Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 21, 2022

In re Approximately $3.5 Billion of Assets on Deposit at the Federal Reserve…

Full caption

In re Approximately $3.5 Billion of Assets on Deposit at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in the Name of Da Afghanistan Bank

Judge
George Daniels
Docket
1:22-cv-03228
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePreliminary Injunction
In one sentence

In re Approximately $3.5 Billion, Judge Daniels denied the Wodensheck Plaintiffs’ request to pause proceedings involving Da Afghanistan Bank assets.

Who this affects

The Wodensheck Plaintiffs and the parties involved in the existing September 11 multidistrict litigation, including those affected by proceedings concerning the Da Afghanistan Bank assets.

What happened

In In re Approximately $3.5 Billion of Assets on Deposit at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in the Name of Da Afghanistan Bank, certain plaintiffs in the September 11 multidistrict litigation filed a separate class action concerning assets held in the name of Da Afghanistan Bank. They sought to represent people with claims against the Taliban and to distribute those assets.

The court said claims arising from the multidistrict litigation, including issues concerning distribution of the assets, should be addressed in the existing proceedings. The plaintiffs also asked for a temporary restraining order blocking judgment-enforcement proceedings involving the assets, but the court found that they did not come close to meeting the required burden.

Judge George B. Daniels denied the request for a temporary restraining order. The court also scheduled a conference to discuss how to address the outstanding issues.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
In re Approximately $3.5 Billion of Assets on Deposit at the Federal Reserve… · No. 1:22-cv-03228
Judge
George Daniels
Date
Apr. 21, 2022

Background

Certain plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation concerning the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001—the Estate of Christopher Wodenshek, Anne Wodenshek, Sarah Wodenshek, Haley Wodenshek, Mollie Wodenshek, William Wodenshek, and Zachary Wodenshek—were members of an existing multidistrict-litigation case. They filed a separate class action involving approximately $3.5 billion deposited at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in the name of Da Afghanistan Bank.

In the separate action, the Wodensheck Plaintiffs sought certification of a class consisting of people or estates with compensatory-damages claims against the Taliban filed in a United States court by April 20, 2022. They also sought an injunction blocking judgment-enforcement proceedings affecting the Da Afghanistan Bank assets and requested equitable distribution of those assets. The opinion states that the assets were at issue in turnover proceedings in the multidistrict litigation.

Court’s reasoning

Judge Daniels stated that filing the separate complaint, while the plaintiffs had pending proceedings in the multidistrict litigation, was inappropriate. He stated that claims arising from the multidistrict litigation and arguably related to distribution of the assets should be heard in the pending turnover proceedings within that litigation.

For the requested temporary restraining order—a short-term court order intended to prevent specified conduct—the court applied a standard requiring the plaintiffs to show irreparable harm without the order and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions for litigation combined with a decisive balance of hardships in their favor. The court found that the Wodensheck Plaintiffs failed to come close to meeting that burden.

Disposition

The request for a temporary restraining order was DENIED. The court also scheduled a conference for April 26, 2022, to inform interested parties about the process for addressing the outstanding issues. The opinion does not state that the separate class action was dismissed.

Classification

This is a procedural order because it resolves an ancillary request for emergency injunctive relief without deciding the underlying claims concerning the assets or the proposed class.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.