SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-0264-22 

ABEER A. ABU-GOUSH, 

 Plaintiff-Respondent, 

v.

ABDALLAH A. ABU-ZUBEDAH, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________

Submitted October 23, 2023 – Decided April 17, 2024 

Before Judges DeAlmeida and Berdote Byrne. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, 

Docket No. FM-02-1706-21.

Abdallah A. Abu-Zubedah, appellant pro se. 

Respondent has not filed a brief. 

PER CURIAM 

 Defendant, Abdallah A. Abu-Zubedah, self-represented, appeals from an 

October 18, 2021 order entering a default judgment of divorce against him on 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION 

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2 A-0264-22

the grounds of extreme cruelty and a February 18, 2022 order denying his motion 

to vacate default judgment. Discerning no error, we affirm both orders. 

 We glean the following facts from the partial record before us.1 The 

parties were married on January 12, 2018. There are no children born of the 

marriage. On February 22, 2021, then self-represented plaintiff filed and served 

a complaint for divorce, alleging extreme cruelty. Defendant did not file an 

answer to the complaint, which was due on March 29, 2021, thirty-five days 

after service of the complaint, as required by R. 4:6-1(a). Thereafter, on May 

21, 2021, plaintiff, represented by counsel, filed a Second Amended Complaint 

for Divorce (Second Complaint), and served it upon defendant. The Second 

Complaint was specific and alleged a count for extreme cruelty, detailing events 

alleged to have occurred on identified dates that caused local police to respond 

to an incident of domestic violence, resulted in the issuance of a temporary 

restraining order, and required plaintiff to seek treatment at a Hackensack 

hospital. The Second Complaint also alleged counts for assault and battery, 

1

 It is unclear whether plaintiff was properly served with the appeal. A "proof 

of mailing" signed by a "private messenger" attested he "would be" mailing, via 

certified mail, some of the documents to plaintiff. An order suppressing 

plaintiff's brief was entered on May 1, 2023, and plaintiff has not made an 

appearance in this action. Pursuant to R. 2:5-1(b), service requires an appellant 

provide the notice of appeal, case information statement, and transcript request 

form to "all other parties who have appeared in the action." 
3 A-0264-22

intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional 

distress. In the complaint, plaintiff sought alimony, equitable distribution, and 

attorney's fees and a jury demand for the counts involving personal injury. See 

Tevis v. Tevis, 79 N.J. 422, 434 (1979) (because "the circumstances of [a] 

marital tort and its potential for money damages [are] relevant in the 

matrimonial proceedings, the claim [for a marital tort] . . . should, under the 

'single controversy' doctrine, [be] presented in conjunction with that action as 

part of the overall dispute between the parties in order to lay at rest all their legal 

differences in one proceeding and avoid the prolongation and fractionalization 

of litigation."). 

 The Second Complaint was served on defendant, but defendant claims all 

of the pages were "cut on the right side of each page," and alleges he requested 

plaintiff's counsel provide him with a "proper amended complaint," but he never 

received one. Defendant did not file an answer, which was due on June 10, 

2021, twenty days after service of the amended complaint, as required by R. 4:9-

1. 

 On October 18, 2021, the court held a hearing on the default judgment of 

divorce. Plaintiff represented herself and stated she simply wanted to be 

divorced and wanted to waive the marital tort claims and any requests for 
4 A-0264-22

alimony, equitable distribution, or attorney's fees. The trial court attempted to 

dissuade plaintiff several times from proceeding that day, stating "[b]ut by just 

putting your divorce through today you're giving up the right to alimony, you're 

giving up the rights to all those third-party claims that you have. . . . You can't 

come back and ask for that afterwards." Plaintiff explained she understood and 

wanted to proceed. The court then entered a final judgment of divorce, finding 

she had properly pleaded a claim for extreme cruelty. 

 On December 4, 2021, defendant filed a notice of motion to vacate the 

default judgment. He checked the box indicating he did not request oral 

argument. In support of his motion, he claimed he received "improper service" 

of the Second Complaint and attached a copy of a letter, dated July 22, 2021,

and mailed to the Superior Court and plaintiff's counsel, requesting a clearer 

copy of the complaint. On February 18, 2022 the trial court entered an order 

denying defendant's2

 motion to vacate the default judgment of divorce. This 

appeal followed. 

Pursuant to R. 4:50-1(a), a default judgment will remain undisturbed 

unless the defendant shows the failure to appear or otherwise defend was due to 

excusable neglect under the circumstances and the existence of a meritorious 

2

 The order incorrectly transposed plaintiff and defendant. 
5 A-0264-22

defense to both the cause of action and damages. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. 

Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449, 468-69 (2012). Excusable neglect has been defined as 

"something the parties could not have protected themselves from during the 

litigation." Romero v. Gold Star Distrib., LLC, 468 N.J. Super. 274, 298 (App. 

Div. 2021) (emphasis omitted). Absent an abuse of discretion, a trial court's 

decision will not be disturbed by a reviewing court. Id. at 293 (quoting Hous. 

Auth. of Morristown v. Little, 135 N.J. 274, 283 (1994)). 

Defendant failed to demonstrate excusable neglect. He was served with 

the first complaint on February 22, 2021 but did not file an answer and does not 

reference it in his brief, although he attaches it to the appendix. Defendant also 

does not claim he was not served with the Second Complaint. Instead, he states 

he was served with a copy that was cut off on the right-hand side and he wrote 

to the court and plaintiff's counsel requesting a better copy.3 The letter 

requesting a more legible copy is dated July 22, 2021, well after his answer was 

due on June 10, 2021. If defendant was unable to file an answer to the complaint 

because he could not read it, it was incumbent upon him to file a motion to 

extend the time to answer the complaint or a motion to be served with a more 

3

 The copy defendant attaches has one or two words on the right-hand margin 

cut off, but is otherwise legible. 
6 A-0264-22

legible copy. Self-represented parties are subject to the same court rules and 

requirements as parties with counsel. Rubin v. Rubin, 188 N.J. Super. 155, 159 

(App. Div. 1982); Venner v. Allstate, 306 N.J. Super. 106, 110 (App. Div. 1997); 

Tuckey v. Harleysville Ins. Co., 236 N.J. Super. 221, 224 (App. Div. 1989). 

Defendant was served with the first complaint and was aware he was required 

to file an answer. Defendant was also served with the Second Complaint and 

was aware he was required to file an answer. He did nothing to protect his rights 

other than send a letter after the time to answer had elapsed. He did not follow 

up with any other correspondence from July 22, the date of his letter, through 

October 18, the date the default judgment of divorce was entered. We discern 

no abuse of discretion in the trial court's finding no excusable neglect. 

Defendant argues he was deprived of his constitutional right to have his 

day in court, citing a federal rule of civil procedure. However, because 

defendant failed to file an answer to the complaint, a default proceeding was 

appropriate. See, e.g., Siwiec v. Fin. Res., Inc., 375 N.J. Super. 212, 218 (App. 

Div. 2005); Jameson v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 363 N.J. Super. 419, 426, 

(App. Div. 2003). He also argues he was not given an opportunity to present his 

arguments to the trial court on his motion to vacate and was surprised the court 
7 A-0264-22

decided his motion without oral argument. However, defendant waived oral 

argument on his notice of motion. 

Finally, defendant makes substantive arguments regarding his marriage. 

Because we conclude the trial court appropriately denied the motion to vacate 

default judgment, those arguments are not properly before us, and we decline to 

address them. To the extent we have not addressed defendant's remaining 

arguments, we find they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a 

written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

In sum, we affirm the trial court's orders of October 18, 2021, entering a 

default judgment of divorce, and February 18, 2022, denying defendant's motion 

to vacate default judgment, but remand the February 18, 2022 order for a 

conforming order correcting the parties identified in the order. 

Affirmed.