BRETT KIMBERLIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND v.

GREENBELT DIVISION NATIONAL BLOGGERS CLUB, et al., Defendants Case No. 13-CV-03059-PWG

DEFENDANT HOGES OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE SAME

COMES NOW Defendant William Hoge and hereby moves that this Court strike Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time in Which to Respond Pending to Motions by Defendants or, alternatively, deny said motion for lack of merit. In support of this opposition and motion, Mr. Hoge states:

1. It was Plaintiffs choice to sue 22 defendants simultaneously. The fact that more than one or two might actually respond to his Amended Complaint should have been foreseeable.

2. Whether some defendants wish to settle the instant suit without litigation should have no bearing on the rights of others, including Defendant Hoge, to vigorously defend the lawsuit. 3. If Plaintiff wishes to engage counsel, he may. Indeed, given that he could have engaged counsel before bringing his case to this Court, he has had more time than any defendant to obtain counsel. One wonders what difficulty Plaintiff is having in hiring a lawyer. Surely, if Plaintiffs case had any apparent merit, some lawyer would be willing to represent him on a fee-contingent basis. In any event, Plaintiff is not a novice in the courtroom. He has bragged, I have filed over a hundred lawsuits and another one will be no sweat for me. On the other hand, it will cost you a lot of time and money ...1 Many of those suits were handled pro se.2 Given Plaintiffs extensive experience as a pro se litigant, it is unlikely that Plaintiff was unaware of the various time limits imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when he filed the instant lawsuit. Yet, during the past two years, Defendant Hoge has observed Plaintiff in multiple courtrooms asking

http://www.patterico.com/2010/10/11/brett-kimberlin-threatens-to-sue-me/, viewed 30 November, 2013.

1

A partial list of Plaintiffs pro se federal litigation includes Kimberlin v. Department of Treasury, 774 F.2d 204 (7th Cir. 1985), Kimberlin v. Department of Justice, et al., 788 F.2d 434 (7th Cir. 1986), Kimberlin v. Brewer, 825 F.2d 1157 (7th Cir. 1987), Kimberlin v. Department of Justice, 921 F.Supp. 833 (D. DC 1996), Kimberlin v. Department of Justice, 129 F.3d 944 (D. DC 1998), Kimberlin v. Dewalt, 12 F.Supp. 487 (D. Md. 1998), and Kimberlin v. Department of Justice, 150 F.Supp.2d 36 (D. DC 2001).
2

judges to allow him to skirt various rules, pleading his pro se status. After three decades of pro se litigation, that excuse should have expired. 4. The principle of Judicial Economy suggests that this Court should expeditiously consider Defendant Hoges motion to dismiss whether or not Plaintiff has filed a timely opposition by close of business on 30 December, 2013. If it be favorably ruled upon, the instant case could be quickly terminated. If not, the case can continue in an orderly manner. Moreover, it is not in the interest of justice to permit Plaintiff an extended period to respond to opposing parties filings while expecting timely responses from defendants.3 5. On information and belief, none of the defendants who have actually been served or who have waived service have asked for additional time to respond to the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. Not all of the defendants named in the suit have been served. On information and belief, Defendants Robert McCain and Kimberlin Unmasked neither have been served with the original Complaint or the Amended Complaint, nor have they been notified of their option to waive service. 6. Plaintiff has misrepresented statements made by Defendants Aaron Walker, William Hoge, Robert McCain, and Kimberlin Unmasked. Neither Mr. Walker nor Mr.

On 30 August, 2013, Plaintiff filed a parallel lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Montgomery County (Case No. 380996 V) against Defendants Aaron Walker, William Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain, Ali Akbar, and Kimberlin Unmasked. During a scheduling hearing on 26 November, 2013, Judge Rubin admonished Plaintiff for failing to respond to motions filed by the defendants and for failing to serve copies of his own filings on the defendants counsels. Plaintiff was given a drop dead date for all tardy responses and was warned of the possible consequences of any future failure to respond to defendants filings.
3

Hoge have made any statements to the effect that their motions to dismiss were filed in order to ruin the Plaintiffs Christmas holiday. The timing of Mr. Hoges filing was driven by expiration of the 60-day waiver of notice period on 18 December, 2013. On information and belief, Defendants Aaron Walker, DB Capitol Strategies, and The Franklin Center filed responses on or before the 18th for the same reason. Plaintiff set the schedule when he sent the waiver of notice forms to defendants on 19 October, 2013. It is true that Defendants Walker and Hoge have publicly commented on the possible unfortunate effects that answering so many filings during the holiday season might have, pointing out that it was Plaintiff who set the schedule in motion with no regard for the calendar. Others, including Defendants McCain and Kimberlin Unmasked, have made similar observations. Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs motion is a example of the sort of lying which led Mr. Hoge to file his motion to require verified pleadings from Plaintiff. 7. Plaintiffs motion alleges facts which are neither part of the existing record nor verified by affidavit, court testimony, or deposition as required by Rule 43(c), i.e., 1) that Plaintiff is negotiating to obtain counsel, 2) that some defendants have discussed settling the lawsuit, 3) that some defendants have sought extra time to respond to the Amended Complaint, and 4) some defendants have timed their responses to ruin Plaintiffs Christmas holiday. As noted in paragraph 6 above, at least one of these allegations is provably false. Because of this reliance on facts not in evidence, Plaintiffs motion is improper and should be stricken.

8. Once again, Plaintiff has not provided the information required in his signature block. Thus, Plaintiffs motion should be stricken as improper. 9. Plaintiffs says in his certificate of service that he has only served his motion on the attorneys and defendants who have filed motions as of 23 December, 2013, by email on that date. Since this Court has not ordered otherwise, Rule 5 requires Plaintiffs motion be served on all parties. In fact, as of 29 December, 2013, Defendant Hoge had not been served by email or any other means, and Plaintiff does not have permission to serve Mr. Hoge by email. This Opposition and Motion to Strike results from Mr. Hoges finding Plaintiffs motion on PACER (Docket Item 18). The lack of even defective service calls into question the veracity of Plaintiffs certificate of service and reinforces Mr. Hoges arguments in his motion to require verified pleadings from Plaintiff. In any event, Plaintiffs motion is improper because of defective service and should be stricken.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Defendant Hoge moves that this Honorable Court strike Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time in Which to Respond Pending Motions by Defendants for being improperly filed and/or for defective service or, if not stricken, deny said motion for lack of merit.