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 Sarah Netburn granted plaintiffs’ motion to add three parties asserting claims against the Taliban.
The existing Burnett plaintiffs, the three parties added to the action, the Taliban, and the other parties affected by the continued force of prior orders and judgments.
What happened
In Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp., the existing plaintiffs asked to amend their complaint to add three parties who sought to assert claims against the Taliban.
The court found that the proposed claims were not futile, would not cause undue delay or prejudice, and were not filed in bad faith or for delay. It granted the motion and ordered that the amended complaint supplement, rather than replace, the existing complaint.
Judge Sarah Netburn also ruled that earlier orders and judgments remained effective, no additional service on the Taliban was required, and the Clerk should terminate the specified motions.
The detailed version
- Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp. · No. 1:03-cv-09849
- Lewis Kaplan
- Mar. 12, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs in the Burnett action moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 to amend their complaint. They sought to add three parties who wanted to assert claims against the Taliban. The opinion states that leave to amend is generally allowed when justice requires, but may be denied for reasons such as undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, or futility.
Court’s analysis
The court determined that the proposed claims were not futile, would not unduly delay the proceedings, and would not prejudice the Taliban. It also found no bad faith or dilatory motive in the proposed amendment.
Ruling and effect
The court granted the Burnett Plaintiffs’ motion. It ordered that the underlying complaint be amended to include the three 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 ruled that no further service on the Taliban was required because the prior service orders, including orders allowing service by publication, continued to apply. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 9629 and the related motion at ECF No. 1140 in the Burnett action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.