UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
GREENBELT DIVISION
BRETT KIMBERLIN, )
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. PWG 13 3059
)
NATIONAL BLOGGERS CLUB, )
Et. al. )
)
Defendants. )
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO
RESPOND TO PENDING MOTIONS BY DEFENDANTS
Comes now, Defendant DB Capitol Strategies PLLC (hereinafter “DBCS”), by and through
counsel, and hereby opposes Plaintiff Brett Kimberlin’s (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) Motion for Extension of
Time in which to Respond to Pending Motions by Defendants (hereinafter “Motion for Extension of
Time”) for the reasons stated herein.
1. Plaintiff, pro se, filed the instant, frivolous action on October 15, 2013. An Amended
Complaint filed on October 17, 2013 named DBCS as a defendant.
2. Plaintiff served DBCS on October 19, 2013 and requested waiver of service.
3. An Answer by DBCS to the Amended Complaint was due on December 18, 2013.
4. In lieu of an Answer, DBCS filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim on
December 17, 2013.
5. Plaintiff’s Opposition to DBCS’s Motion to Dismiss is due January 3, 2014.
6. Plaintiff, in his Motion for Extension of Time, states that he is “negotiating with counsel about representing him”, not that he has, or will be, hiring counsel. See Plaintiff’s Motion
2
for Extension of Time, introductory paragraph. Plaintiff could have sought the assistance of
counsel prior to the initiation of this lawsuit and similarly could have hired counsel after he
filed the Amended Complaint on October 17, 2013. Plaintiff has not provided any
substantive evidence of these “negotiations”, such as the name of the law firm or attorney
with whom he is negotiating. Plaintiff should not be excused from filing a timely response to
DBCS’s Motion to Dismiss because he is allegedly “negotiating with counsel about
representing him”.
7. Additionally, pursuant to the court’s docket, Plaintiff’s representation that “half a dozen”
Motions to Dismiss have been filed is incorrect. See Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of
Time, Paragraph 1. Pursuant to the court’s docket, there have been four Motions to Dismiss
filed as of December 18, 2013, which is the latest docket entry date.
8. Plaintiffs assertion in Paragraph 2, of some alleged settlement discussions with some
unspecified number of Defendants is both improper and immaterial with respect to Plaintiffs
opposition to DBCS’s Motion to Dismiss, and is unsupported by any evidence other than this
statement from Plaintiff, who is a convicted perjurer.
9. Plaintiff’s assertion in Paragraph 3 of his Motion for Extension of Time that “It would be in
the best interest of all parties in this case, and the court, to have the benefit of counsel
representing Plaintiff” does not correctly characterize what is in the best interest of DBCS. It
is in the best interest of DBCS to have this frivolous litigation resolved as soon as practicable
so as not to incur additional expenses and costs while defending itself against this frivolous
lawsuit.
3
10. The Amended Complaint fails to properly plead a cause of action against DBCS and, as such,
DBCS seeks judicial resolution of this frivolous matter as soon as practicable. In his Motion
for Extension of Time, Plaintiff requests “for an extension until February 28, 2014 to respond
to all pending Motions”. As Plaintiff’s response to DBCS’s Motion to Dismiss is due
January 3, 2013, a response due date of February 28, 2014 would provide Plaintiff with an
additional fifty-six days before being required to file a response. This is an unreasonable
extension of time.
11. An individual who decides to precede pro se does not acquire any “greater rights than a
litigant represented by a lawyer”. United States v. Pinkey, 548 F.2d 305, 311 (10th Cir.
1977); Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. 1981) (“The right of self-representation
does not exempt a party from compliance with relevant rules of procedure and substantive
law”), citing Faretta v. California, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 2540 (1975). Plaintiff should be held to
the timeline articulated by Local Rule 105.2.a. Plaintiff, who by his own admission is a
serial litigant (See Exhibit A), chose to initiate litigation against more than twenty defendants
without the representation of counsel and should not be excused from his obligation to file an
Opposition to DBCS’s Motion to Dismiss by January 3, 2014.
Wherefore, the Defendant, DB Capitol Strategies, PLLC, respectfully requests that this Court
deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time in which to Respond to Pending Motions filed by
Defendants.
4
Respectfully submitted,
_/s/_______________________________ Caitlin Parry Contestable 717 King Street Ste 300 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 (727) 644-2957 (202) 478-0750 Caitlin@dbcapitolstrategies.com Bar No. 18826
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
GREENBELT DIVISION
BRETT KIMBERLIN, )
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. PWG 13 3059
)
NATIONAL BLOGGERS CLUB, )
Et. al. )
)
Defendants. )
PROPOSED ORDER
For the reasons set out in Defendant DB Capitol Strategies PLLC’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Extension of Time in which to Respond to Pending Motions filed by Defendants, it is this
____ day of _________,_______, by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Greenbelt
Division,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time in which to Respond to Pending Motions by
Defendants be, and hereby is, DENIED.
_________________________
Paul W. Grimm
United States District Judge
U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland
Greenbelt Division
