Kadic v. Karadzic

Background

S. Kadic and the other plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a) and New York Civil Practice Law and Rules section 5014 to renew a money judgment against Radovan Karadzic. In 2000, the court entered a default judgment on liability for violations of the Alien Tort Claims Act and the Torture Victim Protection Act. After a ten-day trial, a jury awarded $745 million in compensatory and punitive damages for numerous human-rights violations, and the court entered that award as a judgment on August 17, 2000. The plaintiffs said they had been unable to collect any part of the judgment.

Legal standard and arguments

Rule 69(a) provides that state law governs proceedings to enforce a federal judgment when no specific federal law applies. Under New York law, a money judgment is generally enforceable for twenty years and may be renewed under section 5014 if at least ten years have passed since the judgment was first docketed and the judgment creditors make an evidentiary showing that they are entitled to payment and that no part of the judgment has been satisfied.

The court found that the plaintiffs made this initial showing. The judgment was more than ten years old, the plaintiffs were the judgment creditors, Karadzic was the judgment debtor, and Karadzic did not dispute that he had paid nothing toward the judgment.

Karadzic opposed renewal on two grounds. First, he argued that the motion was filed more than twenty years after entry of the judgment and was therefore untimely. Second, he argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. meant that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the original judgment.

Court’s analysis

Judge Preska held that the motion was timely under New York law. Although the judgment’s limitations period ordinarily would have expired on August 16, 2020, a New York executive order issued before that date suspended certain legal deadlines. Later executive orders extended the suspension through November 3, 2020. Because the plaintiffs filed their motion on October 15, 2020, the court concluded that it was timely.

The court also rejected Karadzic’s reliance on Kiobel. That decision held that the Alien Tort Claims Act did not apply to violations of international law occurring within another sovereign’s territory. But the original judgment was also based on the Torture Victim Protection Act, which the court stated has extraterritorial application. The court therefore concluded that Kiobel did not provide a basis to deny renewal.

Ruling and disposition

The court concluded that the plaintiffs established their initial case for renewal and that Karadzic did not rebut it. The motion to renew the judgment was GRANTED. The Clerk was directed to reopen the case, reenter judgment for the plaintiffs in the amounts stated in the August 17, 2000 judgment with statutory interest from that date under 28 U.S.C. § 1961, mail the order and renewed judgment to Karadzic, and close the case.