Opinion
03-MD-01570 (GBD)(SN)
06-24-2022
In re TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
ORDER
SARAH NETBURN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This document relates to:
John Does 1 through 7 v. The Taliban et al., No. 20-mc-740
The plaintiffs in John Does 1 through 7 v. The Taliban et al., No. 20-mc-740 (“Doe”), ask that their writ of execution targeting the assets of Da Afghanistan Bank be dated nunc pro tunc to the date they original applied for it. ECF No. 30. This request is DENIED.
Unless otherwise noted, all citations are to John Does 1 through 7 v. The Taliban et al., No. 20-mc-740 (Dec. 14, 2020).
The Doe Plaintiffs initially applied for a writ of execution on August 26, 2021. ECF No. 15. This proceeding was then stayed to allow the United States to file a statement of interest. ECF No. 19. While that stay was active, the Court permitted the Doe Plaintiffs to obtain a writ of execution and serve it. ECF No. 26. In granting this permission, however, the Court noted that the Doe Plaintiffs had not followed the proper procedures for obtaining a writ of execution. It therefore denied their request to endorse the proposed writ they submitted in their August 26 request. Id.
“Nunc pro tunc, Latin for ‘now for then,' refers to a court's inherent power to enter an order having retroactive effect.” Iouri v. Ashcroft, 487 F.3d 76, 87 (2d Cir. 2007). “It is a far-reaching equitable remedy applied in certain exceptional cases, typically aimed at rectifying any injustice to the parties suffered by them on account of judicial delay.” Matter of Bouchard Transportation Co., Inc., No. 14-cv-0617 (PAC), 2018 WL 1581992, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2018) (quoting Iouri, 487 F.3d at 87).
No delay or injustice merits a nunc pro tunc order. The Doe Plaintiffs have not identified any such injustice or delay nor do such circumstances exist. The Court permitted them to seek a writ of execution a little less than a month following their application. This application, moreover, failed to comport with the requirements for seeking a writ of execution. Thus, regardless of the stay, the writ they sought would not have been issued on the date for which they now seek a modification. Thus, nunc pro tunc modification would not remedy an injustice, but confer an inappropriate advantage.
Accordingly, the motion for a nunc pro tunc modification is denied. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 30.
SO ORDERED.