Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson
Marybeth Rogers, J.S.C.
MATTER having come before this Court by defendant, Wahid
Elnashfan, Pro Se ("Defendant") by way of
a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order of
October 29, 2018, and upon notice to plaintiff Shari
Ghobrial, Pro Se ("Plaintiff), and Plaintiff
having filed an Opposition to Defendant's Motion on
November 26, 2018; and the Court having considered the papers
submitted and arguments therein; and good cause having been
on this 24th day of December, 2018:
that Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for
the reasons stated below; and it is further
that a copy of this Order shall be served by Wahid Elnashfan,
Pro Se, upon all interested parties within seven (7)
days of the date of this Order.
Wahid Elnashfan ("Defendant") Moves for
reconsideration of the Order entered by the Hon. Marybeth
Rogers, J.S.C., on October 29, 2018. Plaintiff Shari Ghobrial
("Plaintiff) Opposes Defendant's Motion.
July 19, 2018 Plaintiff filed a Complaint.
August 27, 2018 Defendant filed an Answer and Counterclaim.
October 29, 2018 the Court entered an Order in favor of
Plaintiff, directing Defendant to pay Plaintiff $4, 500 plus
Court costs, and dismissing Defendant's Counterclaim with
October 30, 2018 Defendant filed the instant Motion for
Reconsideration, 5. On November 26, 2018 Plaintiff filed an
Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration.
states that Plaintiff has failed to serve Defendant with a
copy of the Court's Order entered on October 29, 2018,
which directed Plaintiff to serve a copy of the Order within
ten days of entry of the Order. Defendant accordingly
requests that the Court dismiss the ruling.
Defendant requests that the Court reconsider the Court's
prior Order. Defendant states that the Court overlooked
numerous facts that cannot be reconciled with the Court's
Opinion. Defendant first points out Plaintiffs claim that
Plaintiff paid Defendant $9, 000 in cash in advance.
Defendant notes that Plaintiffs explanation for the advance
payment was to meet a Fannie Mae deadline that would allow
Plaintiff to live in Plaintiffs home by May of 2017. However,
according to Defendant, Plaintiff stated that Plaintiff paid
Defendant in August of 2017. Defendant notes that Plaintiff
advised the Judge that Plaintiff suffered no penalties or
problems due to the ...