MARYLAND:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Brett Kimberlin,
Plaintiff
v.

Case No. 403868V

National Bloggers Club, et al.,

Defendants

DEFENDANT WALKERS REQUEST FOR AN IMMEDIATE HEARING ON HIS

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
THAT THIS COURT IMMEDIATELY GRANT HIS
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS
NOW COMES Defendant Aaron J. Walker, Esq., and files this Request for an Immediate
Hearing on his Unopposed Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, that this Court Immediately
Grant his Unopposed Motion to Dismiss, and states the following:
On April 15, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant action (Dkt. No. 1).
On April 28, 2015, Defendant Walker1 filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 6). In it, Mr.
Walker pointed out that 1) the entire case is barred by the principle of res judicata and 2) the
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for a single claim. Mr.
Walker moved to dismiss the case against himself and, in the name of judicial efficiency, to grant
that dismissal for all defendants. The same motion asserted that this suit was a bad faith lawsuit
intended to inhibit expression protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution within

Mr. Walker refers to himself in the third person for stylistic purposes and to de-personalize this
case.
1

the meaning of MD CODE Cts. & Jud. Proc. 5-807, and, as such, Mr. Walker was entitled to a
hearing on the motion to dismiss as soon as practicable. 5-807(d)(1).
The Plaintiffs opposition was due on Monday, May 18, 2015.
As of Friday, May 22, 2015, no opposition has appeared on the Maryland Judiciary Case
Search, and, as of Saturday, May 22, 2015, Mr. Walker has received no such opposition in the
mail. Therefore, Mr. Walker motion to dismiss invoking 5-807 is unopposed.
The Plaintiff clearly knew of the motion to dismiss because he filed a motion to strike it
(Dkt. No. 7) on the frivolous grounds that 1) the Plaintiff had not served the complaint on Mr.
Walker yet and 2) that Mr. Walker could not represent himself before this Court because he is a
lawyer in Virginia and the District of Columbia.

However, the Plaintiff has not filed an

opposition to the motion to dismiss.

His failure to oppose it and contest Mr. Walkers contentions means he has consented to
the motion and conceded that this lawsuit is subject to 5-807.
The language in 5-807(d)(1) is mandatory, not permissive. It states that if Mr. Walker
meets the conditions of the statute, that the court shall hold a hearing on the motion to dismiss
as soon as practicable (emphasis added). In turn, the word practicable is defined as follows:
Practicable is that which may be done, practiced, or accomplished; that which is performable,
feasible, possible[.] BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 1172 (6th ed. 1990). Therefore, Mr. Walker
has a statutory right to a hearing on his motion to dismiss as soon as possible and hereby
invokes that right.
Alternatively, Mr. Walker believes that this statutory provision is equally satisfied by
providing Mr. Walker with immediate dismissal on the motions, and without a hearing. That is,

if a full dismissal is granted before a hearing on said motion to dismiss is practicable, that
would satisfy 5-807(d)(1).

WHEREFORE Defendant Walker requests:

A hearing on his unopposed motion to dismiss on the earliest available date; or

In the alternative, that this court immediately grant his unopposed motion to dismiss.

Or that this Court order any other relief it deems appropriate.

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

Aaron J. Walker, Esq.