The defendants filed an opposition to my Writ of Prohibition, mischaracterizing the facts, minimizing my appeal as nothing more than dissatisfaction with “routine orders,” and falsely claiming I filed an amended complaint without leave of court—despite the fact that the court had already denied their motion to strike it. Their response was riddled with misleading legal arguments, factual misstatements, and personal attacks, including claiming I was “confused” or simply trying to delay the case.
I filed a Motion for Leave to Reply to correct those inaccuracies and a Motion for Sanctions under Rule 34, pointing out how their conduct violated rules of appellate procedure, misrepresented law, and prejudiced my appeal.
What made this worse is that opposing counsel forwarded appellate filings directly to Judge Davidian’s clerk — a move that suggests improper influence or at the very least a backchannel effort to frame the record outside of formal judicial notice. I responded immediately, clarifying that the Court of Appeals already sent official notice of filings directly to the judge. Their effort to insert their narrative into the trial judge’s view of the appellate process was totally inappropriate and reinforced the need for the writ and sanctions.