Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp.
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:03-cv-09849
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Burnett v. Al Baraka, Judge Netburn granted plaintiffs’ motion to add four parties asserting claims against the Taliban.
The Burnett Plaintiffs, the four parties added to the action against the Taliban, and the Taliban were directly affected. The order also stated that prior rulings, orders, and judgments remained in effect as to all parties.
What happened
In Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp., the plaintiffs asked to amend their complaint to add plaintiffs who sought to assert claims against the Taliban.
The court considered whether the proposed amendments were futile, would cause undue delay or prejudice, or were made in bad faith or for a delaying purpose. The opinion concluded that none of those problems existed.
Judge Sarah Netburn granted the motion. The complaint was amended to add the four parties identified in the plaintiffs’ exhibit, while supplementing rather than replacing the existing complaint. Earlier rulings, orders, and judgments remained in effect, and no additional service on the Taliban was required.
The detailed version
- Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp. · No. 1:03-cv-09849
- Lewis Kaplan
- Jan. 12, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs in the related case, identified in the opinion as the “Burnett Plaintiffs,” moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 to amend their complaint. They sought to add plaintiffs who would assert claims against the Taliban.
Legal standard
Rule 15(a)(2) allows a party to amend a complaint with the court’s permission and provides that permission should generally be freely given when justice requires. Courts may deny amendment for reasons including undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to correct deficiencies, undue prejudice to the opposing party, or futility. Whether to allow amendment is within the court’s discretion.
Ruling
The court found that the proposed claims were not futile, would not unduly delay the proceedings or prejudice the Taliban, and were not brought in bad faith or for a delaying purpose. Judge Sarah Netburn therefore granted the motion.
The order amended the underlying complaint to add the four parties identified in the plaintiffs’ exhibit as parties in the action against the Taliban. The amendments supplemented, rather than replaced, the existing operative complaint. Prior rulings, orders, and judgments remained effective as to all parties. The court also ruled that the amendments did not require additional service on the Taliban and that prior service orders continued to apply. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion and a related motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.