COURT OF CHANCERY

OF THE

SAM GLASSCOCK III

VICE CHANCELLOR

STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE

34 THE CIRCLE

GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947

Date Submitted: May 19, 20231

Date Decided: June 8, 2023

Badr Abdelhameed Dhia Jafar

CEO Cresent Enterprises

Headquarters Crescent House

P.O. Box 2222, Corniche Al Buhaira

Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

Brian M. Gottesman, Esquire

Gabell Beaver LLC

5811 Kennett Pike

Wilmington, DE 19807

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. 
2

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,5culminating 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).
3

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).
4

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.
5

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.
6

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
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