Giuliani Avoids Default in $146 Million Defamation Lawsuit (1)

Rudolph Giuliani can, for the moment, hold on to his Palm Beach, Fla., condo rather than sell it to satisfy a $146 million defamation judgment awarded to two Georgia poll workers, a federal judge ordered Friday.

Judge Lewis Liman of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York gave Giuliani’s lawyer until Oct. 8 to file his brief opposing a motion to declare the Florida condo subject to collection. Liman had threatened to rule against Giuliani by default after the former New York City mayor failed to meet the original Sept. 23 deadline.

Liman said he had “a bit of beef” with the way Giuliani’s attorney, Kenneth Caruso, framed his request for a deadline extension. He reprimanded Caruso for omitting the fact that the deadline extension also provides relief from a December 2023 court order that Giuliani pay nearly $146 million to two Georgia poll workers—Ruby Freeman and Wandrea’ Moss—who Giuliani falsely accused of rigging 2020 presidential election results.

“I’ll entertain that request, but I expect you to be more forthright going forward,” Liman said.

Caruso apologized, saying he didn’t think of the request as relief from a court order. His request letter framed it as an issue of professional courtesy from the plaintiffs’ lawyers.

A jury in December 2023 awarded $148 million to Freeman and Moss. A D.C. district court judge entered a final order of $145,969,000.

The poll workers want Giuliani to hand over his New York City apartment valued at $5.6 million, his Palm Beach condo valued at $3.5 million, and several personal items, including his 1980 Mercedes-Benz, three Yankee World Series rings, and several luxury-brand watches.

Liman asked Caruso why Giuliani couldn’t just go ahead and hand over the personal items, including his World Series rings.

“I’m sure Mr. Giuliani can live without his World Series rings,” the judge said.

Caruso said he can’t agree to turn over any property at the moment. He was just brought onto the lawsuit this month and needs time to understand the facts of the case.

‘Need for Speed’

The issue of Giuliani’s primary residence needs to be resolved. Giuliani claims the Florida condo is his primary residence. The plaintiffs claim his New York apartment is his primary residence.

The issues of Giuliani’s Florida residency and enforcement of the D.C. district court order are being decided in two separate but connected cases, with Liman presiding over both. Caruso said Liman has to rule on the residency case first before he can make a decision to enforce the district court order and require Giuliani to turn over his personal property, including the condo and other items.

Aaron Nathan of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP—Freeman and Moss’ attorney—underscored that his clients have “been at this” with Giuliani for a long time, and there’s a “need for speed” to resolve both cases.

Giuliani has 10 months before he can refile for bankruptcy and further slow down collections, Nathan said. Additionally, Giuliani’s New York City and Palm Beach residences have hefty monthly maintenance fees that if left unpaid for too long could leave creditors “holding the bag.”

Giuliani has a pattern of asking for filing extensions, Nathan asserted. “We’ve spent years in litigation and eight months in bankruptcy,” he said. “We’re not going to agree to extensions that take us nowhere.”

Liman agreed that an action to enforce a court judgment shouldn’t be “a long, drawn-out thing.”

“Your client owes money,” the judge said to Caruso. “He has to satisfy that and has to turn over his assets. That should move quickly.”

Nathan plans to file a motion for summary judgment in the civil residency case on Oct. 2. Liman said Caruso will have until Oct. 16 to respond to that motion. The parties will meet again on Oct. 17 for a conference with Liman.

United to Protect Democracy also represents Freeman and Moss. Giuliani is also represented by David Labowski of Miami represent Giuliani.

The cases are Freeman v. Giuliani, S.D.N.Y., No. 1:24-mc-00353, oral argument 9/27/24 and Freeman v. Giuliani, S.D.N.Y., No. 1:24-cv-06563, oral argument 9/27/24.