Jane Doe I v. Karadzic
- Laura Swain
- 1:93-cv-00878
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Jane Doe I v. Karadzic, Judge Swain granted the plaintiffs’ motion to renew their 2000 judgment and directed the clerk to reenter it with statutory interest.
The fourteen Jane Doe plaintiffs and ten John Doe plaintiffs who held the 2000 judgment, and Radovan Karadzic, against whom the renewed judgment was entered.
What happened
Jane Doe I v. Karadzic concerns a 2000 judgment for fourteen Jane Doe plaintiffs and ten John Doe plaintiffs based on claims of gross human rights violations committed by forces under Radovan Karadzic’s command and control.
The plaintiffs asked the court to renew that judgment. Karadzic objected that a later Supreme Court decision deprived the court of jurisdiction, but the court explained that the judgment also rested on claims under the Torture Victim Protection Act, which has extraterritorial application.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted the motion to renew the judgment. She directed the clerk to reopen the case, reenter the judgment with statutory interest from October 4, 2000, mail the order and renewed judgment to Karadzic, and close the case.
The detailed version
- Jane Doe I v. Karadzic · No. 1:93-cv-00878
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 2, 2020
Background
On October 4, 2000, the court entered judgment for fourteen Jane Doe plaintiffs and ten John Doe plaintiffs. The judgment awarded the amounts specified in that judgment, plus statutory interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. The claims arose from alleged gross human rights violations committed by forces under defendant Radovan Karadzic’s command and control. The opinion describes Karadzic as the former president of Republika Srpska.
Motion and Objection
The plaintiffs moved to renew the 2000 judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a) and New York Civil Practice Law and Rules section 5014. Karadzic’s opposition raised one objection: relying on Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., he argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the original judgment because the Alien Tort Statute does not apply to violations of international law occurring within another sovereign’s territory.
Ruling
The court overruled that objection. It explained that the original judgment was also based on other claims, including claims under the Torture Victim Protection Act, which the court stated has extraterritorial application. The court found that the plaintiffs had established an initial showing supporting renewal of the judgment and that Karadzic had not rebutted it.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to renew the October 4, 2000, judgment. It directed the Clerk of Court to reopen the case, reenter judgment for the amounts in the original judgment with statutory interest from October 4, 2000, and treat the new judgment as superseding and renewing the prior judgment. The clerk was also directed to mail the order and renewed judgment to Karadzic and close the case. The order resolved Docket Entries 162 and 163.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.