Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 15, 2022

O'Neill v. The Republic of Iraq

Judge
George Daniels
Docket
1:04-cv-01076
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In O'Neill v. The Republic of Iraq, Judge Netburn granted plaintiffs' motion to add 71 parties against the Taliban and ordered an amended complaint.

Who this affects

The O'Neill Plaintiffs, the 71 parties identified in their appendix, the Taliban, and the parties covered by the prior rulings, orders, and judgments.

What happened

In O'Neill v. The Republic of Iraq, the plaintiffs asked to amend their complaint or, alternatively, add parties to the case. They also requested additional measures to facilitate the amendment or intervention.

The court granted the motion. It ordered that the complaint be amended to include the 71 parties identified in the plaintiffs' appendix as parties in the action against the Taliban. The amendment supplements rather than replaces the existing complaint, and prior rulings, orders, and judgments remain in effect.

Judge Sarah Netburn also ordered that no further service on the Taliban was required because earlier service orders still applied. The plaintiffs had to file the authorized amended complaint by June 22, 2022, and the clerk was directed to terminate the motion and a related motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
O'Neill v. The Republic of Iraq · No. 1:04-cv-01076
Judge
George Daniels
Date
June 15, 2022

Background

The opinion concerns the plaintiffs in O'Neill v. The Republic of Iraq, which was part of multidistrict litigation concerning the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The O'Neill Plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 to amend their complaint. In the alternative, they moved under Rule 21 to add parties. They also sought additional considerations to facilitate the requested amendment or intervention.

Legal standard

Rule 15(a)(2) allows a party to amend a complaint with the court's permission and directs courts to freely grant permission when justice requires. The opinion states that granting leave to amend is the usual practice, subject to reasons such as undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to correct deficiencies, undue prejudice, or futility.

Ruling

The motion was granted. The court ordered the following:

- The underlying complaint in O'Neill, No. 04-cv-1076, was amended to include the 71 parties identified in the O'Neill Plaintiffs' appendix as parties in the action against the Taliban. - The amendment supplements, but does not replace, the underlying complaint. - Prior rulings, orders, and judgments remain in effect as to all parties. - Further service on the Taliban is not required because prior service orders continue to apply, including the orders concerning service by publication. - The O'Neill Plaintiffs must file the amended complaint authorized by the order and attached as an exhibit by June 22, 2022.

The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 8106 and the related motion at ECF No. 630 in the O'Neill case. The order was signed by Sarah Netburn, United States Magistrate Judge.

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.