Civil | Mainville v. De Santis Rentals. LLC
A Case for Justice
This page shares the journey of my legal battle against my previous landlord in North Carolina—one that quickly evolved into a fight for the preservation of justice itself, against the District Court, Court of Appeals, North Carolina Human Relations Commission (NCHRC), Office of Administrative Hearings, and the Department of Justice.
You can click into each of the events and view the documents associated with it. The documents have not been altered other than to remove emails, phone numbers, certificates of service (unless they pertain to an argument), my medical history, signatures, logos, and repeated emails in replies. On some documents, I’ve added direct notes to clarify the record, while others speak for themselves.
It's important to note that I am now dealing with three separate cases—one through state court, one through the state administration, and one in federal court—all by myself with no help. I will try to update this site and respond to any messages as quickly as I can.
NOTE: Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice. These are my personal experiences, positions, and filings related to my case only. If you’re facing a legal issue, please consult with a licensed attorney. You can also check out the resource page that has links to some sites that offer legal advice.
A Call for Action
Have you filed a discrimination or retaliation complaint with the North Carolina Human Relations Commission (NCHRC) or the North Carolina Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division and felt the process was mishandled? I want to hear about it!
Timeline of Events
Below is the timeline of events based off my judicial logs, with the top event being the most recent. I everything together so you can see just how much I’ve had to manage on my own while working full time. You can use the filter options below to view entries based on your preference.
You can also view the court docket online on the eCourt portal.
Reference of Filters:
- Civil Dispute: The overall civil case
- Court of Appeals: Actions or filings at the NC Court of Appeals.
- Court Order / Judgment: Rulings or orders issued by a court.
- Defendants: Events specifically involving De Santis Rentals, Anna De Santis, or her counsel
- DOJ / AG Office: Events involving the Department of Justice or NC Attorney General’s Office.
- Federal Court: Events or filings at the federal court level.
- Judicial Misconduct Alleged: Allegations of serious judicial misconduct or abuse of judicial authority.
- Law / Statute / Information: A state or federal law, rule, or case law cited or tips pertaining to the event.
- NCHRC / HUD: Actions, delays, or issues involving the NC Human Relations Commission or HUD.
- Office of Administrative Hearings: Events or filings within the NC Office of Administrative Hearings process.
- Plaintiff: Events, filings, or actions initiated by me as the plaintiff.
- State Court: Events occurring in Small Claims or District Court in NC.
- Violations: Clear, provable breaches of law, rules, or tenant protections committed by defendants.
- Attorney Misconduct Alleged: Ethical or procedural violations committed by opposing counsel (Frank McGraw & David Yopp).
Court of Appeals | Attorney David Yopp
Judicial Stonewalling - Current (SC)
Defendants' attorney, David Yopp, files an improper motion in the Court of Appeals requesting to block me from filing my record on appeal. In addition to filing a motion to strike, the Court of Appeals engaged in some unusual and concerning activity itself.
May
6-7
2025
District Court | Court of Appeals | Order
Denial of Clarity - Current (SC)
On May 2, I filed motions in all three courts—trial, appellate, and Supreme—exposing misrepresentation, record tampering, and ongoing violations of the automatic stay to protect my case and preserve the truth.
May
5
2025
PETITION | NCHRC | OAH | DOJ
Motion to Compel or Recuse - Current (OAH)
The tribunal has continued to ignore my motion for summary judgment forcing me to file a motion to compel an entry of order.
May
5
2025
District Court | Supreme Court | Plaintiff
Accountability
On May 2, I filed motions in all three courts—trial, appellate, and Supreme—exposing misrepresentation, record tampering, and ongoing violations of the automatic stay to protect my case and preserve the truth.
May
2
2025
District Court | Supreme Court | Attorney David Yopp
Hearing on Review
The January 23 hearing, which should have been a turning point toward progress, instead exposed a pattern of procedural violations, judicial misconduct, and prejudicial delays that not only derailed my case but ultimately forced me into an interlocutory appeal after exhausting every reasonable effort to resolve the issues.
Apr
28-30
2025
Petition | NCHRC | OAH | DOJ
Misinterpretation of Justice
The DOJ finally responded to my summary judgment motion with mischaracterizations, dismissive arguments, and a refusal to acknowledge clear harm—proving not only how deeply broken the system is, but how easily justice is denied when those tasked with upholding it refuse to take responsibility.
Apr
24
2025
District Court | Attorney David Yopp | Chief District Court Judge Eagles
Motion to Continue Misconduct
After filing my federal complaint, the court continued to disregard the automatic stay, the defendants filed a motion to continue and a lowball settlement offer, and I was ordered to appear in person despite prior requests for reasonable accommodations—prompting a formal objection and raising deeper concerns about the pattern of retaliation, judicial inaction, and trust in the system itself.
Apr
21-24
2025
Federal Court | Complaint | Plaintiff
TRO & Federal Filing
With trial days away and state courts refusing to enforce the automatic stay, I filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Anna alongside an emergency TRO to stop ongoing retaliation by the defendants. I knew the TRO was a long shot—but it was the only path left to protect my rights without directly suing the courts.
Apr
21
2025
Supreme Court | Petition | Plaintiff
Supreme Filing
On April 17, 2025, I petitioned the North Carolina Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals’ rulings that disregarded precedent, allowed forum shopping, violated the automatic stay, and raised urgent questions about appellate jurisdiction, procedural equity, and access to justice for pro se litigants.
Apr
17
2025
District Court | Attorney David Yopp
Request for Judicial Review
Defendants’ request for judicial settlement under Rule 11(c) was improper because it sought to strike filings the rule doesn’t cover—like my Rule 9(d) supplement—and was part of a broader pattern of forum shopping, where opposing counsel first asked the Court of Appeals to rule on timeliness (outside its jurisdiction), then used that ruling in trial court to justify overreaching requests the judge wasn’t authorized to grant.
Apr
16-17
2025
PETITION | NCHRC | OAH | DOJ
Motion for Summary Judgment
After the tribunal issued a flawed denial of my Motion for Reconsideration while delaying a ruling on the merits, I filed for summary judgment—laying out overwhelming evidence that NCHRC violated state and federal law, failed to investigate core claims, and relied on hearsay to support a procedurally void determination that must be set aside.
Apr
10-15
2025
Court of Appeals | Attorney David Yopp | Plaintiff
Appealing to the Court of Appeals
Although I properly served the proposed record on March 5 and his objections were filed after the deadline, the Court of Appeals granted his motion without giving me the full response period, allowing untimely objections to override the settled record and force the case into further delay.
Apr
4-12
2025
Petition | NCHRC | OAH
Dept of Unjustice
After the DOJ filed a misleading and hearsay-filled opposition to my motion to disqualify, the tribunal abruptly cancelled the hearing without proper justification, prompting me to file a motion to reconsider that challenged the mischaracterizations, procedural inconsistencies, and the court’s failure to address the actual conflict of interest at issue.
Apr
1-3
2025
District Court | Defendants | Attorney David Yopp
Motion to Transfer Venue
Opposing counsel escalated their misconduct by filing hostile responses, misrepresenting the law, moving to strike my right to reply, and attempting to transfer the case to Superior Court based on a counterclaim filed during the automatic stay—blatantly violating appellate procedure and jurisdictional boundaries.
Mar
25-26
2025
complaint | NCHRC | OAH | DOJ
Dismissed by the DOJ
After discovering the DOJ had filed a premature motion to dismiss my contested case—without proper notice and despite their conflict of interest in defending the agency that violated my rights—I responded with a detailed opposition and petitioned for their disqualification.
Mar
18-21
2025
District Court | Attorney David Yopp | Plaintiff
Counterclaim
On March 14, 2025, despite the automatic stay, opposing counsel filed a duplicate motion to dismiss and untimely counterclaims—refusing to withdraw them even after I warned him—forcing me to file a formal notice of violation to document this ongoing misconduct and protect my rights on appeal.
Mar
14-17
2025
Court of Appeals | Attorney David Yopp | Plaintiff
Sanctions
After defendants filed a misleading opposition to my Writ of Prohibition, I submitted a reply and motion for sanctions, while also calling out opposing counsel’s improper communication with the judge’s clerk.
Mar
11
2025
Contested Case | NCHRC | OAH
Petition for Contested Case
After HUD wrongly denied my appeal by claiming lack of jurisdiction, I filed a contested case hearing petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings to challenge the NCHRC’s mishandled investigation as a faster and more affordable path to accountability.
Mar
6
2025
Court of Appeals | Plaintiff
Proposed ROA & Failed RFAs
I completed and served the Proposed Record on Appeal through the eFile and Serve system to opposing counsel.
Mar
5
2025
District Court | Orders | Lead Civil Judge Walcyzk | Appealed
Deem of Admissions
After I filed a notice confirming that admissions were deemed admitted under Rule 36(a), Judge Walczyk improperly granted the defendants’ extension in a way that suggest off-record coordination with opposing counsel. When I sought clarification from the TCA, opposing counsel falsely accused me of baiting court staff and suggested a gatekeeper order be issued against me, continuing a pattern of retaliation and procedural abuse.
Feb
27
2025