William John Joseph Hoge, Plaintiff,

v.

Brett Kimberlin, et al., Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO THE KIMBERLIN’S OPPOSITION (DOCKET ITEM 55/1) TO REQUEST FOR ORDERS OF DEFAULT

COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and replies to the Kimberlin’s

Opposition (Docket Item 55/1) to Request for Orders of Default. In reply Mr. Hoge

states as follows:

THE KIMBERLINS HAVE FAILED TO SHOW THEY HAVE FILED A PROPER ANSWER

The Defendants make no effort in their Opposition to show how their answer

complies with the Maryland Rules. Rather, they insist that because they are

representing themselves their pleadings must be “liberally construed.” Opposition,

¶ 2. However, the principle that a pro se litigant’s “pleading should be liberally

construed does not conflict with the proposition that unrepresented litigants are

expected to follow the rules of procedure.” Simms v. State, 976 A.2d 1012, 1020

(Md. 2009), n 9. The Kimberlins have essentially admitted being in default, and 1

The “liberally construed” shield that the Kimberlins try to hide behind can be a 1

“liberally construed” sword when wielded by a pro se plaintiff such as Mr. Hoge. However, Mr. Hoge believes that he should endeavor to follow proper procedures rather than burden the Court with improper filings. He prefers to play by the Rules, and he hopes the Court will require the Kimberlins to do so as well.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY

MARYLAND

Case No. 06-C-16-070789

they plead that their pro se status somehow saves them, but there are no pro se

exceptions to be found in the Rules.

Rule 2-323 is clear. Under the terms of Rule 2-323(c) the Kimberlins were

required to specifically admit what is true in the Complaint and to do so paragraph

by paragraph. They failed to do so. They were required to admit and deny the

averments of the Complaint with their denials fairly meeting the substance of the

averments denied. They failed to do so. Because of these failure, they have failed to

meet their burden to file a proper answer.

Rule 2-321 is clear. The Kimberlins had thirty days to file a proper answer to

the Complaint. They failed to do so.

Rule 2-613(b) is clear. The Kimberlins have not denied 1) that the allotted

time to file an answer has expired, 2) that they did not file a proper answer, 3) that

Mr. Hoge provided the Court with their last known address, and 4) that Mr. Hoge

filed a Request for Default. Those four requirements having been met, Rule

2-613(b) states that the Court “shall enter an order of default.” This is mandatory

language without any asterisk pointing to a pro se exception. If the Kimberlin wish

to seek relief from default, they can follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 2-613.

OTHER MATTERS

Mr. Hoge respectfully asks the Court to take note that the Kimberlins have

filed yet another paper containing improper, immaterial, impertinent, and

scandalous material in violation of Rule 2-322(e). Rather that offer any evidence for

the scandalous material noted in Mr. Hoge’s Motion to Strike Docket Item 1/1, they

�2

have offered up more of the same. Their disrespect of the Court’s decorum provides

an additional reason to strike Docket Item 1/1.

Among the immaterial matter in the Kimberlins’ Opposition is their

discussion of venue. The issue of venue has nothing to do with whether a proper

answer was timely filed. In any event, the Kimberlins are wrong in asserting that

this Court in an improper forum for the instant lawsuit. Because there are multiple

defendants with no single venue applicable, Cts. & Jud. § 6-201(b) allows this suit

to be brought in a county where any one of the defendants may be sued. Because

Defendant Schmalfeldt, whose motion to dismiss has been denied (Docket Items 53

and 54), lives in Wisconsin, Cts. & Jud. P. § 6-202(11) allows suit to be brought in

any county in the State. Mr. Hoge can sue Schmalfeldt in Carroll County, so venue

is proper for all the Defendants in Carroll County.

Mr. Hoge’s Request for Orders of Default is now fully briefed. He respectfully

asks the Court to issue Orders of Default as soon as practicable.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge requests the Court:

i.) To ENTER Orders of Default pursuant to Rule 2-613(b) against Brett

Kimberlin and Tetyana Kimberlin for failure to answer the Complaint in the

instant lawsuit,

ii.) To STRIKE the Kimberlins’ Answer (Docket Item 1/1), and

iii.) To GRANT such other relief as the Court may find just and proper.

�3

Date: 24 June, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

William John Joseph Hoge, pro se 20 Ridge Road Westminster, Maryland 21157 (410) 596-2854 himself@wjjhoge.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 24th day of June, 2016, I served copies of the foregoing on the following persons:

William M. Schmalfeldt by First Class U. S. Mail to 3209 S. Lake Drive, Apt. 108, St. Francis, Wisconsin 53235

William Ferguson by First Class U. S. Mail to 10808 Schroeder Road, Live Oak, California 95953

Brett Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20817 (last known address)

Tetyana Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20817 (last known address)

William John Joseph Hoge

AFFIDAVIT

I, William John Joseph Hoge, solemnly affirm under the penalties of perjury that the contents of the foregoing paper are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

Date: 24 June, 2016 William John Joseph Hoge

�4