William John Joseph Hoge, IN THE

Plaintiff, CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY

MARYLAND
v.
Case No. 06-C-16-070789
Brett Kimberlin, et al.,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO THE KIMBERLIN DEFENDANTS MOTION TO

TRANSFER THIS CASE TO MONTGOMERY COUNTY

COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and opposes the Kimberlin

Defendants Motion to Transfer Case Against Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin to

Montgomery County Circuit Court. In opposition Mr. Hoge states as follows:

INTRODUCTION

The Court has already denied the Kimberlins Motion to Dismiss (Docket

Item 58/0) which was partially based on their assertion that venue was improper in

Carroll County. Now, in a blatant attempt at judge shopping1 they ask the Court to

let go of this case and send it to Montgomery County.

While Rule 2-327 allows a case to be transferred, Maryland case law

generally favors a plaintiffs choice of forum.

Just how we are to apply this standard requires that we pause

briefly to review the genealogy of Rule 2-327(c). Section (c) of Md.
Rule 2-327 was derived from 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). Odenton, 320

1 Brazenly, they do this while continuing to accuse Mr. Hoge of forum shopping. Of
course, Mr. Hoge selected the available forum which thought was most convenient
for himself when he filed his Complaint. There is nothing unusual about a plaintiff
filing a suit at the courthouse closest to where he lives. Also, the Court has already
found that jurisdiction and venue are proper.
 Md. at 40, 575 A.2d 1235; see also Paul V. Niemeyer and Linda M.
Schuett, Maryland Rules Commentary, at 236 (3rd ed. 2003)
("Maryland Rules Commentary"). That federal statute provides:
For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of
justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other
district or division where it might have been brought. Indeed, our
current respect for the plaintiff's choice of forum is derived largely
from federal law developed under Title 28 U.S.C. 1404 (a).
Leung, 354 Md. at 224, 729 A.2d 956. Consequently the federal
law in construing 1404(a) is highly persuasive when we review,
as we do here, a circuit court ruling based on Md. Rule 2-327(c).
Odenton, 320 Md. at 40, 575 A.2d 1235. In fact, federal and
Maryland law, on this point, can almost be viewed as one body of
law. Maryland Rules Commentary, at 236 ([Rule 2-327(c)] is
derived from 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) and is intended to incorporate the
body of law construing that statute.).

In deciding a motion to transfer, we, as do the federal courts,

consider two overarching factors: convenience and the interests
of justice. See Cobrand, 149 Md.App. at 438, 816 A.2d 117. [T]he
convenience factor requires a court to review the convenience of
the parties and the witnesses. Id. at 438 n. 5, 816 A.2d 117. The
interests of justice factor requires a court to weigh both the
private and public interests; the public interests being composed of
systemic integrity and fairness. Id. (citing Odenton, 320 Md. at
40, 575 A.2d 1235).

Stidham v. Morris, 161 Md.App. 562, 870 A.2d 1285, 1289 (2005). The Kimberlins

attempt to move the case to Montgomery County while motions to compel relating

to discovery are before this Court is manifestly not in the interest of justice.

Instead, it is an attack on the integrity and fairness of the conduct of this case.

Their motion is not in the public interest and should be denied.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY IS NO MORE CONVENIENT THAN CARROLL COUNTY

The Kimberlins state that a trial in Montgomery County would be more

convenient for them and for some of their witness. However, that surely isnt so for

2
all of the potential witnesses they have identified, for example, Judge Thomas

Stansfield, Assistant States Attorney Kenneth Grote, or private attorney Tae Kim.

Montgomery County should not be any more or less convenient than Carroll County

for out-of-state defendants such as William Schmalfeldt, and Montgomery County

may not be as convenient as Carroll County for witnesses Mr. Hoge may call.2

The Kimberlins state that the files and recordings related to cases Brett

Kimberlin has previously lost against Mr. Hoge in Montgomery County and for

another case in which the Kimberlins were involved there would be easily available

to any judge assigned to this case in that venue. That may be true, but those

records would only be seen by that judge if they were introduced into evidence, and

that would not happen unless one of the parties went to the appropriate court and

retrieved a certified copy of the item to be introduced. The Kimberlins will not be

unfairly burdened by having to carry such evidence to Westminster instead of

Rockville.

Give the developments in this suit so far and the case laws preference for a

plaintiffs choice of forum, transfer pursuant to Rule 2-327(c) would be

inappropriate, and the Defendants Motion should be denied.

2Mr. Hoge has not finished developing his list of witnesses. He may add or delete
witnesses based on evidence developed in discovery, and he does not plan to finalize
his list until 10 days before the trial as required by the Courts Scheduling Order.
None of the defendants asked for a list of witness during discovery. Indeed, no
defendant has sought any discovery from Mr. Hoge.

3
 RULE 2-327(d) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE

Rule 2-327(d) allows for a transfer where similar actions are pending. No

civil action is pending against Mr. Hoge in Montgomery County. Brett Kimberlin

has lost all the civil actions he has filed against Mr. Hogein Montgomery County

and elsewhere. Tetyana Kimberlin has never filed a civil action against Mr. Hoge.

In fact, the only civil action pending between the Kimberlins and Mr. Hoge (other

than an appeal of one of the cases Brett Kimberlin has lost) is the instant lawsuit.

The Kimberlins wish to tie the facts and law of this case to Walker v.

Kimberlin, et al., Case No. 398855V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2016), but even if they

were successful at making that connection, that case is not pending in Montgomery

County. An Order granting judgment was entered on that cases docket on 24

October, 2016. Walker v. Kimberlin, Docket Item 360.

There are no civil actions pending in Montgomery County having a common

question of law or fact with this case. Transfer pursuant to Rule 2-327(d) would be

inappropriate, especially this late in the case when discovery should be ending.

Therefore, the Defendants Motion should be denied.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge asks the Court to deny the Kimberlin Defendants

Motion to Transfer Case Against Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin to Montgomery

County Circuit Court and to grant such other relief as it may find just and proper.

4
Date: 3 April, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

William John Joseph Hoge, pro se

20 Ridge Road
Westminster, Maryland 21157
(410) 596-2854
himself@wjjhoge.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 3rd day of April, 2017, I served copies of the foregoing on
the following persons:

William M. Schmalfeldt by First Class U. S. Mail to 422 3rd Avenue North, Clinton,
Iowa 52732

Brett Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817

Tetyana Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817

William John Joseph Hoge

AFFIDAVIT

I, William John Joseph Hoge, solemnly affirm under the penalties of perjury
that the contents of the foregoing paper are true to the best of my knowledge,
information, and belief.

Date: 3 April, 2017

William John Joseph Hoge