Request for Administrative Relief

[Arnold Korotkin]

Case 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN Document 11426 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 9

Kristen Breitweiser

Plaintiff, MDL 1570

December 10, 2025

Honorable George B. Daniels

United States District Judge

Southern District of New York

500 Pearl Street

New York, NY 10007

Re: Request for Administrative Relief Under FRCP 83(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) — In re

Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 03-MDL-1570 (GBD)(SN)

The undersigned Plaintiffs respectfully submit the accompanying letter as a Request for

Administrative Relief pursuant to the Court’s authority under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 83(b), its inherent supervisory responsibility over proceedings within MDL 1570,

and the statutory obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) to consider matters that may

implicate the appearance of impartiality. Because this submission concerns the

administration and integrity of the judicial process—including issues relating to the

participation of a United States Magistrate Judge—and does not seek to advance litigation

strategy or circumvent counsel, we respectfully request that the Court direct the Clerk to

place this letter on the public docket so that all Plaintiffs in this MDL may be informed of

these concerns.

Dear Judge Daniels:

We write in our capacity as plaintiffs in the September 11 litigation and as the direct heirs of

someone who was killed on September 11, 2001. We submit this correspondence not as a motion,

but simply to share concerns that we believe the Court may wish to be aware of.

We respectfully submit this letter to raise concerns that directly affect the fairness, transparency,

and structural integrity of this MDL, as well as the rights of thousands of 9/11 widows and

children whose ability to obtain compensation depends upon the sound administration of these

proceedings.

Plaintiffs have never been provided an opportunity to be fully heard regarding the choice of

governing law, the structure of solatium damages, the inclusion of additional plaintiff categories,

or the frameworks that govern compensation. These decisions, which profoundly shape the rights

and recoveries of the September 11 heirs, were made in some instances without full disclosure,

fair notice and/or participation from the families they affect. We respectfully submit these

concerns in the spirit of assisting the Court in its ongoing supervisory role to ensure the fairness

and integrity of MDL 1570 for all plaintiff groups.Case 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN Document 11426 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 9

These concerns fall into three areas:

(1) the need for an independent review of the solatium-damages framework;

(2) the need for independent conflicts counsel;

(3) the need for structural representation through a Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee.

All three issues are interrelated.

1. Request for the Court to Consider a New, Independent Review of Solatium

and other Damages

We recently discovered a letter reflecting Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn’s prior professional

advocacy for amendments to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) in 2008, specifically

to expand the availability of solatium damages to non-heirs in terrorism cases. Her work was

entirely lawful and well-intentioned; however, because these same principles now govern the

damages framework in this MDL, we believe her prior advocacy creates a reasonable question

under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) regarding the appearance of impartiality. Our concern is not with any

individual judicial officer, but with protecting public confidence in the neutrality of MDL

procedures.

This concern is heightened by Congress’s original legislative intent in the ATSSSA, which

expressly grounded September 11 litigation concerning the two crashes in NYC under New York

law so as to limit liability.

Congress chose New York’s wrongful-death framework for the two crashes at the Twin Towers

because it is predictable, equitable, and deeply rooted in the traditional hierarchy of loss, with

spouses and dependent children recognized as the primary beneficiaries. The current use of FSIA

(or “federal common law”) which diverges from these principles and yields outcomes unrelated

to New York wrongful-death law while creating outcomes that grossly expand liability, appears

inconsistent with the original congressional intent for 9/11 litigation.

The Court’s application of FSIA-based solatium multipliers (for those injured and/or killed at the

WTC) rather than New York law, despite the ATSSSA’s directive, has had profound

consequences.

One such consequence is the large and growing disparity between solatium awards and the pain-

and-suffering valuations assigned to the individuals who were killed at the WTC. In many cases,

solatium awards have been set higher than the decedents’ own pain-and-suffering damages (set at

$2 million), a result inconsistent with wrongful-death principles and established case law.

In addition, pain-and-suffering awards for inhalation-injury plaintiffs—who were not killed on

September 11—have reached $5 million, $8 million, and $12 million, in some cases five to six

times higher than the pain-and-suffering values assigned to the decedents (that the Court set at $2

million). These disparities raise concern that the interests of the direct heirs may not be fully or

independently protected.Case 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN Document 11426 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 9

For these reasons, we respectfully ask the Court to consider directing a new, independent review

or hearing before a different judicial officer to reassess the solatium-damages structure as it

applies to all Plaintiff classes in the 9/11 MDL, especially while the MDL is paused pending the

Saudi appeal.

2. Request for the Court to Consider Appointing Independent Conflicts

Counsel for 9/11 Heirs

This MDL includes a wide array of plaintiff categories with divergent and often competing

interests, including:

• Direct 9/11 heirs (spouses and dependent children)

• Estates with derivative claims

• Non-dependent relatives asserting solatium claims

• Inhalation-injury plaintiffs

• More than 12,900 plaintiffs reportedly represented by leadership firms seeking payment

through the USVSSTF

• Plaintiffs in other terrorism-related litigation involving enforcement/turnover proceedings

These overlapping representations create structural conflicts of interest, because the success or

expansion of one group directly reduces the recovery available to another—particularly in the

context of the USVSSTF, a limited-assets fund.

A. Conflicts amplified by the FSIA vs. New York law issue

The use of FSIA — the statutory framework Magistrate Judge Netburn advocated expanding

while in private practice representing Pan Am Lockerbie “survivors” in 2008 — instead of New

York law has:

• expanded solatium eligibility,

• inflated non-heir multipliers,

• enlarged the total claimant pool.

Various law firms representing all categories simultaneously may be incentivized to advance

positions that favor some clients while disadvantaging others — particularly the heirs.

B. Conflicts involving inhalation-injury plaintiffs

Many of the same firms represent inhalation-injury plaintiffs, whose claims raise:

• statute-of-limitations concerns,

• unresolved questions of proximate causation,

• evidentiary challenges due to recently reported missing FDNY toxin-exposure records.

Despite these concerns, these plaintiffs have received pain-and-suffering awards up to $12

million, far exceeding those for the decedents (set at $2 million). This suggests the heirs' interests

may not be independently protected.Case 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN Document 11426 Filed 12/10/25 Page 4 of 9

C. Legal authority supporting appointment of conflicts counsel

Federal courts have long exercised inherent authority to appoint independent conflicts counsel

where divergent plaintiff interests prevent fair representation. This authority is recognized in:

• In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig.

• In re Payment Card Interchange Fee Antitrust Litig.

• In re NFL Concussion Litig.

• Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor

These cases establish that when plaintiff groups have fundamentally conflicting interests — as is

now true here — separate representation is appropriate and necessary to ensure fairness.

D. Financial harm to widows and children in the USVSSTF

The Court’s damages decisions directly affect the ability of the 9/11 widows and children to

obtain compensation from the United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund

(USVSSTF) — the only compensation mechanism available to many of us.

Because the USVSSTF is a limited-assets fund, each expansion of eligibility and each inflation

of damages awards reduces what remains for the spouses and dependent children of those who

were killed. Many widows and children have already experienced significant reductions in

expected compensation as increasingly diverse plaintiff groups and inflated awards are added to

the Fund.

We also wish to note that many widows/widowers and children feel unheard or unable to raise

these issues, often because they believe their own counsel cannot or will not present concerns

that may conflict with firm-wide strategies. This structural silence underscores the need for

independent conflicts counsel.

For these reasons, we respectfully ask the Court to consider appointing independent conflicts

counsel, paid for by the various firms whose overlapping representations have created these

conflicts.

3. Request for the Court to Consider a New Review of Inhalation-Injury

Eligibility for Iran Judgments

Given unresolved issues of proximate causation, statute of limitations, missing toxin-exposure

records, and unusually elevated pain-and-suffering awards, we respectfully ask the Court to

consider an independent review of:

• whether inhalation-injury claims satisfy statutory and evidentiary requirements;

• whether these should be separated from wrongful-death heirs;

• whether their inclusion disproportionately harms heirs within the USVSSTF.Case 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN Document 11426 Filed 12/10/25 Page 5 of 9

4. Request for the Court to Consider Establishing a 9/11 Plaintiffs’ Steering

Committee

Many mass-tort and terrorism cases — including the Pan Am 103 Lockerbie litigation — use

Plaintiffs’ Steering Committees with victim representation. After nearly twenty-four years, the

9/11 families have never had such structured representation, though every major decision in this

MDL profoundly affects them.

A Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee would provide:

• transparency,

• oversight,

• a formal avenue for family input,

• a structural remedy to persistent intra-plaintiff conflicts.

Conclusion

We respectfully acknowledge that the Court maintains broad supervisory authority to ensure

fairness, adequate representation, and the integrity of these proceedings. We raise these concerns

with the hope that the voices of the families — especially widows/widowers and dependent

children — may be meaningfully heard as this litigation enters its twenty-fourth year, and as we

approach the 25th anniversary of this nation’s worst terrorist attack.

The September 11 families have pursued justice for nearly one quarter of a century with dignity

and enduring trust in the Court. We are grateful for the Court’s time, attention, and consideration

of these matters.

Respectfully submitted,

Kristen Breitweiser

Caroline Breitweiser

Patricia Ryan

Laura Ryan

Colin Ryan

Kristen Ryan

Marie Halloran

Jake Halloran

Kieran Halloran

Declan Halloran

Phelan Halloran

Conor HalloranCase 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN Document 11426 Filed 12/10/25 Page 6 of 9

Jacqui Fackovec Eaton-Garland

Nancy Fox

Greg Fox

Amanda Ogilby

Jessica Cashman

Claudette Scheffold

Joan Scheffold

Kim Stiefel

Karen Onorio

Theresa Giammona

Madeline Bergin-Koenig

Katie Bergin

John Bergin

Shannon Bergin

Irene Dickey

Joseph Dickey

Elizabeth Dickey

Lauren Rodriguez

Una Hinchcliffe McHugh

Sophia McHugh

Chloe McHugh

Joseph McHugh

Patrick Sullivan

Sean Sullivan

Andrea Garbarini

Dylan Garbarini

Philip Garbarini

Jean Fischer

Timothy Fischer

Laura Nemeth

Mike Zinkofsky

Julie McMahon

Dolores Neufeld SullivanCase 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN Document 11426 Filed 12/10/25 Page 7 of 9

Kathy Maher

Cathy McShane

Aidan McShane

Colin McShane

Sean McShane

Liz Sweeney Gardner

Susan King Munhall

Lauren Munhall

Patricia Kellett

Cameron Kellett

Julie Anne Kellett-Beers

Teresa Cunningham

Liam Cunningham

Chiemi York

Colleen Casey Spor

Joseph Spor

Shannon Spor

Caitlin Maire Spor

Rachel O'Brien Bernardy

Kathy Wiznewski

Matt Wiznewski

Lauren Fletcher

Kaitlynn DeSantis

Joanne Meisenheimer Sasso

Dara Seaman

Allison Wallice

John Wallice III

Christian Wallice

Patrick Wallice

Debra Rosenberg Zeplin

Ryan Zeplin

Ethan ZeplinCase 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN Document 11426 Filed 12/10/25 Page 8 of 9

Patricia Casazza

John Casazza

Eileen Keys Hoey

Maura Coughlin-Roberti

Ryann Coughlin

Sean Coughlin

Riley Coughlin

Cynthia Campbell

Christopher Campbell

Timothy Campbell

Andrea Ricciardella O’Hagan

Patrick O’Hagan

Pierce O’Hagan

Cathy Pepe

Sal Pepe

Katherine A. Soulas

Timothy P. Soulas Jr.

Andrew Soulas

Christopher Soulas

Matthew Soulas

Nicole Soulas

Daniel Soulas

Deborah Temple

Thomas Roberts

Paulette Roberts

Lisa Roberts

Ken Roberts

Beth Wotruba Mahon

Shay Mahon

Kathleen Vigiano

Joseph Vigiano

James Vigiano

John Vigiano

Eileen Hanniford

Kevin Hanniford

Patrick HannifordCase 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN Document 11426 Filed 12/10/25 Page 9 of 9

Eslyn Hernandez

Kevin Smith

Rhonda Christopher Smith

Linda Dickinson Pancila

Erin Dickinson

Patrick Dickinson

Jodie Shorr Sherer