KURDISTAN VICTIMS FUND et al v. KURDISTAN REGIONAL GOVERNMENT et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MAKI REVEND, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MASROUR BARZANI, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 24-278 (RDM)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Court previously dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims in this case against Defendant Joe R.
Reeder with prejudice. Dkt. 83 at 6 n.1; see generally Dkt. 110. The Court also granted
Reeder’s motion for sanctions under Rule 11, see Dkt. 110, and, following additional
submissions from the parties, assessed a final sanctions figure, see Dkt. 142. At the hearing held
on February 25, 2026, Reeder’s counsel proposed that the Court should enter partial final
judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) as to both the dismissal and the sanctions
award once the final sanctions figure had been calculated. Dkt. 127 at 24–25. Plaintiffs’ counsel
agreed. Id. at 25–27.
Rule 54(b) authorizes the Court to “direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but
fewer than all, claims or parties” in a case that “presents more than one claim for relief . . . or
when multiple parties are involved.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Before doing so, however, the Court
must “expressly determine[] that there is no just reason for delay.” Id. In making that
determination, the Court must first decide whether its order is final with respect to at least one
claim or party. See Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980). If that
finality requirement is met, the Court must then assess whether there is any just reason for
Case 1:24-cv-00278-RDM Document 143 Filed 04/01/26 Page 1 of 3

2
further delay, “determin[ing] the ‘appropriate time’ when each final decision in a multiple claims
action is ready for appeal.” Building Indus. Ass’n v. Babbitt, 161 F.3d 740, 744 (D.C. Cir. 1998)
(quoting Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 8).
The Court determines that both steps are satisfied here. First, the Court’s dismissal of the
claims against Reeder with prejudice is final. No further judicial action is required to address
any of those claims, even if the case may continue before this Court as to some of the other
named defendants. The same is true for the disposition of Reeder’s motion for sanctions under
Rule 11, see Dkt. 96, as the Court has both granted the motion and calculated a final sanctions
figure. Second, the Court is persuaded that there is no just reason to delay entry of final
judgment and that, in particular, entering partial final judgment will not interfere with sound
judicial administration. The Court has fully resolved the claims against Reeder, and any further
proceedings in this case will involve alleged conduct by other persons. Moreover, Plaintiffs have
expressed an intention to appeal the Court’s award of sanctions in this case. Dkt. 127 at 25–26.
The Court’s decision to impose sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel under Rule 11 is necessarily
intertwined with the Court’s concurrent decision to dismiss the claims against Reeder with
prejudice, and entering partial final judgment now as to the dismissal will respect Plaintiff’s
concrete and substantial interest in avoiding further delay in appellate review of the Court’s
decision. As no other Defendant in this case will be prejudiced by the entry of partial final
judgment, the “equities involved” favor doing so. See Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 8.
Case 1:24-cv-00278-RDM Document 143 Filed 04/01/26 Page 2 of 3

3
For these reasons, the Court will enter partial final judgment as to Plaintiffs’ claims
against Defendant Reeder, and as to the Court’s award of sanctions against Plaintiffs, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
A separate order will issue.
/s/ Randolph D. Moss
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
United States District Judge
Date: April 1, 2026
Case 1:24-cv-00278-RDM Document 143 Filed 04/01/26 Page 3 of 3