Schneider v. Al Qaeda Islamic

Background

This order concerns several cases within multidistrict litigation arising from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. After the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan in August 2021, many plaintiffs filed motions for default judgments against the Taliban. The motions sought economic, compensatory, and solatium damages; some also sought treble damages under the Antiterrorism Act (ATA), which can require three times the actual damages for an eligible claimant.

The order specifically lists motions filed on the multidistrict docket and in related member cases, including a supporting motion in Schneider, et al. v. al Qaeda Islamic Army, No. 02-cv-7209. The court stated that the pending motions generally did not provide enough information to evaluate the claims accurately or process them efficiently, particularly because they involved thousands of plaintiffs.

Rulings on Default-Judgment Motions

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

- The electronic filing number identifying the document that added 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 supporting the requested damages, including whether the claim is under the ATA; - The calculation of any requested treble damages under the ATA; - The case and filing numbers for any prior award used to support the requested damages or liability; - If a prior judgment used a different name, that former name and a declaration confirming 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 proposed orders to state that the judgment would not determine damages against other defendants and to identify the motions being terminated on both the multidistrict and member-case dockets.

The court concluded that none of the motions listed in Table 1 substantially complied with these requirements. It dismissed those motions without prejudice and with leave to refile under the order’s terms. The conclusion states that the Clerk should terminate them and that they may be refiled in compliance with the order.

Extension of Awards to Unnamed or Unadded Parties

The Burnett Plaintiffs asked the court to enter default judgments for plaintiffs who had not been added to a complaint against the Taliban. The court denied that request. It found no precedent allowing people to obtain awards based on a default judgment entered in a case to which they had not been parties.

The court rejected the argument that a prior judgment’s reference to “ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS” created a mechanism for unknown people to join retroactively. It explained that such a practice could create problems with federal jurisdiction, bypass the safeguards governing class actions, and make it difficult to determine who was bound by a judgment.

Personal-Injury and Family-Equivalent Claims

The Burnett Plaintiffs also requested guidance for default-judgment applications involving personal-injury damages or claims by people alleged to be functionally equivalent to immediate family members of people who died on September 11. They suggested appointing a special master to decide those claims.

The court stated that it already had a framework for these motions and that this framework was the proper method for deciding them. It declined to find that appointing a special master would assist with the adjudication at that time.

Disposition

The motions in Table 1 were dismissed without prejudice to renewal. The request to extend awards to people not added to a Taliban complaint was denied. The court also directed that the established framework be used for particularized personal-injury and family-equivalent claims. The order applies to all future motions seeking default judgments against non-sovereign defendants.

The opinion text identifies Sarah Netburn as the United States Magistrate Judge who issued the order. The supplied metadata names George Daniels, which conflicts with the opinion’s text and signature.