Havlish v. Bin-Laden ( 2022 )

[uspcspsytts—~=«sY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED □ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Doc #: nn K | DATE FILED:__ 3/2/2022 . 1 ———— aE In re: 03-MD-01570 (GBD)(SN) TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 ORDER pn ee K SARAH NETBURN, United States Magistrate Judge: This document relates to: Havlish, et al. v. Bin Laden, et al., No. 03-cv-9848 John Does 1 through 7 v. The Taliban et al., No. 20-mc-740 The Havlish Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ Executive Committees report that they have no objections to lifting the stays on the enforcement of the writs of enforcement in Havlish, et al. v. Bin Laden, et al. or John Does 1 through 7 v. The Taliban et al. ECF Nos. 7711, 7712. As there is no opposition to lifting the stays in either of these cases, both stays are lifted.! The Court respectfully directs the Clerk of the Court to GRANT the motions at ECF No. 7664 on 03-md- 1570 and ECF No. 564 on 03-cv-9848. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 2, 2022 _f NETBURN New York, New York United States Magistrate Judge ‘Tt appears that, for technical reasons, the motion to lift the stay in John Does 1 through 7 v. The Taliban et al. is not active due to filing issues. In the interest of expeditious proceeding, however, and in the absence of any opposition, the Court lifts the John Does | through 7 sua sponte. Marsh v. Johnson, 263 F. Supp. 2d 49, 52 (D.D.C. 2003) (“When circumstances have changed such that the court's reasons for imposing the stay no longer exist or are inappropriate, the court may lift the stay sua sponte or upon motion.”)