Smith v. The Islamic Emirate, et al.
- George Daniels
- 1:01-cv-10132
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Smith v. The Islamic Emirate, Judge Daniels directed the clerk to close plaintiffs’ motion after the Second Circuit affirmed the turnover ruling.
Anthony Smith and Katherine Soulas, who sought to renew and extend a judgment against the Taliban, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, and the Al Queda/Islamic Army.
What happened
In Smith v. The Islamic Emirate, Anthony Smith and Katherine Soulas asked the court to renew and extend a 2003 judgment against the Taliban, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, and the Al Queda/Islamic Army.
The plaintiffs had obtained a court order allowing enforcement of the judgment and had filed a motion seeking turnover of property. They asked the court to maintain the existing situation while their appeal was pending.
The Second Circuit later affirmed the order denying the plaintiffs’ turnover motion and issued its judgment. Because the appeal was no longer pending, Judge George B. Daniels directed the clerk to close the plaintiffs’ open motion.
The detailed version
- Smith v. The Islamic Emirate, et al. · No. 1:01-cv-10132
- George Daniels
- Sept. 30, 2025
Background
Anthony Smith and Katherine Soulas asked the court to renew and extend its July 13, 2003 judgment against the Taliban, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, and the Al Queda/Islamic Army. Based on that judgment, the plaintiffs obtained a writ of execution and filed a turnover motion. A turnover motion seeks enforcement of a judgment by requiring property or assets to be transferred.
The plaintiffs’ motion asked the court to maintain the existing situation while an appeal was pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Court’s Action
On August 26, 2025, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying the plaintiffs’ turnover motion and filed the related judgment in this case. Because the case was no longer pending on appeal, Judge George B. Daniels directed the Clerk of Court to close the open motion at ECF No. 8963.
The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied the motion to renew and extend the judgment. It closes the motion because the related appeal was no longer pending.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it addresses the status of a motion after an appeal and does not decide the underlying legal merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.
Related cases
- DoorDashv. City of
- Martinezv. Joyce
- Zero Point Management, by and through Trustee Malcolm Blair Boyce v. Chase…Dec 2025
- Zero Point Management, by and through Trustee Malcolm Blair Boyce v. Chase…Nov 2025
- Solax Energia Altiplano S.A. DE. C.V. and Solax Energy LLC v. Ithuba Credit…Oct 2025
- Gittensv. Department of