Federal Insurance v. Al Qaida
- George Daniels
- 1:03-cv-06978
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Federal Insurance v. Al Qaida: Judge Netburn set briefing rules and page limits for renewed dismissal motions without deciding jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs’ Executive Committees, Ashton counsel, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Dallah Avco, and other parties participating in the specified renewed motions to dismiss were affected by the briefing schedules, page limits, and filing requirements.
What happened
In Federal Insurance Co. v. al Qaida, the court addressed how the parties would brief renewed motions to dismiss involving the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Dallah Avco. The court did not decide whether it had jurisdiction.
The court allowed counsel for the Ashton plaintiffs to file a separate opposition brief from the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committees. It set page limits for opening briefs, oppositions, replies, and later response briefs, and required the parties to state relevant facts in their briefs with citations to separately filed materials.
Judge Sarah Netburn also set limits for briefing on Dallah Avco’s motion and required any evidentiary objections to be listed in charts without legal argument. The order modified the briefing schedule and imposed the stated page limits.
The detailed version
- Federal Insurance v. Al Qaida · No. 1:03-cv-06978
- George Daniels
- Apr. 17, 2023
Background
This order concerns coordinated litigation within the multidistrict proceedings arising from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The court had recently issued a schedule for renewed motions to dismiss by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Dallah Avco. It then asked the Kingdom, Dallah Avco, the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committees (the “PECs”), and counsel for the plaintiffs in Ashton v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to propose page limits and other motion-practice details. The court held a hearing on those issues.
The plaintiffs asserted claims against the Kingdom through two complaints: the Consolidated Amended Complaint and the Ashton Complaint. The PECs represented the interests of all plaintiffs but asserted those interests through the Consolidated Amended Complaint. Ashton counsel represented the families who were parties to the Ashton Complaint. Although the plaintiffs were aligned in seeking to defeat the Kingdom’s renewed motion to dismiss, the PECs and Ashton counsel intended to present separate factual accounts and legal arguments concerning jurisdiction.
Ruling
The court permitted Ashton counsel to file a separate brief from the PECs. For the Kingdom’s motion to dismiss, the court allowed the Kingdom an opening brief of up to 30 pages; the PECs an opposition of up to 45 pages; and Ashton counsel an opposition of up to 35 pages. The Kingdom could file a reply of up to 60 pages and could raise arguments not included in its opening brief. The PECs and Ashton counsel could then file response briefs of up to 15 and 10 pages, respectively.
The court set the following schedule for the Kingdom’s motion: October 6, 2023, for the motion to dismiss; December 8, 2023, for the PECs’ opposition and Ashton counsel’s opposition; January 19, 2024, for the Kingdom’s reply; and February 9, 2024, for the PECs’ and Ashton counsel’s response briefs. The court encouraged the plaintiffs to coordinate to reduce duplicative filings and arguments.
For Dallah Avco’s motion, the court adopted the parties’ joint proposals: an opening brief of up to 40 pages, a PECs opposition of up to 40 pages, and a reply of up to 20 pages. The conclusion lists December 8, 2024, as the deadline for the PECs’ opposition, although an earlier part of the order states December 8, 2023; the opinion does not explain this discrepancy.
Filing requirements and effect
The parties’ briefs had to include all pertinent facts rather than incorporate facts from other documents by reference. Each factual statement had to cite separately filed pleadings, declarations, affidavits, factual statements, or other documents, with specific page or paragraph numbers. The court declined to impose page or paragraph limits on factual statements or declarations but said it would consider only factual statements cited in the briefs.
Each party could also submit, with a separately filed attorney declaration, a chart listing objections to evidence cited or offered by an opposing party in an earlier filing. The charts had to identify the document and applicable docket information and state the objection, such as hearsay, without legal argument. The order modified the briefing schedule and imposed these page and filing requirements; it did not resolve the pending jurisdictional issues or the merits of the claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.