Background - Plaintiffs filed suit on Nov. 17, 2015 against BNP Paribas (BNPP) and Al Shamal alleging a conspiracy to evade U.S. sanctions on Sudan and alleging ATA, ATS, and common-law tort claims tied to the 1998 embassy bombings. - BNPP was served and moved to dismiss; on Sept. 29, 2017 the Court dismissed BNPP for failure to state a claim and sua sponte dismissed without prejudice the claims against Al Shamal for failure to show service over nearly two years. - Plaintiffs moved to vacate the portion dismissing Al Shamal, originally citing Rules 60(b)(1) and (6); the Court instead treated the request as a Rule 54(b) motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order. - Plaintiffs submitted new evidence showing early attempts to effect service through U.S. counsel (Martin McMahon) shortly after filing, with correspondence in early 2016 indicating McMahon might accept service if retained; plaintiffs then paused follow-up for many months. - The Court found (1) dismissal for failure to prosecute is severe and justified only when service is impossible or there is lengthy inactivity, (2) plaintiffs presented a reasonable prospect that service can be obtained, and (3) plaintiffs would be harmed because some common-law claims likely would become time-barred if dismissal were left in place. - The Court vacated the portion of the Sept. 29 Order dismissing Al Shamal, granted plaintiffs until April 12, 2018 to effect service, and left the dismissal of BNPP intact. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |---|---:|---|---| | Whether Rule 60(b) relief is available for the Court's Sept. 29 order dismissing Al Shamal | The Sept. 29 order was effectively final because some common-law claims will be time-barred, so Rule 60 should apply | The order was interlocutory because it did not resolve all claims against Al Shamal (ATA and ATS claims remain), so Rule 60 does not apply | Court: Rule 60 improper; motion construed under Rule 54(b) for interlocutory reconsideration | | Whether reconsideration is warranted under Rule 54(b) | Plaintiffs: new evidence of attempted service and imminent statute-of-limitations harm justify vacatur of dismissal without prejudice and a short service window | Implicit: dismissal was appropriate based on record showing no proof of service for nearly two years | Court: Reconsideration justified — plaintiffs showed new facts and likely prejudice if dismissal stands; vacated dismissal as to Al Shamal and gave limited time to serve | | Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute was appropriate given delay in service | Plaintiffs: made reasonable early efforts (contacting potential U.S. counsel) and there remains a reasonable prospect of service | Court/Defendant: nearly two-year lack of affidavit of service supported dismissal without prejudice | Court: Dismissal was tenuous given later-submitted facts; severe sanction disfavored absent egregious dilatory conduct; provide additional time instead | | Whether Al Shamal would be prejudiced by allowing additional time to serve | Plaintiffs: Al Shamal appears aware of the suit via counsel contacts, so no unfair surprise or prejudice | Implicit defendant position: delay could prejudice defense | Court: No apparent prejudice to Al Shamal; balance favors allowing 90 days for service due to plaintiffs' statute-of-limitations harm | ### Key Cases Cited Peterson v. Archstone Cmtys. LLC, 637 F.3d 416 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (district courts may dismiss for failure to prosecute but dismissal is a harsh sanction) Angellino v. Royal Family Al-Saud, 688 F.3d 771 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (dismissal for failure to serve appropriate only when no reasonable probability of service) Novak v. World Bank, 703 F.2d 1305 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (dismissal not appropriate when reasonable prospect that service can be obtained) Barot v. Embassy of the Republic of Zambia, 785 F.3d 26 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (erred to dismiss for failure to effect service where defendant suffered no prejudice and statute of limitations would bar refiling) Cobell v. Jewell, 802 F.3d 12 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (Rule 54(b) permits revision of interlocutory orders) Capitol Sprinkler Inspection, Inc. v. Guest Servs. Inc., 630 F.3d 217 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Rule 54(b) relief available “as justice requires”) Smith-Bey v. Cripe, 852 F.2d 592 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (service likely and dismissal for failure to prosecute unwarranted) Murray v. Gilmore, 406 F.3d 708 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (dismissal of a complaint without prejudice typically not a final disposition) Nylok Corp. v. Fastener World Inc., 396 F.3d 805 (7th Cir. 2005) (noting dismissal for failure to prosecute where no service efforts shown) Isse v. American Univ., 544 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2008) (Rule 54(b) appropriate vehicle when challenged order is interlocutory)