Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 1, 2022

Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp.

Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Docket
1:03-cv-09849
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

Burnett v. Al Baraka, Judge Netburn granted the plaintiffs’ request to amend their complaint and add 529 parties in claims against the Taliban.

Who this affects

The Burnett Plaintiffs, the 529 parties added to the action against the Taliban, and the Taliban. Prior rulings, orders, and judgments remain effective as to all parties.

What happened

In Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp., the plaintiffs asked to amend their complaint under a federal rule governing changes to pleadings. They also requested additional measures to help carry out the amendment.

The court found that the proposed claims were not legally futile, would not improperly delay the case or prejudice the Taliban, and were not made in bad faith or for delay. The amendment added the 529 parties listed in the plaintiffs’ exhibit to the action against the Taliban.

Judge Sarah Netburn granted the motion. The amendments supplement rather than replace the existing complaint, earlier rulings and judgments remain effective for all parties, and no additional service on the Taliban is required because prior service orders continue to apply.

The detailed version

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

Case
Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp. · No. 1:03-cv-09849
Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Date
Nov. 1, 2022

Background

The plaintiffs in the related case, identified in the order as the “Burnett Plaintiffs,” moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 to amend their complaint. Rule 15 generally allows a party to change its complaint with the court’s permission, and courts are directed to freely allow amendments when justice requires.

The plaintiffs also requested additional considerations to facilitate the amendment. The order states that the proposed claims were not futile, would not unduly delay the proceedings, would not prejudice the Taliban, and were not filed in bad faith or with a motive to delay.

Ruling

The court granted the motion. It ordered that the underlying complaint in the Burnett action be amended to include the 529 parties identified in the plaintiffs’ exhibit as parties in the action against the Taliban. The amendments supplement, but do not replace, the operative complaint.

The court further ordered that prior rulings, orders, and judgments remain effective as to all parties. It also ruled that the amendments did not require additional service on the Taliban; the prior service orders, including the order allowing service by publication, continue to apply. The Clerk was directed to terminate the amendment motion and a related motion.

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.