Appeal: 16-1500

Doc: 44

Filed: 06/27/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

NO. 16-1500

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
_________
BRETT C. KIMBERLIN,
Appellant,
V.

HUNTON AND WILLIAMS, LLP, ET AL.,

Appellees.

_________
Appeal From The United States District Court for The District Of Maryland
(Hon. George J. Hazel, District Judge, presiding)

_________
INFORMAL OPPOSITION BRIEF OF APPELLEE
WILLIAM HOGE III
_________
Aaron J. Walker, Esq.
Va Bar# 48882
7537 Remington Road
Manassas, Virginia 20109
(703) 216-0455
AaronJW1972@gmail.com

Appeal: 16-1500

Doc: 44

Filed: 06/27/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

APPELLEE HOGES INFORMAL OPPOSITION BRIEF

Appellee William J. J. Hoge III, by counsel Aaron J. Walker, Esq., provides
this Informal Opposition Brief in response to the Informal Brief (mislabeled an
Appellants Lead Brief) (Doc. 36) filed by Appellant Kimberlin.
I.
THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PRESERVE ANY ISSUE
INVOLVING MR. HOGEJUSTIFYING SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE OF
THE DECISION BELOW OR DISMISSAL OF THIS APPEAL WITH
RESPECT TO MR. HOGE
This appeal can be disposed of quickly with respect to Mr. Hoge because the
Appellant has not raised any issue related to Mr. Hoges victory below.
By way of background, on or about March 16, 2015, Mr. Kimberlin filed the
instant complaint against a number of parties, including Mr. Hoge. However, Mr.
Hoge was not named as a defendant to every count (described by the Appellant as
claims).

The counts that applied to Mr. Hoge were as follows: Count 3,

described as Conspiracy to Invade PrivacyIntrusion into Seclusion,

Complaint, p. 43; Count 4, constituting Invasion of Privacy by Appropriation of
Name, Intrusion into Seclusion, and Publicity to Private Facts, id. at 44; and Count
8, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, id. at 59. Ordinarily, such state
claims can only be heard in federal court if there is diversity of citizenship, but the
Appellant and Mr. Hoge are and were at the time of this complaint both residents

Appeal: 16-1500

Doc: 44

Filed: 06/27/2016

Pg: 3 of 5

of Maryland. See id. 1 (p. 6)1 and 20 (p. 8). However, the Appellant attempted
to assert the Courts supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367(a).
In his opinion dismissing the entire case, Judge Hazel examined all of the
counts arising from federal law first and dismissed all of them under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Then
Judge Hazel turned to the state law claims and expressly declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367(a).

Therefore, all of the

Appellants claims against Mr. Hoge were dismissed under 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) as
an exercise of the lower courts discretion and the entire case against Mr. Hoge
was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.2
This issue has not been preserved. Throughout the Appellants informal
brief, there is not a single word from the Appellant about the decision to decline
supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, this appeal should be dismissed or the
decision below should be summarily affirmed, at least in reference to Mr. Hoges
victory. The Appellant evidently thinks that there is nothing worth appealing in
the decision below, in relation to Mr. Hoge, and Mr. Hoge heartily agrees.

Because the Appellant has difficulty placing paragraph numbers in sequence in

documents, it is necessary to give both the paragraph number and page number for
all citations to the Appellants complaint.
2
Compare ECF No. 134 1 (including ECF No. 2 in the list of motions to dismiss
granted), with ECF No. 2 (Mr. Hoges motion to dismiss for subject matter
jurisdiction).
3

Appeal: 16-1500

Doc: 44

Filed: 06/27/2016

Pg: 4 of 5

WHEREFORE, this Court should dismiss the appeal or summarily affirm the court
below in reference to William Hoge, and this Court should provide any other relief
that is just and equitable.

Monday, June 27, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Aaron J. Walker

Aaron J. Walker, Esq.
Attorney for William J. J. Hoge III
Va Bar# 48882
7537 Remington Road
Manassas, Virginia 20109
(703) 216-0455
AaronJW1972@gmail.com

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
In accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) and (C), Mr. Walker certifies
that the accompanying brief is printed in 14 point typeface, with serifs, and,
including footnotes, contains no more than 14,000 words. According to Microsoft
Word, it contains approximately 518 words.

/s/ Aaron J. Walker

Appeal: 16-1500

Doc: 44

Filed: 06/27/2016

Pg: 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on June 27, 2016, all parties have been automatically served on all
counsel of record through the electronic filing system by filing this through that
system.
/s/ Aaron J. Walker