Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 9, 2023

King v. Habib Bank Limited

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:20-cv-04322
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In King v. Habib Bank Limited, Judge Schofield ordered plaintiffs to respond by August 25, 2023, to Habib Bank’s reconsideration motion.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs in the three listed actions and Habib Bank Limited. The order requires the plaintiffs to respond to Habib Bank’s motion for reconsideration by August 25, 2023.

What happened

The document lists three actions brought by plaintiffs against Habib Bank Limited. Habib Bank asked the court to reconsider an earlier order that declined to dismiss the plaintiffs’ secondary-liability claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act.

Habib Bank based its request on two decisions, Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh and Freeman v. HSBC Holdings PLC. It asked the court to dismiss those claims under the rule governing failure to state a claim and to specify that the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield did not decide the reconsideration motion in this order. She ordered the plaintiffs to file a response by August 25, 2023, and marked the order August 9, 2023.

The detailed version

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

Case
King v. Habib Bank Limited · No. 1:20-cv-04322
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Aug. 9, 2023

Background

The document’s caption lists three actions against Habib Bank Limited: Kevin King and others in Case No. 1:20-cv-04322-LGS-OTW; Kathleen L. Alexander and others in Case No. 1:21-cv-02351-LGS-OTW; and Mary Border and others in Case No. 1:21-cv-06044-LGS-OTW.

The Motion

Habib Bank moved for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7(b) and 54(b), and Local Civil Rule 7.1. It asked Judge Schofield to reconsider the court’s September 28, 2022 opinion and order to the extent that order declined to dismiss secondary-liability claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2333(d)(2). Habib Bank relied on the decisions in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh and Freeman v. HSBC Holdings PLC, which it described as intervening and controlling decisions.

Habib Bank also requested that the court modify the September 2022 order to dismiss the secondary-liability claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the rule addressing whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The motion asked for dismissal with prejudice, meaning the claims could not be brought again, but the document does not say that the court granted that request.

Order

Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered the plaintiffs to file a response to Habib Bank’s motion for reconsideration by August 25, 2023. The August 9 order sets a briefing deadline and does not state a decision on the 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.