As I was preparing the record on appeal, I was reminded that the admissions were still unresolved—opposing counsel’s motion for extension of time had never been ruled on. Judge Davidian refused to rule on my motion to strike the extension or deem the admissions admitted. But under Rule 36(a), it didn’t matter—the admissions were already deemed admitted by law. Since the court never ruled on his extension, and it was defective due to improper service, I assumed they realized it couldn’t be granted. So I filed a Notice of Deemed Admissions to clarify for the record that the court’s permission wasn’t needed—by rule, they were already in effect.
But the very next day, Judge Walczyk entered an order granting the extension—claiming that “due to the numerous filings in this case, including appeals to the Court of Appeals, this motion was not properly heard until today.” That was a lie. There was no hearing, and no basis to suggest one occurred. Even more concerning, just 30 minutes earlier, opposing counsel had filed a procedurally improper “objection” to my notice—again during an active automatic stay—and that objection wasn’t accepted into the docket until one minute after her order appeared.
These facts point to one thing: Judge Walczyk had access to the objection before it was officially filed. That timing, paired with her false statement about a hearing, strongly suggests ex parte communication or off-record coordination with opposing counsel—another serious violation of due process and judicial ethics.
After Judge Walczyk improperly ruled on the admissions during the automatic stay, I sought clarification from the Trial Court Administrator about the status of the case, particularly whether the court was recognizing the automatic stay under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-294. Although the TCA had generally been responsive and professional, her answers in this instance were vague, avoided the legal question, and seemed constrained by external pressure. I asked repeatedly whether the trial court was choosing to ignore the automatic stay, and she eventually stated that I could proceed with requesting a trial date. When I confirmed that this meant the court was not honoring the stay, I thanked her—clearly and respectfully—for the confirmation.
Opposing counsel, David Yopp, then escalated the situation inappropriately. He accused me of “baiting” the TCA and suggested she notify the Chief District Court Judge and Chief Resident Judge to consider issuing a gatekeeper order against me—a serious and baseless accusation intended to intimidate. Even more disturbingly, he sent this shortly after emailing me directly to propose a call to “work together” moving forward, then criticized me for refusing, and called my responses “snarky” and “threatening.” His conduct—both toward me and the court staff—was not only unprofessional, but also retaliatory, and part of a broader pattern of harassment and misrepresentation meant to undermine my credibility and obstruct the appellate process.
This order was also added to the interlocutory appeal.
North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.5 Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal.
(a) A lawyer representing a party in a matter pending before a tribunal shall not:
(1) seek to influence a judge, juror, member of the jury venire, or other official by means prohibited by law;
(3) unless authorized to do so by law or court order, communicate ex parte with the judge or other official regarding a matter pending before the judge or official;
North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.4 Misconduct.
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law; or
North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct
A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should personally observe, appropriate standards of conduct to ensure that the integrity and independence of the judiciary shall be preserved.
Canon 2: A judge should avoid impropriety in all the judge’s activities.
A. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself/herself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Canon 3(A)(1):
A judge should be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it.
Canon 3(A)(4):
A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or the person’s lawyer, full right to be heard according to law.