William John Joseph Hoge,

Plaintiff,
v.
Brett Kimberlin, et al.,
Defendants.

IN THE

CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY

MARYLAND
Case No. 06-C-16-070789

PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR ORDERS OF DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANTS BRETT

KIMBERLIN AND TETYANA KIMBERLIN AND MOTION TO STRIKE DOCKET ITEM 1/1
COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and requests the Court to enter
Orders of Default against Defendants Brett Kimberlin and Tetyana Kimberlin
pursuant to Md. Rule 2-613(b). In support of his request Mr. Hoge states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
Service of process was effected on both Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin on
5May, 2016. Docket Items 30 and 31. Rule 2-321 requires that they should have
filed an answer within 30 days. The time allowed for them to file expired on a
Saturday, so their answers were due not later than Monday, 6 June, 2016.
I. THE KIMBERLINS HAVE FAILED TO FILE A PROPER ANSWER TO MR. HOGES
COMPLAINT
While the Kimberlins have jointly submitted a document entitled
Defendants Brett and Tetyana Kimberlins Answer to Plaintiffs Frivolous,
Vexatious and Malicious Complaint (Docket Item 1/1), that document does not
meet the requirements of Rules 2-323. The Kimberlins filing reads in full:
Defendants Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin hereby answer sexual
predator, serial stalker and Plaintiff William Hoges frivolous,

vexatious and malicious complaint by denying the allegations set

forth in the complaint. Defendants defenses are (1) litigation
privilege immunity, (2) truth, (3) no prosecution, (4) no termination
in favor of Plaintiff, (3) [sic] probable cause, (5) lack of malice, (6)
lack of personal jurisdiction, (7) improper venue, and (8) failure to
state a claim.
Docket Item 1/1.
Because Mr. Hoge is seeking both money damages and injunctive relief
(Complaint at 34, 35), Rule 2-323(d), which allows for a general denial when only
money damages are sought, does not apply to the instant lawsuit. Rule 2-323(c)
applies, and a general denial is not permitted under its terms. Instead, it
specifically requires a defendant to admit what is true in a complaint and to do so
paragraph-by-paragraph. Under Rule 2-323(c) the Kimberlins are required to
admit and deny the averments of Mr. Hoges Complaint with their denials fairly
meeting the substance of the averments denied. The Kimberlins have simply failed
to meet their burden to file a proper answer.
Given the failure of the Kimberlins Answer to meet the requirements of
Rule 2-232(c), a timely answer to the Complaint has not been filed.
II. DEFAULT IS PROPER BECAUSE THE KIMBERLINS ANSWER IS NOT
PROPERLY SIGNED AND SHOULD BE STRICKEN
Rule 1-311 requires a pro se party signing a court paper to provide his
address, telephone number, and email address as part of his signature block.
Additionally, Rule 1-311(c) states that
[i]f a pleading or paper is not signed as required (except inadvertent
omission to sign, if promptly corrected) or is signed with the intent

to defeat the purpose of this Rule, it may be stricken and the action
may proceed as though the pleading or paper had not been filed.
Id. Neither Brett Kimberlin not Tetyana Kimberlin provided an address, telephone
number, or email address in the signature blocks on their Answer. Thus, the
Answer is not properly signed.
Even if the Kimberlins errors were inadvertent, they did not promptly
correct the deficiencies. The Court should note that Mr. Hoge has repeatedly
complained that not a single paper filed by the Kimberlins has been properly
signed. Those complaints, the first of which was served on them three weeks ago,
should have alerted them to their problem, and they should have corrected their
signature blocks. Rather than correct their first filings, the Kimberlins have
doubled down and have continued to flout Rule 1-311 on subsequent court papers.
Further, by failing to properly sign their Answer, the Kimberlins are
attempting to skate on their obligation to provide the Court with their current
address(es). Smith-Myers Corp. v. Sherill, 209 Md.App. 494, 60 A.3d 90, 102-103
(Md.App. 2013).
Therefore, the Court should find that the Kimberlins are willfully refusing to
obey Rule 1-311, the Court should strike Docket Item 1/1 pursuant to Rule 1-311(c),
and this case should continue as if Docket Item 1/1 had not been filed.
III. THE ANSWER SHOULD BE STRICKEN PURSUANT TO RULE 2-322(e)
Rule 2-323(e) allows the Court to strike a pleading containing any improper,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. As can be seen above, the

Kimberlins Answer refers to Mr. Hoge as a sexual predator and as a serial

stalker. Even if those scandalous epithets were true (and they are not1), they are
immaterial and inapplicable to Mr. Hoges Complaint. The Kimberlins use of such
ad hominem attacks on Mr. Hoge has been a persistent problem with their filings in
the instant lawsuit. Such name calling is improper.2
Rather than allow the Kimberlins a privileged forum to publicize their
mudslinging, the Court should strike Docket Item 1/1 pursuant to Rule 2-323(e).
IV. THE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ACCOMPANYING THE ANSWER IS FALSE
The Certificate of Service accompanying Docket Item 1/1 states I certify that
I mailed a copy of this motion on [sic] Plaintiff this 9th day of May, 2016, and it is
signed by Brett Kimberlin. The Courts docket shows that tDocket Item 1/1 was
both filed and entered on 05/18/2016. The Kimberlins would have the Court
believe that they served Mr. Hoge nine days before they filed their Answer with
1

Brett Kimberlin is barred by res judicata from make such claims against Mr. Hoge
as a result of the dismissal with prejudice of Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et
al. (II), Case No. 403868V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2016). He should stop trying to relitigate the multiple suits that he has filed against Mr. Hoge and lost. See
Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Brett and Tetyana Kimberlins Motion to Find
William a Vexatious Litigant, Docket Item 47/1, at 1-4. Similarly, given the denial
of the Peace Order sought in 2015 by both the District Court (Case No.
0601SP012712015) and the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Case No.
9148D), the Kimberlins should stop trying to re-litigate their claims of untoward
interest in Mrs. Kimberlins elder daughter by Mr. Hoge.
2

In Alvarado Morales v. Digital Equipment Corp., 669 F.Supp. 1173, 1187 (D.P.R.
1987), the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico stated that [t]he
federal courts do not provide a forum for mudslinging, name calling and privileged
defamation. Mr. Hoge hopes that this Court will take steps to ensure that it does
not allow itself to become a forum for scurrilous and fact-free privileged
defamation.
4

the Court. That discrepancy is sufficient to call the truthfulness of the Certificate
into question, and, in fact, the Certificate is false.
The Kimberlins did not serve Mr. Hoge on the 9th as they claimed. They
didnt serve him when they filed their Answer with the Court. Service actually
occurred much later. A copy of the envelope that contained their service of Docket
Item 1/1 on Mr. Hoge is attached as Exhibit A. It is postmarked MAY 24 16. The
actual service of the Answer 15 days after the date shown on the Certificate is
evidence that the Certificate is false. A pro se partys signature on a pleading or
paper certifies that he has read it and that to the best of his knowledge,
information, and belief there is good ground to support it. Rule 1-311(c) allows the
Court to take appropriate disciplinary action for a willful violation of Rule 1-311.
Given the evidence, the Court should strike Docket Item 1/1.
OTHER MATTERS
The last known address for both Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin is 8100 Beech
Tree Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20817.
An Affidavit as required by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C.
501 et seq., is attached as Exhibit B.
CONCLUSION
All the requirements for Orders of Default pursuant to Rule 2-613(b) have
been met: 1) the time allowed for filing an answer has expired; 2) the Kimberlins
have not filed a proper answer; 3)the Kimberlins last known address has been
provided herein; and 4) Mr. Hoge has filed this Request for Default.
5

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.

Date: 10 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 10th 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: 10 June, 2016
William John Joseph Hoge

Exhibit A

Exhibit B