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 the plaintiffs’ request to add 13 parties seeking claims against the Taliban.
The Burnett plaintiffs, the 13 parties added to the action against the Taliban, the Taliban, and the parties affected by the existing rulings and service orders.
What happened
In Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp., the existing plaintiffs asked to amend their complaint to add people who wanted to bring claims against the Taliban.
The court granted the request. It added the 13 people identified in the plaintiffs’ filing, said the changes supplemented rather than replaced the existing complaint, kept earlier rulings and judgments in effect, and found that no additional service on the Taliban was required.
Judge Sarah Netburn issued the order and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the amendment motion and a related motion.
The detailed version
- Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp. · No. 1:03-cv-09849
- Lewis Kaplan
- Jan. 23, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs in Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp. moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 to amend their complaint. They sought to add plaintiffs who intended to assert claims against the Taliban.
Reasoning
The court explained that Rule 15 generally allows a complaint to be amended with the court’s permission and directs courts to allow amendments when justice requires. It found that the proposed claims were not futile, would not cause undue delay or prejudice to the Taliban, and were not brought in bad faith or for an improper delay.
Ruling
Judge Sarah Netburn granted the plaintiffs’ motion. The order amended the underlying complaint to include the 13 parties identified in the plaintiffs’ exhibit as parties to the action against the Taliban. The amendments supplemented, but did not replace, the operative complaint. Earlier 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 the prior service orders continued to apply. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the amendment motion and the related motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.