UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Charlottesville Division

_______________________________________
)
BRENNAN M. GILMORE, )
)
Plaintiff ) Civ. No. 3:18-CV-00017-GEC
)
v. )
)
ALEXANDER (“ALEX”) E. JONES; )
INFOWARS, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability )
Company; FREE SPEECH SYSTEMS, LLC, a )
Texas Limited Liability Company; LEE )
STRANAHAN; LEE ANN MCADOO A/K/A )
LEE ANN FLEISSNER; )
SCOTT CREIGHTON; JAMES (“JIM”) )
HOFT; ALLEN B. WEST; DERRICK )
WILBURN; MICHELE HICKFORD; )
and WORDS-N-IDEAS, LLC, )
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

REPLY TO DEFENDANTS HOFT AND STRANAHAN’S JOINT OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR RESOLUTION OF
MOTIONS TO DISMISS BY PLAINTIFF BRENNAN GILMORE

On April 24, 2018, Plaintiff Gilmore filed an Amended Complaint as a matter of right,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), and a Motion to Set Briefing Schedule

for Resolution of Motions to Dismiss. (ECF Nos. 29 and 32). Defendants Stranahan and Hoft

oppose that motion, arguing that that this Court lacks jurisdiction over them. (ECF No. 33).

Opposing a simple motion requesting a more efficient, consolidated briefing schedule is not the

appropriate place to argue jurisdiction, but Mr. Gilmore is happy to address these arguments in

opposition to a motion to dismiss.1

1
The substance of arguments on subject matter and personal jurisdiction should be raised in the
context of a motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, in as much as Defendants Hoft and Stranahan raise the

Case 3:18-cv-00017-GEC Document 34 Filed 04/26/18 Page 1 of 4 Pageid#: 638

 Moreover, common questions of law and fact will permeate any motions to dismiss filed

in response to the Amended Complaint. Therefore, setting a simple consolidated briefing

schedule is in the interest of judicial efficiency, consistency, convenience, and common sense.

See Harris v. L & L Wings, Inc., 132 F.3d 978, 981 n. 2 (4th Cir.1997) (finding that

consolidation of actions was appropriate where matters involved common questions of law and

fact); Federico v. Lincoln Military Hous., Nos. 2:12-cv-80, 2:12-cv-466, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

144013, at *8 (E.D. Va. Oct. 3, 2012) (consolidating cases because the “benefits of

consolidation, namely the risk of inconsistent determinations and the fact that consolidation will

promote efficiency of the judicial process and economy of judicial resources, outweigh any

possible prejudice to the parties or risk of confus[ion]”).

Furthermore, with respect to the as-yet unserved Defendants, the Court may also briefly

stay the filing of and briefing on any motions to dismiss to allow all parties to be served, and

then set a briefing schedule on any potential motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint once

those defendants are served or the time to serve them has lapsed.2 See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299

issue of subject matter jurisdiction in opposition to the pending motion to set a briefing schedule, Mr.
Gilmore feels compelled to briefly address that argument. Mr. Stranahan does not dispute the fact that he
has a Texas driver’s license. Nor does he dispute the fact that he is actively registered to vote in Texas.
The content of his declarations asserting his residence in Virginia notwithstanding, these two facts are
dispositive of the question of Mr. Stranahan’s domicile, and establish that for purposes of diversity
jurisdiction, he is domiciled in Texas. See Peterson v. Paddy, No. 3:16-cv-00026, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
94074, at *8 (W.D. Va June 19, 2017) (Conrad, C.J) (concluding that a defendant’s self-serving
declaration was insufficient to establish defendant’s domicile, but defendant’s Georgia voter registration
raises a presumption of Georgia citizenship, and “carr[ied] considerable weight” to establish defendant’s
domicile was Georgia).
2
Plaintiff mailed Defendant Creighton a waiver of service on March 23, 2018. That waiver was
delivered, but has not yet been returned. Counsel for Defendants Stranahan and Hoft represents that “Mr.
Creighton will waive service.” (ECF No. 33 at 3). Plaintiff also mailed Defendant Wilburn a waiver of
service on March 23, 2018. Tracking information indicates that at the time of filing, notice was left by the
U.S. Post Office at Mr. Wilburn’s address in Colorado Springs, but the package was unclaimed, waiver
was undelivered, and it is being returned to Plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff is in the process of engaging a
process server to serve Mr. Wilburn. Plaintiff mailed waivers of service of the Amended Complaint to
Defendants Hickford and Words-N-Ideas on April 24, 2018. Those waivers have not yet been delivered.

Case 3:18-cv-00017-GEC Document 34 Filed 04/26/18 Page 2 of 4 Pageid#: 639

U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in

every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort

for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”); Baehr v. Creig Northrop Team, P.C., Nos. 13-0933,

14-2456, 2015 WL 13602761 (D. Md. Oct. 8, 2015) (holding that “a brief stay to clarify the

status of proceedings and permit an orderly airing of pending issues serves judicial economy. A

brief stay will not prejudice the [parties] and will ensure that neither party is prejudiced by lapsed

scheduling deadlines.”).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Briefing Schedule for Resolution of Motions to

Dismiss should be granted, and a common sense briefing schedule should be entered to ensure

the efficient handling of any motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

Respectfully submitted,

____ /s/ Andrew Mendrala

Andrew Mendrala, VA State Bar #82424
Aderson Francois, admitted pro hac vice
CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC
Georgetown University Law Center
600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 662-9065
Email: Andrew.Mendrala@georgetown.edu
Counsel for Plaintiff Brennan Gilmore

Case 3:18-cv-00017-GEC Document 34 Filed 04/26/18 Page 3 of 4 Pageid#: 640

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 26, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk
of the Court for the Western District of Virginia via the CM/ECF system. Participants registered
for electronic filing will automatically receive notification of this filing.

I further certify that I mailed via First-Class Mail, postage prepaid, a copy of the
foregoing to the following parties who are not registered for electronic service via the CM/ECF
system:

Scott Creighton, a/k/a/ Raymond Scott Creighton

9214 13th Street N, Apt. A,
Tampa, FL 33612

Allen B. West
9925 Wood Forest Drive
Dallas, TX 75243

Derrick Wilburn
1820 Smoke Ridge Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 08919-3458

Michele Hickford
848 SE 4th Court
Deerfield Beach, FL 33441

Words-N-Ideas, LLC
848 SE 4th Court
Deerfield Beach, FL 33441

/s/ Andrew Mendrala

Case 3:18-cv-00017-GEC Document 34 Filed 04/26/18 Page 4 of 4 Pageid#: 641