On January 27, 2025, I filed an Emergency Motion to address the procedural disorder created by the defendants’ overlapping filings, failure to respond to discovery, and repeated violations of court rules.
With less than 30 days left before trial, the court had granted orders—like the extension to answer and the continuance of my Motion for Default Judgment, despite my objections severely prejudicing me in this case. In legal terms, prejudicing means the opposing party’s actions or the court’s rulings are putting me at a legal disadvantage — affecting my ability to fairly prepare, respond, or be heard in this case.
No substitution of counsel had been filed for the LLC, and opposing counsel continued to misrepresent facts, file improperly, and refuse to provide proof of new representation. These actions created significant delays and confusion, and I specifically warned that I would seek sanctions if their procedural misconduct continued.
My motion requested that the court vacate the improperly granted orders, enter default judgment, compel a response if judgment was not granted, and issue sanctions against the defendants and their counsel for knowingly violating procedural standards. For context, from the start of this case in July, opposing party had only filed one proper motion at this point, which was to request a remote hearing for arbitration.