Rudy Giuliani is facing the prospect of losing yet another legal battle and has pleaded with a federal judge in Manhattan to avoid a self-inflicted defeat. This time, the issue revolves around a defamation lawsuit filed by Daniel Gill, a former grocery store employee, who alleges that Giuliani lied to the police about an incident that led to his wrongful arrest.
The incident occurred when Gill, who had worked at ShopRite for many years, briefly interacted with Giuliani at a political event. After walking up to Giuliani and making a remark, Gill allegedly patted or tapped him on the back. Giuliani, however, claimed that Gill had struck him and caused pain, leading to the police being called. As a result, Gill spent about 21 hours in jail, though the assault charge was later downgraded to a misdemeanor and ultimately dismissed.
Gill filed the defamation lawsuit in May 2023, seeking $2 million in damages. His defamation claim stemmed from Giuliani’s public statements, where he allegedly disparaged Gill, suggesting that he appeared “drunk or high,” and caused Gill to lose his job. The lawsuit initially included multiple claims against Giuliani, the NYPD officers involved, and New York City. However, most of these claims were dismissed in November 2024, leaving only the defamation allegation intact.
The case took a significant turn when Giuliani, who is representing himself in court, failed to meet critical deadlines. A court conference was scheduled for December 12, 2024, but Giuliani did not attend. Furthermore, he missed the deadline to file his response to the lawsuit by December 5, 2024, as mandated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As a result, the judge overseeing the case instructed Gill to file for a default judgment, which would likely result in a ruling in Gill’s favor due to Giuliani’s failure to respond.
In his defense, Giuliani claimed that he was unaware of the deadlines and other key developments in the case. He explained that he had not been checking the email address assigned to the case, leading to missed notifications about court filings. Giuliani further argued that the case had been dormant for a year, and he did not receive notice of the court’s decision regarding the motion to dismiss the amended complaint, nor the order for the December 12 conference. He stated that the court’s filings were being sent to a separate folder in his email inbox, and he had since corrected the issue.
Giuliani’s letter to the court, filed on December 29, 2024, requested permission to submit his delayed response, asserting that the failure to meet the deadlines was not intentional. He also mentioned that he had assumed the case would be dismissed entirely, given that many of the claims against him had been dismissed.
Despite his plea for leniency, Giuliani’s request remains pending, and the court has yet to rule on whether it will allow him to submit his late answer. The case highlights the challenges Giuliani is facing in multiple legal battles, including defamation suits and other legal proceedings, as he continues to navigate his post-political career.
