Borgen v. Elezzi
Joseph Borgen v. Faisal Elezzi; Waseem Awawdeh; Mahmoud Musa; Mohammed Othman; Mohammed S. Othman; "K.A.", a Minor
- Rearden
- 1:22-cv-04105
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Borgen v. Elezzi, Judge Rearden held a default-judgment motion in abeyance pending liability decisions for other defendants.
Joseph Borgen and the four defendants subject to certificates of default—Waseem Awawdeh, Mahmoud Musa, Mohammed Othman, and Mohammed S. Othman—were directly affected. The ruling also concerned the remaining non-defaulting defendants and service on “K.A.”, a Minor.
What happened
Joseph Borgen asked the court in Borgen v. Elezzi to enter a default judgment against four defendants on their liability for all claims in his amended complaint. He asked the court to postpone deciding damages until the case was resolved as to the remaining defendants.
The court noted that certificates of default had been entered against Waseem Awawdeh, Mahmoud Musa, Mohammed Othman, and Mohammed S. Othman. Those certificates remained in effect and prevented those defendants from arguing the merits of the claims against them.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden held Borgen’s motion for default judgment in abeyance until the court determines the liability of the non-defaulting defendants. The court also required Borgen to update it by November 18, 2025, on service on “K.A.”, a Minor, and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 69.
The detailed version
- Borgen v. Elezzi · No. 1:22-cv-04105
- Rearden
- Nov. 6, 2025
Background
A clerk’s certificate of default had been entered against Waseem Awawdeh, Mahmoud Musa, Mohammed Othman, and Mohammed S. Othman under Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s local rules. Joseph Borgen then moved under Rule 55(b)(2) for a default judgment determining those four defendants’ liability on all counts of the amended complaint. He asked the court to reserve a final damages judgment until liability had been resolved as to the remaining defendants.
Ruling
The court held Borgen’s motion for default judgment against the four defaulting defendants in abeyance pending a determination of liability concerning the non-defaulting defendants. The court explained that the certificates of default remained in effect and prevented the defaulting defendants from arguing the merits of the claims against them. The court did not enter the requested default judgment at this time.
Other Orders
The court ordered Borgen to file a letter by November 18, 2025, updating the court on the status of service on Defendant “K.A.”, a Minor. It directed the clerk to terminate ECF No. 69.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.