Havlish v. Bin-Laden
- George Daniels
- 1:03-cv-09848
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Havlish v. Bin-Laden, Judge Netburn lifted two enforcement stays and directed the Clerk to grant the related motions because no party opposed them.
The Havlish plaintiffs, the plaintiffs’ executive committees, and the plaintiffs in the related John Does 1 through 7 proceeding were affected because the stays on enforcement of writs were lifted.
What happened
Havlish v. Bin-Laden concerned stays that had prevented enforcement of writs in two related proceedings: the Havlish case and John Does 1 through 7 v. The Taliban. The Havlish plaintiffs and the plaintiffs’ executive committees reported that they did not oppose lifting the stays.
The court lifted both stays. It directed the Clerk to grant the motions identified as ECF No. 7664 in the multidistrict case and ECF No. 564 in the Havlish case.
Judge Sarah Netburn issued the order on March 2, 2022. The court also lifted the stay in the John Does proceeding on its own because a filing problem apparently prevented the motion from becoming active, and no one opposed lifting that stay.
The detailed version
- Havlish v. Bin-Laden · No. 1:03-cv-09848
- George Daniels
- Mar. 2, 2022
Background
The order was entered in multidistrict litigation concerning the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. It related to two proceedings: Havlish, et al. v. Bin Laden, et al., No. 03-cv-9848, and John Does 1 through 7 v. The Taliban et al., No. 20-mc-740.
The Havlish plaintiffs and the plaintiffs’ executive committees reported that they had no objections to lifting the stays on enforcement of writs in both proceedings. A stay is a court-ordered pause. The order states that there was no opposition to lifting either stay.
Ruling
Judge Sarah Netburn ordered that both stays be lifted. She directed the Clerk of Court to grant the motions listed as ECF No. 7664 in the multidistrict case and ECF No. 564 in the Havlish case.
The order adds that, because of technical filing issues, the motion to lift the stay in the John Does proceeding was not active. Because no one opposed lifting it, the court lifted that stay on its own. The order addressed the stays and related motions; it did not decide the underlying claims concerning the September 11 attacks.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.