Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic

Background

This order concerns Ashton and related cases within multidistrict litigation arising from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. After the fall of Afghanistan and the Taliban’s rise, numerous plaintiffs filed motions seeking default judgments against the Taliban. The requested damages included economic, compensatory, and solatium damages; some plaintiffs also sought treble damages under the Antiterrorism Act (ATA).

The Burnett Plaintiffs separately asked the court to provide default judgments to people who had not been added to a complaint against the Taliban. They also requested guidance for personal-injury claims and claims by people alleged to be functionally equivalent to immediate family members of people who died in the attacks. They suggested that a special master might adjudicate those claims.

Default-Judgment Requirements

The court held that the pending motions did not provide enough information to adjudicate them accurately or efficiently. For example, the motions did not consistently identify whether a plaintiff sought damages under the ATA or whether the plaintiff or relevant decedent was a U.S. national. That information mattered because the ATA makes treble damages mandatory when its requirements are met.

The court also found problems identifying the filings that added plaintiffs to the relevant complaints, prior liability or damages determinations, and earlier default judgments. In some matters, plaintiff names differed between earlier awards and the current motions. The court stated that a case-by-case approach was not workable for requests involving several thousand plaintiffs.

The court therefore required future motions for default judgment against non-sovereign defendants to include, for each plaintiff:

- The electronic filing number for the document adding the plaintiff to the complaint against the relevant defendant; - The filing number of any document determining liability between that plaintiff and defendant; - The nationality of the plaintiff and any relevant decedent; - The causes of action for which damages are sought, including whether the ATA is involved; - The calculation of any requested treble damages under the ATA; - The case and filing numbers for any prior damages award supporting the request; - If an earlier default judgment used a different name, the earlier name and a declaration affirming that the parties are the same; and - The case and filing numbers for any prior determination that the plaintiff was functionally equivalent to an immediate family member.

The court also required appropriate case numbers for filings outside the main multidistrict-litigation docket. Proposed orders had to state that the judgment would not bind damages determinations for other defendants and had to identify the motions to be terminated. The motions also had to comply with the court’s other default-judgment safeguards and the district’s local and electronic-filing rules.

The court explained that plaintiffs could seek different types of damages in separate motions. However, any requested trebling had to be included in the motion seeking that type of damages; plaintiffs could not seek the underlying damages in one motion and request trebling in a later motion.

Rulings on the Pending Motions

The court found that none of the motions listed in Table 1 substantially complied with these requirements. It dismissed those motions without prejudice to renewal under the order’s terms. The conclusion identifies the motions in Table 1 as dismissed without prejudice to renew and directs the Clerk to terminate them.

The court denied the Burnett Plaintiffs’ request for default judgments for people who had not been added to a complaint against the Taliban. It found no precedent allowing that request. The court rejected the argument that a prior judgment’s reference to “ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS” could permit unidentified people to obtain awards retroactively. It stated that such a procedure would conflict with basic requirements of federal litigation, including identifying the parties, evaluating jurisdiction, and following class-action procedures.

For personal-injury claims and claims based on functional-equivalent family-member status, the court stated that it already had procedures for particularized default-judgment motions. It found that a special master would not aid the adjudication at that time.

Disposition

Judge Sarah Netburn dismissed the motions listed in Table 1 without prejudice to renewal and allowed them to be refiled in compliance with the order. The order applies to all future motions seeking default judgments against non-sovereign defendants.