1570, then it should also include the case number.
Proposed orders granting default judgment must indicate that it is not binding on the
determination of damages for defendants besides the one against whom default judgment is
being sought. See, e.g., ECF No. 2582 at 3. It must also identify which motions should be
terminated by the Court’s order. This includes the motions on both the MDL docket and on the
docket for the supporting member cases.
All requests for default judgments must also comply with the other safeguards for default
judgments ordered by this Court and the requirements for default judgments in this District’s
Local Rules and Electronic Case Filing rules.
Finally, the Court has, and will continue to permit parties to seek different types of
damages iteratively (e.g., seeking solatium damages in one motion and economic damages in
another). For each type of damage sought, however, any trebling must be sought as part of the
default judgment motion seeking that type of damage. For example, if a party seeks solatium
damages as part of an ATA claim, those damages must be trebled. A party may not seek solatium
damages in one partial default judgment motion and then seek to treble them as part of a separate
default judgment motion. They may, consistent with prior practice, seek treble solatium damages
as part of default judgment request and then a separate type of treble damages such as economic
damages as part of a separate request.

5

Case 1:02-cv-07209-GBD-SN Document 81-1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 6 of 8

None of the present motions for default judgment, collected in Table 1, substantially
complies with these requirements. Accordingly, they are dismissed without prejudice and with
leave to refile under the terms of this order.
Table 1: Motions to Be Dismissed Without Prejudice to Renew
MDL Motion (ECF No. )
7489
7516

Supporting Motions (ECF No.)
Ashton, No. 02-cv-6977, 1576
Ashton, No. 02-cv-6977, 1581
Bauer, No. 02-cv-7236, 132

7594

Ashton, No. 02-cv-6977, 1588
Burlingame, No. 02-cv-7230, 182
Ashton, No. 02-cv-6977, 1597
Burlingame, No. 02-cv-7230, 187

7634
7652

O’Neil, No. 04-cv-1076, 604

7756

7843

Ashton, No. 02-cv-6977, 1616
Burlingame, No. 02-cv-7230, 194
Ryan, No. 20-cv-0266, 80
Ashton, No. 02-cv-6977, 1618
Bauer, No. 02-cv-7236, 139
Ryan, No. 20-cv-0266, 82
Schneider, No. 02-cv-7209, 76
Hamilton, No. 20-cv-10366, 39, 40
Hoglan, No. 11-cv-07550, 381, 382
Burnett, No. 03-cv-9849, 958

7847
8181

Burnett, No. 03-cv-9849, 962
O’Neil, No. 04-cv-1076, 646

7758

78053

II.

Extension of Awards to Non-Appearing Parties
The Burnett Plaintiffs request default judgments for plaintiffs who have not been added
to a complaint against the Taliban. The Court has identified no precedent that would permit this
request. It is therefore denied.

3

It appears that this motion was filed in error in several unrelated cases. See, e.g., Hamilton, et al. v.
Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 20-cv-10366, ECF Nos. 39, 40.

6

Case 1:02-cv-07209-GBD-SN Document 81-1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 7 of 8

The Burnett Plaintiffs’ argument relies on the default judgment granted to them against
the Taliban. ECF No. 1756. This granted a judgment for several thousand named parties.4 It also
included an entry for “ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS #1 THRU 5,000 (AP200 thru AP5,200)”
(“ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS”).5 They do not argue that “ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS”
refers to actual parties who proceeded under a pseudonym or who were not named but whose
interests were represented by a named party. See ECF No. 7848 at 13. Rather, they argue that
this language allows parties with comparable claims against the Taliban to retroactively obtain
awards based on the entry of a default that they were not named in. In effect, they argue that
“ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS” has covertly converted Burnett into a class action.
The Burnett Plaintiffs have identified no precedent suggesting that one may initiate a
lawsuit with a placeholder for an unknown and unidentified set of plaintiffs, obtain a default
judgment for them, then retroactively adopt suitable litigants. Approving this would contradict
foundational concepts of federal civil litigation. If permitted, it would make assessing subject
matter jurisdiction in diversity cases impossible because the litigants and their citizenship are
unknown. It would undercut Rule 23’s class action procedures by allowing actions by a broad
mass of unknown parties who could proceed without that Rule’s safeguards. It would make the
application of res judicata unworkable if parties to a judgment are determined retroactively.

4

The supporting exhibit for that judgment is not on ECF. ECF No. 1756. The Burnett Plaintiffs report
that the judgment was for 5,513 named plaintiffs. ECF No. 7848 at 5 n.6.
5

This exhibit is not on ECF. It appears in the amended complaint in that matter, which was filed in the
District Court for the District of Columbia. Burnett, et al. v. Al Barak Inv. & Dev. Corp., et al., No. 02cv-1616 (Aug. 15, 2002), ECF No. 29 at 189. Nothing in that complaint clarifies the meaning of
“ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS #1 THRU 5,000 (AP200 thru AP5,200).”

7

Case 1:02-cv-07209-GBD-SN Document 81-1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 8 of 8

The Court recognizes that many plaintiffs wish to participate in this action. It will
entertain reasonable proposals to facilitate this. These proposals, however, must conform to the
basic requirements of civil litigation.
III.

Applications for Personal Injury and Functional Equivalent Family Members
The Burnett Plaintiffs also request guidance on applying for default judgments for
plaintiffs whose award require particularized consideration. These are primarily plaintiffs
seeking damages for personal injuries sustained on September 11 or on the basis that they are
functionally equivalent to an immediate family member who died. ECF No. 7848 at 10–13. The
Burnett Plaintiffs suggest that it may be appropriate to appoint a special master to adjudicate
these claims. Id. at 12.
The Court has a framework for motions seeking damages for personal injuries or based
on the functional equivalent status of the claimant. See, e.g., ECF No. 7323 (personal injury
defaults), 5483 (functional equivalents). This is the proper mechanism for adjudicating these
claims and the Court does not find that a special master will aid in this adjudication at this time.
CONCLUSION
The motions in Table 1 are dismissed without prejudice to renew. The Clerk of the Court
is respectfully directed to terminate them. These motions may be refiled in compliance with this
order. This order applies to all future motions seeking default judgments against non-sovereign
defendants.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2022
New York, New York

8