Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Plaintiff
v.
NOW COME Defendants James Hoft, Lee Stranahan, R. Scott Creighton, Derrick
Wilburn, Michele Hickford and Words-N-Ideas, LLC (hereinafter the “Undersigned Defendants”)
by their counsel Aaron J. Walker, Esq., in the above-styled case for the sole purpose of filing this
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Defer Consideration of Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. 105). They
1. On Saturday, October 20, 2018, the Undersigned Defendants filed a Motion for
Sanctions (Dkt. 101). The Plaintiff now seeks to delay consideration of that motion claiming 1)
the grounds of the Motion for Sanctions are allegedly exactly the same as a prior motion to dismiss,
and 2) that it would be more “efficient” to delay consideration until after the November 13, 2018,
2. Most basically, the Plaintiff forgets that the Undersigned Defendants did not solely
file a motion to dismiss. Rather, the Undersigned Defendants filed a “Motion to Dismiss and
Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs” (Dkt. 46) (emphasis added), and the brief accompanying that
motion asked this Court to exercise its discretion by providing such attorneys fees and costs under
Dkt. 47, pp. 93-94. In short, just as a one might incorporate by reference arguments made in a
arguments made in the then-anticipated Motion for Sanctions that was eventually filed. Therefore,
3. Second, the new Motion for Sanctions does not simply “rehash[] the same
arguments that [the Undersigned] Defendants made in their motion to dismiss.” (Dkt. 105, p. 1).
As evidenced above, the Motion for Sanctions is designed to build an argument that the
deficiencies in the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 29) and the deficiencies of evidence in support
Defendants with frivolous litigation. That is a different question than whether or not the case
should be dismissed, and, to the extent that arguments are made that apply both to the issue of
sanctions and whether the Undersigned Defendants are entitled to attorneys fees and costs under
VA. CODE § 8.01-223.2, this Court can see that the Undersigned Defendants specifically avoided
repetition to the extent possible, if only to avoid wasting this Court’s time.
4. Third, it is not more efficient to delay consideration. There are twenty lawyers in
this case. Only two of them have an office in Charlottesville itself. Undersigned counsel anticipates
that it will take about an hour and a half to drive from his home in Manassas to the hearing on
1
Arguments related to the deficiencies of the Plaintiff’s evidence could not, as a matter of logic,
be raised in the Undersigned Defendants’ motion to dismiss, because the time for the Plaintiff to
present his evidence did not come until he filed his opposition to that motion to dismiss. Dkt. 70.
2
5. Further, the Defendants hail from (Northern) Virginia, Texas, Florida, Colorado,
and Missouri. With respect to the Undersigned Defendants, all but Mr. Stranahan have presented
an evidentiary challenge to the Plaintiff’s claim of personal jurisdiction over them. In response,
the Plaintiff has presented no evidence that personal jurisdiction is appropriate. If any of the out-
of-state Defendants wish to attend these hearings, deferring consideration of the Motion for
Sanctions will double their costs—when there is no evidentiary basis that would allow this Court
to exercise jurisdiction over them at all. Given the state of the evidence, it is an outrage that they
are being sued in this Court at all, and the case against them should be disposed of with the utmost
efficiency. To be blunt, the Plaintiff should be moving for voluntary dismissal. Outside of that, the
most efficient outcome for the Undersigned Defendants is to have the entirety of this case disposed
of in one hearing.
6. Therefore, this Court should deny the Plaintiff’s motion to defer for three reasons.
First, it is necessary to fully consider the Undersigned Defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss and Motion
for Attorney Fees and Costs.” Second, the Motion for Sanctions does not simply rehash arguments
made in prior motions—as evidenced by simply reading it. Third, it is not efficient to have multiple
hearings on the matter where the attorneys are generally from far away, and the Defendants live
even further from the courthouse. Getting everything wrapped up in one hearing is the more
efficient route.
s/ Aaron J. Walker
Aaron J. Walker, Esq.
Attorney for Defendants Hoft, Stranahan, Creighton,
Wilburn, Hickford and WNI
Va. Bar# 48882
7537 Remington Road
Manassas, Virginia 20109
(703) 216-0455
AaronJW72@gmail.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the United
States District Court for the Western District of Virginia on Wednesday, October 24, 2018. All
participants in the case will be served automatically.
s/ Aaron J. Walker