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 MOTION TO STRIKE MULTIPLE FILINGS BY PLAINTIFF

COMES NOW Defendant William Hoge and hereby moves that this Court to strike Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Hoge and Walkers Motions to Dismiss (ECF No. 29), Plaintiffs Response to Defendant DB Capitol Strategies Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 30), Plaintiffs Response to The Franklin Centers Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 31), and the Notification of Related Court Ruling (ECF No. 32), all filed by Plaintiff on 17 January, 2014. In support of this motion Mr. Hoge states the following:

1. This Court has previously admonished Plaintiff about his failure to serve court papers on Defendant Hoge. He has failed to do so again. 2. Plaintiff filed certificates of service with each of the above cited filings, stating that he served all of them on Defendant Hoge by mail on 17 January, 2013.
1

3. Defendant Walker received service of the above mentioned filings from Plaintiff on 18 January, 2014, via Priority Mail (Next Day Delivery Guaranteed). The package was postmarked 17 January, 2014. See Exhibit A. 4. Defendant Hoge received normal mail deliveries on 18 January, 2014. No mail was delivered on the 20th because of the holiday. While inclement weather prevented mail delivery to Mr. Hoges address on the 21st, mail was delivered on the 22nd and 23rd. Mr. Hoge has not yet received any of the items Plaintiff says he mailed on the 17th. If it had been mailed by similar means as the package to Defendant Walker, service to Mr. Hoge is now several days late. 5. This is not the first time Plaintiff has neglected to serve papers on Defendant Hoge. As the Court noted in its Letter Order dated January 7, 2014, (ECF No. 26): Here, Defendants Walker and Hoge have identified potential service problems with Plaintiffs Motion. ... Hoge asserts that, despite Plaintiffs certification that e-mail service was effected, Hoge was not served at all. The failure to serve a party is no mere technicality. If there were any ambiguity, Plaintiff now is made aware that neither Walker nor Hoge has consented to electronic service, and that Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2) requires physical servicethat is, the delivery of a filing in hard copy by hand, mail, or other method expressly approved of in Rule 5unless a party consents to electronic or other service in writing. Proper service is a prerequisite for filing, and future motions will not be considered in the absence of proper service. 6. While Plaintiffs responses are not motions as such, they are court papers subject to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Plaintiffs continuing failure to provide proper service of court papers to Defendant Hoge has been prejudicial to Mr. Hoges ability to
2

conduct his defense. The delay caused by having to learn via PACER of Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 18) to respond to Mr. Hoges motion to dismiss prevented him from filing his opposition before the Court granted the extension. In the case of the four items cited above, five daysroughly a third of the time allowed for Mr. Hoge to respondelapsed between Plaintiffs filing on 17 January and the posting on PACER on 22 January. 7. The time has come to put an end to Plaintiffs cavalier attitude to his obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Courts Local Rules. Given that the Court has already granted Plaintiff additional time to file his responses1 to the motions to dismiss from Defendants Walker, DB Capitol Strategies, The Franklin Center, and Hoge and given the Courts admonition to Plaintiff about proper service, the Court should strike the four items cited above and deny Plaintiff any further opportunity to delay the instant lawsuit by filing further responses to the Defendants motions to dismiss.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Hoge asks this Honorable Court to 1.) Strike Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Hoge and Walkers Motions to Dismiss (ECF No. 29), Plaintiffs Response to Defendant DB Capitol Strategies Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 30), Plaintiffs Response to The Franklin Centers Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 31), and the

Letter Order dated December 30, 2013, ECF No. 21.

3

EXHIBIT A Declaration by Aaron Walker

10

11