In a unanimous and notable decision, the Supreme Court in BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman reaffirmed the strict threshold imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), holding that a party may not evade its “extraordinary circumstances” requirement simply by seeking to amend a complaint post-judgment. Writing for the Court, Justice Thomas rejected the Second Circuit’s attempt to harmonize Rule 60’s demand for finality with Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment standard.
As discussed in Dykema’s March edition, survivors and family members of victims of Hamas terrorist attacks sued BLOM Bank SAL, alleging the bank aided and abetted Hamas by providing financial services to entities affiliated with the terrorist organization. Plaintiffs brought these claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2333, as amended by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, id. § 2333(d)(2).
The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that the survivors had failed to plead sufficient facts to state a claim and had repeatedly declined to amend their complaint. The Second Circuit reversed, holding that courts must balance Rule 60(b)’s interest in finality with Rule 15(a)’s policy favoring amendment.
The Supreme Court firmly rejected this approach. Justice Thomas explained that Rule 60(b)(6)—a “catchall” provision—permits reopening a case only when truly extraordinary circumstances exist, and that standard cannot be diluted by Rule 15(a)’s more permissive framework. The Court emphasized that a party must first satisfy Rule 60(b)(6) before a court can consider whether amendment under Rule 15(a) is appropriate. Allowing otherwise, the Court said, undermines the integrity of final judgments.
Justice Jackson concurred, agreeing with the outcome but cautioning a plaintiff’s failure to amend earlier should not categorically preclude relief under Rule 60(b)(6). She framed the plaintiffs’ decision not as abandonment, but as strategic misjudgment or overconfidence in the strength of their original pleadings.
Takeaways:
- Distinct and Sequential Analyses: The Court clarified that motions to amend after judgment require two separate inquiries: first, under Rule 60(b)(6) and, if satisfied, only then under Rule 15(a).
- Extraordinary Circumstances Still Required: Regardless of the relief sought, a party must overcome the high bar of Rule 60(b)(6) to reopen a final judgment.
- Judgment Finality Reaffirmed: The decision underscores the Court’s continued emphasis on preserving the finality of judgments and the stability it provides to litigants.
For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, or Ryan VanOver. A special thanks to Summer Associate Sasha Codiga for assisting with this post.