Case Title: Moen v. Jafar

Citation: 

Docket Number: 176, 2022

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2022-09-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ALISA E. MOEN, ESQ., 
 
 
Former Receiver Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
BADR ABDELHAMEED DHIA 
JAFAR, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 176, 2022 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§   
§  C.A. No. 2020-0151 
§                     
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 22, 2022 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
September 20, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the parties’ responses, it 
appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The plaintiff below, Badr Abdelhameed Dhia Jafar, a member of 
Vatican Challenge 2017, LLC (the “LLC”), filed an action in the Court of Chancery 
seeking to inspect the LLC’s books and records.  The LLC defaulted, and the Court 
of Chancery entered a default judgment in favor of Jafar.  At Jafar’s request, the 
Court of Chancery appointed the appellant, Alisa Moen, Esquire, as receiver to 
oversee the production of records.  On February 8, 2022, the Court of Chancery 
granted in part Moen’s motion for fees and costs.  On March 4, 2022, the Court of 
2 
 
Chancery denied Moen’s and Jafar’s cross-motions for reargument.  Finally, the 
Court of Chancery entered an order awarding Moen fees and costs (the “Fee Order”). 
(2) 
On May 5, 2022, Jafar asked the Court of Chancery to certify an 
interlocutory appeal from the Fee Order to this Court.  Moen opposed the 
application, arguing in part that the Fee Order was a partial final judgment under 
Court of Chancery Rule 54(b).  The Court of Chancery denied Jafar’s application 
under Supreme Court Rule 42(b), “without consideration of whether the issue 
appealed is truly interlocutory.”1  
(3) 
On May 25, 2022, Jafar filed a notice of interlocutory appeal and, 
“alternatively,” a notice of appeal from the Fee Order and the Court of Chancery’s 
related, explanatory orders.  By letter, this Court ordered the parties to address the 
nature of the appeal, with Jafar’s initial response due June 6, 2022.  On June 6, 2022, 
Jafar, through counsel, asked for a thirty-day extension to retain new counsel and to 
respond to the Court’s letter.  The Court granted Jafar’s motion for an extension and 
set a new deadline for July 6, 2022.  In the interim, Moen filed a notice of cross-
appeal, which is the subject of this Order.     
(4) 
On July 5, 2022, Jafar’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel 
and asked the Court to grant Jafar another thirty-day extension to retain new counsel 
and to respond to the Court’s letter.  The Court granted the request but noted that no 
 
1 Jafar v. Vatican Challenge 2017, LLC, 2022 WL 3136594, at *1 (Del. Ch. May 17, 2022). 
3 
 
further extensions would be granted.  The Court set a new deadline for Jafar to 
respond to the Court’s letter for August 5, 2022.  On August 1, 2022, Jafar again 
asked for an extension to retain new counsel and to respond to the Court’s letter.  
The Court denied the extension.  On August 25, 2022, Jafar informed the Court that 
he wished to withdraw his appeal, and the Court dismissed his appeal on August 29, 
2022.   
(5) 
The Court issued a notice to Moen to show cause why her cross-appeal 
should not be dismissed as an impermissible interlocutory appeal.  In her response 
to the notice to show cause, Moen does not dispute that the appeal is interlocutory 
and, indeed, the record reflects that a motion to amend the complaint remains 
pending in the Court of Chancery.  Instead, Moen argues that the Fee Order is 
appealable because it is a partial final judgment under Court of Chancery Rule 54(b).  
Moen is mistaken. 
(6) 
  Under Rule 54(b), “[w]hen more than 1 claim for relief is presented in 
an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, the 
Court [of Chancery] may direct the entry of a final judgment upon 1 or more but 
fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there 
is not just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.”2  
Here, the Court of Chancery did not expressly enter the Fee Order under Rule 54(b), 
 
2 Del. Ct. Ch. R. 54(b) (emphasis added). 
4 
 
nor did Moen at any point file a motion requesting entry of judgment under Rule 
54(b).  “This Court will not presume the entry of a partial final judgment under Rule 
54(b), which requires the ‘express direction for the entry of judgment.’”3  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
                  Chief Justice 
 
3 Sentinel Techs., Inc. v. Revolution Retail Sys., LLC, 2015 WL 9311553, at *1 (Del. Dec. 22, 
2015) (quoting Rule 54(b)).