Jafar v. Vatican Challenge 2017 ( 2023 )

COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
SAM GLASSCOCK III STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE
VICE CHANCELLOR 34 THE CIRCLE
GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947
Date Submitted: May 19, 20231
Date Decided: June 8, 2023
Badr Abdelhameed Dhia Jafar Brian M. Gottesman, Esquire
CEO Cresent Enterprises Gabell Beaver LLC
Headquarters Crescent House 5811 Kennett Pike
P.O. Box 2222, Corniche Al Buhaira Wilmington, DE 19807
Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
Re: Jafar v. Vatican Challenge 2017, C.A. No. 2020-0151-SG
Dear Counsel:
What follows is my imposition of a partial final judgment against the Plaintiff,
in favor of the movant, Alisa E. Moen, who served as a Court-appointed receiver in
this matter.
Plaintiff Badr Abdelhameed Dhia Jafar initially brought this case as a books
and records action under 6 Del. C. § 18-305.2 A default judgment was entered
against the Defendant, Vatican Challenge 2017, LLC, and the Plaintiff subsequently
moved to enforce the judgment and for civil contempt.3 I granted that motion and
1
Oral argument in this matter was initially scheduled for May 22, 2023, but was continued due
to issues with the mailing address provided by Mr. Jafar. See Letter to Litigants, May 19, 2023,
Dkt. No. 104. For the reasons discussed below, I consider the matter fully submitted as of the
date of that letter.
2
See Verified Compl. Pursuant to 6. Del. C. § 18-305, Dkt. No. 1.
3
Order Granting Pl.’s Mot. Default J., Dkt. No. 10; Pl.’s Mot. Enforce J. and for Civil Contempt,
Dkt. No. 11.
appointed Plaintiff’s proposed receiver, Ms. Moen (the “Receiver”) to facilitate the
judgement in favor of the Plaintiff.4 A dispute subsequently arose over the
Receiver’s fees,5 culminating in the receiver’s motion for fees and costs on July 1,
2021.6 Following a hearing, I entered an order directing the Defendant to pay the
Receiver’s fees and costs but reserving judgment on the issue of Plaintiff’s liability
for costs should Defendant fail to pay.7
After it appeared that the Defendant was judgment-proof, I issued a letter
opinion requiring the Plaintiff to pay the Receiver’s fees and costs, excluding fees
on fees.8 Plaintiff filed interlocutory and direct appeals, which were dismissed.9
Plaintiff then dismissed his counsel and has proceeded pro se since November
2022.10
I will not repeat the findings and rationale behind assigning the costs of the
Receiver to the Plaintiff; those are adequately set out in the letter opinion.11 In short,
4
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Pl.’s Mot. Enforce J. and for Civil Contempt, Dkt.
No. 15; Order Appointing Alisa E. Moen as Receiver of Vatican Challenge 2017, LLC, Dkt. No.
18.
5
Receiver A. Moen Letter to Vice Chancellor Glasscock, May 11, 2021, Dkt. No. 23.
6
Receiver’s Motion for Fees and Costs, Dkt. No. 25.
7
Order Governing Receiver’s Fees and Costs, Dkt. No. 39.
8
Jafar v. Vatican Challenge 2017, LLC, 2022 WL 365142, at *1 (Del. Ch. Feb. 8, 2022), Dkt.
No. 59.
9
Supreme Court Mandate, Dkt. No. 90.
10
See Mot. Withdraw as Counsel to Pl. Badr Abdelhameed Dhia Jafar, Dkt. No. 86; Judicial
Action Form, Dkt. No. 95; Letter from Brian Gottesman, Esq. to the Ct., Ex. A, Nov. 30, 2022,
Dkt. No. 97.
11
Jafar v. Vatican Challenge 2017, LLC, 2022 WL 365142 (Del. Ch. Feb. 8, 2022), clarified on
denial of reargument, 2022 WL 630371 (Del. Ch. Mar. 4, 2022), and appeal dismissed sub nom.
Moen v. Jafar, 284 A.3d 1016 (Del. 2022).
2
the Receiver has performed services under an order of the Court, entered at
Plaintiff’s request, for the benefit of the Plaintiff, and she is entitled to compensation
accordingly.
The Receiver filed the instant motion for partial final judgment under Rule
54(b) (the “Motion”) on September 21, 2022, in which she seeks to make the
previous order granting fees and costs enforceable.12 Both parties have indicated to
the Court that they consider the matter fully submitted.13 After reviewing the parties’
submissions, I have determined that the matter is appropriate for resolution without
additional argument.
Rule 54(b) enables this Court, upon an express determination that there is “not
just reason for delay,” to direct the entry of a final judgment upon a subset of the
claims or parties in an action.14 This is a “discretionary power to afford a remedy in
the infrequent harsh case”15 and is an exception to the general policy disfavoring
piecemeal adjudication and resulting appeals.16 The moving party bears the burden
12
Receiver’s Mot. Partial Final J., Dkt. No. 89; Order Granting Receiver’s Fees and Costs, Dkt.
No. 75 (fee order).
13
See Letter from Brian Gottesman Regarding Receiver’s Mot. to Compel, Feb. 20, 2023, Dkt.
No. 99 (“[t]he Receiver has nothing further to add”); Letter to the Ct. from Badr Abdulhameed
Dhia Jafar, May 18, 2023, Dkt. No. 103 (“Plaintiff has made his points in his submissions . . .
Plaintiff hopes these documents are sufficiently clear and nothing further is required of him”).
14
Ct. Ch. R. 54(b).
15
In re Explorer Pipeline Co., 2001 WL 1009302, at *2 (Del. Ch. Aug. 29, 2001) (quoting In re
Tri-Star Pictures, Inc., Litig., 1989 WL 112740, at *1 (Del. Ch. Sept. 26, 1989)).
16
See Emerald Partners v. Berlin, 1996 WL 361510, at *3 (Del. Ch. June 25, 1996).
3
of demonstrating that no just reason for delay exists and that denial of the motion
poses a danger of hardship or injustice.17
The Receiver argues in the Motion that there is no just reason for delay, as the
Court has already relieved her of her duties as Receiver and made its final
determination of her fees and costs.18 In opposition, the Plaintiff argues that
resolution of the Motion “should come only after the critical issues in [his case in
chief] have been decided.”19 In his view, the Receiver’s case is collateral to his
action and should therefore come later in the order of operations.20 Further, he
contends that the Receiver failed to identify “any true ‘hardship or injustice[.]’”21
The Receiver points out that, absent a partial final judgment, she cannot
pursue collection efforts against the Parties, as the enforcement mechanisms
contemplated in the Court’s order on fees and costs are unlikely to motivate the
Plaintiff.22 Here, Plaintiff’s submission repackages the same arguments he made in
unsuccessful opposition to that same order on fees and costs.23 As I have determined,
the Receiver is entitled to compensation.
17
See In re Explorer Pipeline Co., 2001 WL 1009302, at *2 (citing In re Tri-Star Pictures, Inc.,
Litig., 1989 WL 112740, at *1).
18
Receiver’s Mot. Partial Final Judgment 2-3, Dkt. No. 89.
19
Letter from Brian Gottesman, Esq. to the Ct., Ex. A at 4, Nov. 30, 2022, Dkt. No. 97.
20
Id. at Ex. A at 3-4.
21
Id. at Ex. A at 5.
22
Receiver’s Mot. Partial Final Judgment 3-4, Dkt. No. 89.
23
Compare Letter from Brian Gottesman, Esq. to the Ct., Ex. A at 3-5, Nov. 30, 2022, Dkt. No.
97 with Letter to Ct., from David A. Dorey, Aug. 30, 2021, Dkt. No. 36.
4
I find that there is no just reason for delay. This action, to paraphrase Plaintiff,
is long in the tooth. The entry of a partial final judgment, counter to Plaintiff’s
arguments, would allow the Parties reasonable finality of the Receiver’s action and
allow the Parties to refocus their attentions to the merits of Plaintiff’s case.
Attempted enforcement via motions for contempt or sanctions would serve only to
further draw out litigation that Plaintiff considers to be extraneous to his underlying
action, and, I find, would not be in the interests of judicial or litigant economy. This
is particularly the case given the difficulties that have arisen thus far from the
Plaintiff representing himself pro se.24 I further find that a partial final judgment
reduces the hardship faced by the Receiver, a solo practitioner, in pursuing
recompense for the duties she carried out reasonably and in good faith25 at the request
of both the Court and Plaintiff himself, duties that ended by Court order on
September 3, 2021.26
24
See Letter to the Ct. from Badr Abdulhameed Dhia Jafar, May 18, 2023, Dkt. No. 103
(claiming not to have received various filings mailed to the address he himself specified); Letter
to the Ct. from Brian M. Gottesman, May 25, 2023, Dkt. No. 105 (detailing extensive efforts to
serve Plaintiff through multiple channels); Resp’t’s Letter dated 5.31.23 re: Failure to receive Ct.
Docs., Dkt. No. 107 (discussing service issues and an updated address); Letter to the Ct. from
Brian M. Gottesman, Dkt. No. 108 (outlining further attempts to correspond with Plaintiff);
Letter to the Ct. from Brian M. Gottesman, Dkt. No 109 (updating the court on service issues).
25
Jafar v. Vatican Challenge 2017, LLC, 2022 WL 365142, at *4 (Del. Ch. Feb. 8, 2022),
clarified on denial of reargument, 2022 WL 630371 (Del. Ch. Mar. 4, 2022), and appeal
dismissed sub nom. Moen v. Jafar, 284 A.3d 1016 (Del. 2022).
26
Order Governing Receiver’s Fees and Costs, Dkt. No. 39; See Receiver’s Preliminary Report,
Dkt. No. 40.
5
Accordingly, the Receiver’s motion for the entry of partial final judgment
pursuant to Rule 54(b) is GRANTED. An order is attached.
Sincerely,
/s/ Sam Glasscock III
Vice Chancellor
6
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
BADR ABDELHAMEED DHIA )
JAFAR, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. 2020-0151-SG
)
VATICAN CHALLENGE 2017, LLC, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
On this eighth day of June, 2023, the Court hereby grants the Receiver’s
Motion for Partial Final Judgment Pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 54(b) for
the reasons given in the accompanying Letter Opinion. The Court’s Order
Granting Receiver’s Fees and Costs of April 26, 2022 is hereby entered as a partial
final order under Court of Chancery Rule 54(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Sam Glasscock III
Vice Chancellor