David Yopp, on behalf of Anna De Santis and De Santis Rentals, filed a motion for entry of default in state court, claiming I never responded to their amended counterclaim from March 14. What he left out is that the filing was made after the 5:00 p.m. electronic service deadline and is therefore deemed served March 17—three days late and past the court-ordered deadline. More importantly, my February 17 appeal triggered an automatic stay under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-294, making any counterclaim filed after that date void. I have consistently challenged the validity of that counterclaim in both state and federal court, where Yopp is a named defendant for conduct in this case. His continued advocacy here is an impermissible conflict under the Rules of Professional Conduct and a direct violation of my right to a neutral adjudicator.
In my motion to strike, I detailed how Yopp’s filing omits material facts, misrepresents the record, and appears timed to interfere with my federal case by manufacturing a “final order” that could be used to invoke the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. If they truly believed their counterclaim was valid, they should have sought default within 30 days—not months later, and certainly not on the eve of their federal response deadline. Any ruling in their favor under these circumstances will be treated as additional evidence of retaliation and collusion, and grounds for further § 1983 claims.