By Daoud Kuttab

The California Appellate Court has set January 11^th, 2024 as the final deadline for filing a response to the appeal motion submitted by Benjamin Seryani in the case of Seryani vs Holy See et.al. In their decision, the appeals court said: “No Further extensions will be granted.”

Benjamin Seryani has been in California’s Superior Court of San Bernardino County since August 2019 demanding $31 million in compensation for unpaid contracts at the American University of Madaba. He accuses the Vatican and the Jerusalem Latin Patriarchate of committing fraud and money laundering. Seryani lost the case in the San Bernardino County Court on claims that he had no jurisdiction to file the case in California. He appealed the case to a three-judge panel state panel in October 2023.

Bob Spitz lawyer for Seryani said that “the Courts want to make sure that parties do not keep coming up with different excuses for additional extensions, so they include that language when an extension is granted.” Spitz added that “If the Opposition Brief is not filed by January 11, 2024, the Court will issue a final deadline for filing with 15 more days.   Then briefing is cut off.

After the Opposition Brief is filed by these defendants, Seryani will have an opportunity to file a Reply Brief. Once that Reply Brief is filed, the Appellate Court will send a notice that the briefing is closed, and the matter has been submitted to the Appellate Court for a decision.

Due to the backlog in the Appellate Court, it will take up to two years before a final decision is made.  Spitz said, ‘I do not expect any decision until 2026.”

A curious change appears to have been made in the title of the respondent. Instead of Holy See et.al the lawyer for the Vatican and the American University of Madaba David P. Colella changed the name to AUM. Asked why this was done Seryani’s lawyer said that the respondent’s lawyer “does not want the Holy See to be the name of the Respondent in the final decision when the Appeal gets recorded. If AUM is listed on the decision – nobody knows what that is. People searching for the Holy See cases – it will not come up.” Seryani’s lawyer concluded, “I don’t know if the Appellate Court will follow that scheme or not, but that is their plan.”