`The Hon. Margaret M. Garnett
`United States District Court
`Southern District of New York
`40 Foley Square
`New York, NY 10007
`
`Re: Letter-Motion to Consolidate 25-mc-527 with other related actions
`
`Dear Judge Garnett,
`
`Plaintiffs in the following actions hold judgments for damages against either
`the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (“North Korea”), the Islamic Republic of
`Iran, or both (alongside many other terrorist parties), resulting from these states’
`sponsorship and commission of acts of terrorism:
`
`• Campuzano v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 13-mc-146
`• Goldberg-Botvin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 13-mc-323
`• Ben Haim v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 16-mc-94
`• Ben Haim v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 16-mc-95
`• Kim v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 25-mc-527 (this case)
`• Kaplan v. Central Bank of The Islamic Republic of Iran, 26-mc-33
`• Braun v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 26-mc-34
`• Botvin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 26-mc-35
`• Bodoff v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 26-mc-36
`• Ben Yishai v. Syrian Arab Republic, 26-mc-81
`• Borochov v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 26-mc-82
`• Fakhoury v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 26-mc-83
`• Force v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 26-mc-84
`• Fraenkel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 26-mc-85
`• Jakubowicz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 26-mc-86
`• Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 26-mc-87
`• Salzman v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 26-mc-88
`• Stern v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 26-mc-89
`• Weinstein v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 26-mc-90
`• Calderon-Cardona v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 26-mc-94
`All of the judgments are registered in this Court, and although the facts that
`led to the underlying judgments differ, the already filed and forthcoming turnover
`motions in each case all present the same issue: Which crypto assets issued by
`Garnishees Circle Internet Financial LLC (“Circle”) and Tether International S.A. de
`C.V. (“Tether”) must be turned over to satisfy the judgments? Because this issue is
`Case 1:25-mc-00527-MMG Document 16 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`common to all of the cases and because handling the cases together would result in
`significant efficiencies and no prejudice, this Court should consolidate the cases under
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) or New York C.P.L.R. § 602, as incorporated by
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a), which incorporates state -law procedures into
`federal cases for judgment collection.
`
`As explained, Plaintiffs in each of these cases are represented by the same
`counsel, and all consent to this Letter -Motion. The Defendant rogue nations in each
`of these cases never appeared, so we do not expect to receive any opposition to this
`letter-motion from any Defendant. Moreover, as explained below, we believe
`consolidation will lead to additional efficiencies for Garnishees Circle and Tether.
`I. Background
`A. The Underlying Judgments Against Rogue Nations For Acts of
`Terrorism
`As Congress, the Executive Branch, the Supreme Court, and the Second
`Circuit have recognized, North Korea and Iran have for many years sponsored and
`conducted acts of terrorism across the world. E.g., Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran,
`583 U.S. 202, 206 (2018); Kim v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea [“DPRK”], 774
`F.3d 1044, 1046 (2d Cir. 2014). The Plaintiffs in each of the cases at issue here are
`the estates of those killed, people who were injured, and those whose family members
`were either killed o r injured in acts of terrorism perpetrated or aided by either of
`those rogue nations. Collectively, the Plaintiffs in these actions hold judgments worth
`over two billion dollars, excluding interest.
`
`Very briefly, the judgments against North Korea alone arise from the
`abduction and murder of a pastor performing philanthropic work in China, and North
`Korea’s support for a terrorist cell that indiscriminately opened fire on civilians in an
`airport, killing Puerto Rican pilgrims visiting Israel. See ECF No. 4-1 at 4; Calderon-
`Cardona v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 723 F. Supp. 2d 441, 450 (D.P.R.
`2010) (explaining that North Korea “was the only state sponsoring” the armed cell
`that murdered the Christian pilgrims visiting Israel). The judgments against Iran
`alone arise from many acts of terrorism committed in Isra el by Iranian proxies ,
`including, for example, a terrorist who drove his car into a crowd, killing an infant,
`see Braun v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 228 F. Supp. 3d 64, 72 (D.D.C. 2017) , and a
`suicide bombing in a mall that killed, among others, American tourists, see
`Campuzano v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 281 F. Supp. 2d 258, 260 (D.D.C. 2003). And
`the judgment against both Iran and North Korea arises from those countries’ support
`for Hezbollah, a terrorist group that fired rockets on civilians in Northern Israel ,
`killing and injuring many. See Kaplan v. Cent. Bank of the Islamic Republic of Ir an,
`55 F. Supp. 3d 189, 193 (D.D.C. 2014).
`
`These Plaintiffs all have suffered at North Korea and Iran’s hands. But they
`Case 1:25-mc-00527-MMG Document 16 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`have something more in common , too—neither North Korea nor Iran has paid their
`judgments. Now, these twenty sets of Plaintiffs are all moving to recover North
`Korean and Iranian assets held by Garnishees Circle and Tether, which are capable
`of turning over crypto assets—some of which are frozen—used by those rogue nations.
`B. Prior Proceedings
`On November 20, 2025, Han and Yong Kim registered their judgment against
`North Korea in this Court. 25 -mc-527, ECF No. 1. Shortly thereafter, they served a
`writ of execution on Garnishee Circle, which issues a crypto asset called U.S. Dollar
`Coin (USDC), of which North Korea holds at least $2.5 million worth. 25-mc-527, ECF
`No. 4. Circle did not act on the writ of execution, and so the Kims sought turnover
`under C.P.L.R. § 5225, which is incorporated into this post -judgment proceeding by
`Federal Rule 69(a). Id. The central questi on in that motion is whether Circle is in
`possession of North Korean property. That motion remains pending.
`
`Plaintiffs also wish to garnish North Korean and Iranian assets held by
`Garnishee Tether, a Salvadoran company that issues a different crypto asset called
`Tether (“USDT”). Approximately 530 million USDT are currently in wallet addresses
`frozen by Tether that have exposure to known North Korean wallet addresses. And
`approximately 403 million USDT are in wallet addresses frozen by Tether that have
`exposure to known Iranian wallet addresses. How many of those USDT belong to
`North Korea or Iran will be the cent ral question in the Plaintiffs’ forthcoming
`turnover motion against Tether.
`
`But before that motion can be filed, either the Marshal or Plaintiffs will serve
`Tether with a writ of execution. The Plaintiffs have been in communication with the
`Marshal about service on Tether, but the Marshal stated it required an order of this
`Court for the somewhat unusual method of service required because Tether is a
`Salvadoran company not registered to do business in New York. Plaintiffs filed that
`motion on February 20, 2026. See ECF No. 13, 25-mc-527. As of this filing , the
`Turnover Motion again st Circle and the Request for an Order Directing Service on
`Tether remain pending in docket 25-mc-527. Upon disposition of the pending motion
`for service on Tether and after appropriate post-judgment discovery, all Plaintiffs will
`be prepared to file what would be identical, additional turnover motions.
`
`This is the lowest docket with an assigned judge . That is because for some of
`the Plaintiffs, m any of the ir judgments against Iran were registered in this Court
`years ago, and under the versions of this Court’s local rules in effect at the time, those
`cases were assigned to Part One when initially registered, and so have not been
`assigned to a specific judge. See Campuzano v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 13-mc-146
`(S.D.N.Y.); Goldberg-Botvin v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 13-mc-323 (S.D.N.Y.); Ben
`Haim v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 16-mc-94 (S.D.N.Y.); Ben Haim v. Islamic Republic
`of Iran, 16-mc-95 (S.D.N.Y.).
`
`Case 1:25-mc-00527-MMG Document 16 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`Moreover, o n January 23, 2026, four additional sets of plaintiffs registered
`their judgments against North Korea and Iran in this Court. See Kaplan v. Central
`Bank of The Islamic Republic of Iran, 26-mc-33 (S.D.N.Y.); Braun v. Islamic Republic
`of Iran, 26-mc-34 (S.D.N.Y.); Botvin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 26-mc-35 (S.D.N.Y.);
`Bodoff v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 26-mc-36 (S.D.N.Y.). On February 3, the plaintiffs
`in Campuzano, Goldberg-Botvin, Ben Haim, Kaplan, Braun, Botvin, and Bodoff each
`case served writs of execution on the Marshal, directing the Marshal to serve them
`on Tether.
`
`On February 24, 2026, ten additional sets of plaintiffs registered their
`judgments in this Court. See Ben Yishai v. Syrian Arab Republic , 26 -mc-81
`(S.D.N.Y.); Borochov v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 26-mc-82 (S.D.N.Y.); Fakhoury v.
`Islamic Republic of Iran, 26-mc-83 (S.D.N.Y.); Force v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 26-
`mc-84 (S.D.N.Y.); Fraenkel v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 26 -mc-85 (S.D.N.Y.);
`Jakubowicz v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 26 -mc-86 (S.D.N.Y.); Rubin v. Islamic
`Republic of Iran, 26-mc-87 (S.D.N.Y.); Salzman v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 26-mc-88
`(S.D.N.Y.); Stern v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 26 -mc-89 (S.D.N.Y.); Weinstein v.
`Islamic Republic of Iran, 26-mc-90 (S.D.N.Y.). On February 25, 2026, the plaintiffs in
`Calderon-Cardona v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea , opened docket number
`26-mc-94, having previously registered their judgment in this Court on October 8,
`2010, under Judgment Number 10,1746. The plaintiffs in these eleven recently
`registered cases intend to serve writs of execution on the Mar shal, directing the
`Marshal to serve them on Tether, in short order.
`
`Plaintiffs now file this letter-motion requesting consolidation of these cases.
`II. Argument
`A. Consolidation Is Warranted Under Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 42(a) And CPLR § 602
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that “[i]f actions before the court
`involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions.”
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2). “ The trial court has broad discretion to determine whether
`consolidation is appropriate.” Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1284 (2d Cir.
`1990). In exercising that discretion , “considerations of judicial economy favor
`consolidation.” Id. The Second Circuit has said that consolidation “should be
`prudently employed as a valuable and important tool of judicial administration” that
`can “eliminate unnecessary repetition and confusion.” Devlin v. Transp. Communs.
`Int'l Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir. 1999) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
`
`The threshold requirement for consolidation under Rule 42(a) is the existence
`of a “common question of law or fact.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Once that threshold
`is met, courts weigh several factors, including whether there is a risk of inconsistent
`adjudications if the cases are not consolidated; whether consolidation will reduce
`Case 1:25-mc-00527-MMG Document 16 Filed 02/27/26 Page 4 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`costs and the burden on the parties, witnesses, and the Court; and whether
`consolidation will prejudice any party, among other factors. See Devlin v. Transp.
`Commc’ns Int’l Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir. 1999); Johnson, 899 F.2d at 1284–
`85. Each of these considerations supports consolidation here.
`
`1. The Cases Present Common Questions of Law and Fact
`All twenty post-judgment proceedings share the same core legal and factual
`questions: whether Garnishees Circle and Tether are in possession of crypto assets
`belonging to North Korea or Iran that can be reached to satisfy Plaintiffs’ judgments.
`Resolving this questio n will require the same evidence in every case: namely,
`evidence concerning the crypto wallets associated with North Korea and Iran; the
`nature of the crypto assets (either USDC or USDT) issued by Circle and Tether; and
`whether Garnishees can be said to possess or control those assets so that they may
`turnover relevant assets to Plaintiffs to satisfy the outstanding judgments.
`
`The mechanism for determining these questions will likewise be identical. As
`Plaintiffs already have against Circle in 25 -mc-527, Plaintiffs will seek turnover of
`crypto assets under C.P.L.R. § 5225, as incorporated into these federal post-judgment
`proceedings by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1) (“The
`procedure on execution—and in proceedings supplementary to and in aid of judgment
`or execution —must accord with the procedure of the state where the court is
`located.”). Although Tether is a different business than Circle and so the question of
`turnover of USDT presents possibly different considerations from the ones presented
`with respect to Circle and its crypto asset , whatever differences there are apply
`equally across all twenty dockets.
`
`Moreover, the legal issues are essentially identical whether the request is for
`assets that belong to North Korea or Iran. Across all dockets, the basic questions of
`fact and law remain the same regardless of which rogue nation’s frozen assets are at
`issue: are Plaintiffs entitled to the funds that Circle or Tether hold that are—or were,
`before freezing —in the possession of North Korea or Iran? Plaintiffs accordingly
`suggest that the most efficient route under Rule 42(a) is to consolidate all dockets
`under a single master docket rather than having one docket related to North Korean
`assets and another for Iranian assets.
`
`2. Consolidation Will Avoid the Risk of Inconsistent Adjudications
`Without consolidation, there is a significant risk that different judges within
`this District could reach inconsistent conclusions on the same legal and factual
`questions. For instance, one trier of fact might conclude that a given wallet address
`belongs to Iran and order the balance of that wallet address turned over to one set of
`Plaintiffs, while another might conclude that the same wallet address belongs to
`another party and order that the balance remain with the garnishee . See Johnson,
`899 F.2d at 1285 (noting that the risk of inconsistent adjudications weighs in favor of
`Case 1:25-mc-00527-MMG Document 16 Filed 02/27/26 Page 5 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`consolidation). Consolidation eliminates that risk by ensuring that a single judge
`resolves these common questions consistently across all cases.
`
`3. Consolidation Will Promote Judicial Economy and Reduce the
`Burden on All Parties
`The benefits of consolidation to the Court and the parties are substantial. All
`Plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel, Gerstein Harrow LLP and the
`Berkman Law Office LLC. All cases target the same Garnishees—Circle and Tether—
`and seek turnover of the same categories of crypto assets on the same legal theories.
`And, because the Plaintiffs in these cases are cooperating in their efforts to collect, if
`the Plaintiffs discover additional garnishees, or the assets of additional judgment
`creditors, they will seek to collect them as a group. Absent consolidation, then, the
`Court would face the prospect of twenty separate but substantively identical turnover
`motions, each requiring briefing, argument, and decision on the same questions. See
`Devlin, 175 F.3d at 130 (noting that judicial economy is a principal purpose of
`consolidation). Consolidation will also reduce the burden on the Garnishees, who
`would otherwise be forced to respond to duplicative motions in multiple proceedings.
`
`Indeed, courts in this District have previously dealt in one docket with post -
`judgment enforcement proceedings that involve common garnishees and overlapping
`legal questions even though those cases involved judgment creditors from multiple
`underlying judgments. See, e.g., Amended Complaint in Peterson v. Islamic Republic
`of Iran , No. 13 -cv-9195, ECF No. 102 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2014) (case involving
`consolidated turnover request from five different judgments registered in this Court).
`This case similarly involves the same turnover questions directed at the same
`Garnishees from holders of different underlying registered judgments.
`
`4. Consolidation Will Not Prejudice Any Party
`Moreover, no party will be prejudiced by consolidation. Plaintiffs are
`requesting consolidation, and the Judgment Debtors are sovereign, rogue nations
`that have not appeared and are not expected to appear in any of these enforcement
`proceedings. Garnishees will also benefit from consolidation because they will need
`to respond to turnover motions only once rather than in each case individually.
`Moreover, consolidation will not delay proceedings in any case; to the contrary, it will
`expedite resolution by allowing a single coordinated set of motions rather than many
`parallel proceedings.
`
`Finally, to the extent New York C.P.L.R. § 602(a) applies to the consolidation
`question by incorporation into post -judgment proceedings by Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 69(a), see Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1), consolidation is also available and
`warranted. Section 602(a) of the CPLR provides that “[w]hen actions involving a
`common question of law or fact are pending before a court, the court, upon motion,
`may order a joint trial of any or all the matters in issue, may order the actions
`Case 1:25-mc-00527-MMG Document 16 Filed 02/27/26 Page 6 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`consolidated, and may make such other orders concerning proceedings therein as may
`tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” C.P.L.R. § 602(a). The standard under § 602
`is thus substantially the same as under Rule 42(a), and for the same reasons
`discussed above, consolidation is warranted. E.g., Chinatown Apartments, Inc. v.
`N.Y.C. Transit Auth. , 100 A.D.2d 824, 825 (1st Dep’t 1984) (“Consolidation is
`appropriate where it will avoid unnecessary duplication of trials, save unnecessary
`costs and expense and prevent the injustice which would result from divergent
`decisions based on the same facts.”).
`III. Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court
`consolidate the cases listed at the first page of this Letter -Motion for all purposes
`relating to post -judgment enforcement proceedings against Garnishees Circle
`Internet Financial LLC and Tether International S.A. de C.V.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Charles Gerstein
`Charles Gerstein
`GERSTEIN HARROW LLP
`1629 Columbia Road NW, Suite 302
`Washington, DC 20004
`charlie@gerstein-harrow.com
`(202) 670-4809
`
`/s/ Jason Harrow
`Jason Harrow
`GERSTEIN HARROW LLP
`12100 Wilshire Blvd. Ste. 800
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`jason@gerstein-harrow.com
`5293-(323) 744
`
`/s/ Robert Tolchin
`Robert Tolchin
`THE BERKMAN LAW OFFICE LLC
`829 E. 15th Street, Suite Seven
`Brooklyn, New York 11230
`rtolchin@berkmanlaw.com
`(718) 855-3627
`
`Attorneys for all Plaintiffs in all listed actions
`
`Case 1:25-mc-00527-MMG Document 16 Filed 02/27/26 Page 7 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`