William John Joseph Hoge,

Plaintiff,
v.
Brett Kimberlin, et al.,
Defendants.

IN THE

CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY

MARYLAND
Case No. 06-C-16-070789

PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ALTERNATE SERVICE OF PROCESS ON DEFENDANTS

BRETT KIMBERLIN AND TETYANA KIMBERLIN
COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and moves this Court to allow
alternate means of service of process on Defendants Brett Kimberlin and Tetyana
Kimberlin pursuant to Md. Rule 2-121(b). In support of his motion Mr. Hoge states
as follows:
THESE DEFENDANTS ARE ACTIVELY EVADING SERVICE
On 7 April, 2016, Mr. Hoge delivered copies of Summonses, Civil Information
Reports, and Complaints to the Montgomery County Sheriffs Office for service on
the Defendants. On 11 and 12 April, Deputy Michele Trigiani unsuccessfully
attempted to serve the Defendants at their last known address. The unserved
Returns of Service are docketed as Items 17 and 18.
Deputy Trigiani also filed an Affidavit stating that Brett Kimberlin was
evading service. See Docket Item 19. The affidavit states that Kimberlin responded
to the deputys note left at 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda, Maryland, by
telephone saying, I WILL NOT accept service for the Summons! Id., emphasis in
the original. Kimberlin is also quoted as saying, good luck finding me. Id.

Deputy Trigiani also reported being informed by a neighbor that Tetyana

Kimberlin does not reside at the Beech Tree Road address. See Docket Item 17.
BOTH BRETT AND TETYANA KIMBERLIN HAVE BEEN RECEIVING SERVICE OF
COURT PAPERS AT THE BEECH TREE ROAD ADDRESS
Brett Kimberlin has unsuccessfully sued Mr. Hoge four times since August,
2013.1 There has never been a problem with Kimberlin receiving service of court
papers from Mr. Hoge, even when Mr. Hoge was acting pro se. In all of those cases,
mail for Kimberlin has been sent to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda, Maryland
20817. In fact, Kimberlin used the Beech Tree Road address in his signature block
on a motion he filed in the U. S. District Court for the District of Maryland on 19
April, 2016, one week after his telephone conversation with Deputy Trigiani.
Exhibit A.
Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin are parties in a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for
Montgomery County now styled Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. 2 The Maryland
Text
Judiciary Case Search shows their address listed with that Court as 8100 Beech
Tree Road, Bethesda, MD 20817. Exhibit B. Judge Mason has ordered that service

Mr. Hoge was a defendant in the follow lawsuits filed by Brett Kimberlin:
Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., Case No. 380955 (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2014), directed
verdict in Mr. Hoges favor; Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. (I), Case No.
13-CV-3059-GJH (D.Md. 2015), dismissed for failure to state a claim; Kimberlin v.
Hunton & Williams LLP, et al., Case No. 15-CV-723-GJH (D.Md. 2016), dismissed
for failure to state a claim; Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al. (II), Case No.
403868V (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co.), dismissed for res judicata.
2

The case was originally styled Walker v. State of Maryland, Case No. 398855V
(Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. 2015). The case against the State has been severed and is
now on appeal to the Court of Special Appeals.
2

of court papers between the parties be by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested.
Exhibit C. The Plaintiff in that matter, Aaron Walker, has successfully served the
Kimberlins with a Motion for Default by mail, receiving a USPS green card receipt
dated 13 April, 2016, the day after Deputy Trigianis unsuccessful service attempt.
Exhibits D and D-1. Not only was the green card received, but also the Kimberlins
have filed an opposition to Mr. Walkers Motion for Default. Exhibit D-2.3
Additionally, Tetyana Kimberlin used the Beech Tree Road address on the
false Application for Statement of Charges she filed against Mr. Hoge. See Exhibits
A and B in the Complaint.
Thus, Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin, as husband and wife, have received and
continue to receive mail at the Beech Tree Road address, and that mail service is
reliable.
BRETT KIMBERLIN AND TETYANA KIMBERLIN HAVE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE
INSTANT LAWSUIT
Prior to the start of discovery in the Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit, Brett
Kimberlin and Tetyana Kimberlin jointly filed and signed a Motion for Summary
Judgment.4 In paragraph 10 of his Declaration attached to that motion, Brett
Kimberlin alleges, His [Walkers] associate and paralegal William Hoge has also
filed a suit against my wife and me earlier this month. Walker v. Kimberlin, et al.,

Exhibit D is an affidavit from Mr. Walker. Exhibit D-1 is a copy the green card.
Exhibit D-2 is a copy of the Kimberlins opposition as served on Mr. Walker.
4

The Kimberlins are defending that suit pro se.

3

Case No. 398855V, Docket Item 114 (Md. Cir.Ct. Mont. Co. Mar. 17, 2016). Exhibit
D-3.5
[T]he real purpose of service of process is to give notice to the defendant that
he is answerable to the claim of the plaintiff. Karlsson v. Rabinowitz, 318 F.2d 666,
669 (4thCir. 1963). As Brett Kimberlin has been told by Judge Hazel:
It should go without saying, of course, that [s]ervice of process
obviously is not something that should be abused by a defendant to
evade a lawsuit.
Kimberlin v. National Bloggers Club, et al., Case No. 13-CV-03059, Letter Order
(ECF No. 162) at 2 (D.Md. July, 18, 2014), quoting Leach v. BB & T Corp., 232
F.R.D 545, 551 (N.D.W.Va. 2005). It is clear from Brett Kimberlins own words that
the Kimberlins are aware that they are being sued by Mr. Hoge.
THE COURT SHOULD ALLOW SERVICE OF PROCESS ON BRETT KIMBERLIN AND
TETYANA KIMBERLIN BY MAIL
Given Deputy Trigianis affidavit and the other evidence presented herein, it
is clear that Defendants Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin are together evading service
of process of the instant lawsuit and that they reliably receive mail at the Beech
Tree Road address. Thus, Md. Rule 2-121(b) is applicable in this situation.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge asks the Court to ORDER that service of process in the
instant lawsuit may be made by mailing a copy of the Summons, the Civil
Information Report, and the Complaint to Brett Kimberlin and Tetyana Kimberlin
at 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20817, and that service SHALL be
5

Exhibit D-3 is a copy of the Motion for Summary Judgment as served on Mr.
Walker.
4

complete upon said mailing. Mr. Hoge also asks for such other relief as the Court
may find just and proper.

Date: 25 April, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

William John Joseph Hoge, pro se

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On the 25th day of April, 2016, I served a copy of the foregoing on William
Schmalfeldt via email (by permission).

William John Joseph Hoge

VERIFICATION
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.

25 April, 2016
Date: ____________________________

___________________________________

Exhibit A
Brett Kimberlins Motion for Stay of Judgment Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 62(b)(4)
Kimberlin v. Hunton & Williams LLP, Case No. 15-CV-723-GJH, ECF No. 136
(D.Md. April 19, 2016)

Case 8:15-cv-00723-GJH Document 136 Filed 04/19/16 Page 1 of 2

Case 8:15-cv-00723-GJH Document 136 Filed 04/19/16 Page 2 of 2

Exhibit B
Extract from Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. Case Docket showing the addresses of the
parties.
Downloaded from http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/
inquiryByCaseNum.jis/ on 23 April, 2016.

Case Information

20160422, 22:58

Circuit Court of Maryland

Go Back Now

Case Information
Court System: Circuit Court for Montgomery County - Civil System
Case Number: 398855V

Sub Type: OTHER LAW

Date Filed: 01/07/2015

Case Status: REOPENED

Plaintiff Information
(Each Alias, Address, and Attorney for the Plaintiff is displayed)
Name: WALKER, AARON
Address: P.O. BOX 3075
MANASSAS VA 20108

Defendant Information
(Each Alias, Address, and Attorney for the Defendant is displayed)
Name: STATE OF MARYLAND
Address: C/O OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
200 ST PAUL PL
BALTIMORE MD 21202
Attorney(s) for the Defendant

Name: ROHDE, ALEXIS B

Address: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
200 ST PAUL PL 20TH FL
BALTIMORE MD 21202
Phone: 410-576-7293

Name: DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR

Address: MONTGOMERY COUNTY
(OFFICIAL CAPACITY ONLY)
191 EAST JEFFERSON ST
ROCKVILLE MD 20850-2325
Attorney(s) for the Defendant

Name: ROHDE, ALEXIS B

Address: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
200 ST PAUL PL 20TH FL
BALTIMORE MD 21202
Phone: 410-576-7293

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/inquiryByCaseNum.jis

Page 1 of 21

Case Information

20160422, 22:58

Name: MCCARTHY, JOHN

Address: STATE'S ATTORNEY FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY
(OFFICIAL CAPACITY ONLY)
5TH FLOOR
50 MARYLAND AVENUE
ROCKVILLE MD 20850
Attorney(s) for the Defendant

Name: ROHDE, ALEXIS B

Address: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
200 ST PAUL PL 20TH FL
BALTIMORE MD 21202
Phone: 410-576-7293

Name: KIMBERLIN, BRETT

Address: 8100 BEECH TREE ROAD
BETHESDA MD 20817
Name: KIMBERLIN, TETYANA
Address: 8100 BEECH TREE ROAD
BETHESDA MD 20817
Name: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND
Address: 200 ST. PAUL PLACE
BALTIMORE MD 21202
Attorney(s) for the Defendant

Name: ROHDE, ALEXIS B

Address: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
200 ST PAUL PL 20TH FL
BALTIMORE MD 21202
Phone: 410-576-7293

Court Scheduling Information

(Schedule is subject to change)
Event Date: 04/25/2016
Description: DEF EXPERTS IDENTIFIED/FILED BY
Event Date: 06/23/2016
Description: ALL WRITTEN DISCOVERY SERVED BY
Event Date: 08/08/2016
Description: DISCOVERY COMPLETED
Event Date: 08/22/2016
Description: MOTIONS/INC DISPOSITIVE FILED BY

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/inquiryByCaseNum.jis

Page 2 of 21

Exhibit C
Extract from Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. Case Docket showing Docket Item 117,
Judge Masons Order requiring service via Certified Mail.
Downloaded from http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/
inquiryByCaseNum.jis/ on 23 April, 2016.

Case Information

20160424, 00:22

Docket Type:

Docket

Ruling Judge:

MASON, MICHAEL D
ORDER OF COURT (MASON, J.) THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 88) BE AND HEREBY IS GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART; THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION (DKT. NO. 88) , AS
FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE CLAIM FOR MALICIOUS USE OF PROCESS IN
COUNT I AND CONCERNS KIMBERLIN V WALKER, ET AL., CIVIL CASE NO.
380966-V IS GRANTED; THAT COUNT I, AS FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE CLAIM
FOR MALICIOUS USE OF PROCESS AND CONCERNS KIMBERLIN V. WALKER, ET
AL., CIVIL CASE NO. 380966-V IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND THAT
DEFENDANTS' MOTION (DKT. NO. 88) , AS FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE CLAIM
FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, IS DENIED, ENTERED. (COPIES MAILED)

Docket Text:

Filed By: Court

Status: Partial

Docket Date:

03/21/2016

Docket Description:

ORDER, BIFURCATE/SEVER

Docket Type:

Docket

Ruling Judge:

MASON, MICHAEL D
ORDER OF COURT (MASON, J.) THAT ALL FUTURE FILINGS BY ALL PARTIES IN
THIS MATTER BE SERVED UPON ALL OTHER PARTIES BY CERTIFIED MAIL
WITH RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED; THAT THE RETURN RECEIPT BE FILED
WITH THE COURT AND THAT ALL FUTURE FILINGS THAT DO NOT COMPLY
WITH THIS ORDER BE STRICKEN, ENTERED. (COPIES MAILED)

Docket Text:

Docket Number: 117

Filed By: Court

Status: Granted

Docket Date:

03/28/2016

Docket Description:

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE:

Docket Type:

Docket

Docket Text:

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY MAILING

AS TO AARON WALKER ON 3/19/2016 AND COPY OF RETURN RECEIPT, FILED.

Docket Date:

03/31/2016

Docket Description:

OPPOSITION TO MOTION

Docket Type:

Opposition

Reference Docket(s):

Motion: 114
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR HEARING, AFFIDAVIT AND
ATTACHMENTS, FILED.

Docket Text:

Docket Number: 118

Filed By: Defendant

Docket Number: 119

Filed By: Plaintiff

Docket Date:

04/07/2016

Docket Description:

MOTION, DEFAULT

Docket Type:

Motion

Reference Docket(s):
Docket Text:

Opposition: 123
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS, FILED.

Docket Date:

04/07/2016

Docket Description:

DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES

Docket Type:

Docket

Docket Text:

PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT ON EXPERT WITNESSES, FILED.

Docket Date:

04/14/2016

Docket Description:

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE:

Docket Type:

Docket

Docket Text:

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE ON OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT: SERVED AS TO BRETT AND TETYANA KIMBERLIN ON
04/05/2016 AND RETURN RECEIPT, FILED. (LP)

Docket Number: 120

Filed By: Plaintiff

Status: Open

Docket Number: 121

Filed By: Plaintiff

Docket Number: 122

Filed By: Other

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/inquiryByCaseNum.jis

Page 20 of 21

Exhibit D
Affidavit of Aaron Walker.

MARYLAND:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CARROLL COUNTY

WILLIAM HOGE,
Plaintiff
v.

Case No. 06-C-16-070789

BRETT KIMBERLIN, ET AL.,

Defendants

AFFIDAVIT OF AARON J. WALKER, ESQ.

1.

My name is Aaron J. Walker, Esq. and I make these statements based upon my

own personal knowledge. I am an attorney in good standing in Virginia and the District of
Columbia (but not in Maryland), currently self-employed as a solo practitioner. I am over 18
years of age, and if called to do so, I am competent to testify that the contents of this affidavit are
accurate and true.
2.

I am the Plaintiff in the case currently styled Walker v. Kimberlin, et al., Case No.

398855V (Md. Cir. Ct. Mont. Co. 2015), where I am suing Brett and Tetyana Kimberlin for
malicious prosecution arising from charges they filed against me. Those charges are virtually
identical to the charges at the center of this case. On March 10, 2016, that case survived a
Motion to Dismiss.
3.

A continual problem in all litigation involving Mr. Kimberlin is service of

processthat is, he often refuses to send to every party a true and correct copy of every
document he files, every time. Because of this, I sought sanctions against Mr. Kimberlin for
repeated failure to provide service of process. Judge Mason has been specially assigned to this

case, and while he has deferred any motion for sanctions until the case is complete, he did order
the parties to serve all filings on the other parties by certified mail (although not by restricted
delivery). We were further instructed to file each certified mail green card with the court. If we
did not comply with those instructions, the related motion would be subject to being summarily
stricken.
4.

After that order, on April 7, 2016, I filed a motion for default judgment in that

case. Attached as Exhibit D-1 to this Affidavit is a copy of the certified mail green card that I
sent. It was returned to me on Friday, April 22, 2016. I plan to file that green card with the
Montgomery County Circuit Court on Monday, April 25, 2016.
5.

Further, on April 18, 2016, I received a copy of the Kimberlins opposition to my

motion for default judgment. A true and correct copy of that opposition is attached as Exhibit D2.
6.

Additionally, on March 19, 2016, I received a copy of their Motion for Summary

Judgment. A true and correct copy of that motion, including two affidavits (incorrectly styled as
Declarations) from Mr. and Mrs. Kimberlin, is attached as Exhibit D-3. It should be noted that
this copy (as served on me) also fails to include the last page of the motion. However, I have
personally visited the Montgomery County Circuit Courthouse and examined the version filed
with the court and the only missing information is the signature block. Both Mr. and Mrs.
Kimberlin have signed the original motion in the docket.

Exhibit D-1
Copy of USPS Certified Mail Return Receipt.

Exhibit D-2
Brett and Tetyana Kimberlins Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Default filed in
Walker v. Kimberlin, et al.

Exhibit D-3
Brett and Tetyana Kimberlins Motion for Summary Judgment and a Hearing filed
in Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. as served on Plaintiff Aaron Walker.

William John Joseph Hoge,

Plaintiff,
v.
Brett Kimberlin, et al.,
Defendants.

IN THE

CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY

MARYLAND
Case No. 06-C-16-070789

PROPOSED ORDER
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs Motion for Alternate Service of Process on
Defendants Brett Kimberlin and Tetyana Kimberlin and any opposition thereto,
said motion is GRANTED this ________ day of ___________, 2016. Service of process
on these defendants may be effected by mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817, and SHALL be complete upon mailing.
It is so ORDERED.
__________________________________
Circuit Court Judge