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 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SCHMALFELDTS MOTION TO TRANSFER

PLAINTIFFS CASE OR DISMISS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON
CONVENIENS (DOCKET ITEM 60)
COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and opposes Defendant Schmalfeldts
Motion to Transfer Plaintiffs Case or Dismiss Under the Doctrine of Forum Non
Conveniens. In opposition Mr. Hoge states as follows:
BECAUSE SCHMALFELDT HAS FAILED TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT AND IS IN
DEFAULT, HIS MOTION IS MOOT
Service of process was effected on Defendant Schmalfeldt on 8 April, 2016.
Docket Item 21. He responded with a Motion to Dismiss (Docket Item 16) which the
Court denied on 9 June, 2016. Docket Items 53 and 54. The sixty days allowed to
respond to the Complaint expired on 7 June, so Schmalfeldt had fifteen days from
the 9th to file an answer pursuant to Rule 2-321. Even with three days added for
notice by mail, Schmalfeldts answer was due not later than 27 June, 2016. He has
failed to file any answer, and the time allowed for filing has expired. Mr. Hoge has
filed a Request for Default meeting all the requirements of Rule 2-613(b), and
default is mandatory under that Rule. Given Schmalfeldts default, his Motion to
Transfer or Dismiss the instant lawsuit is moot, and it should be denied.

SCHMALFELDTS MOTION SEEKS RELIEF THIS COURT CANNOT GRANT

Schmalfeldt seeks to have this Court transfer the instant lawsuit to a foreign
court (i.e., the Milwaukee County Circuit Court in Wisconsin1). Even if the foreign
court had jurisdiction, this Court has no means to effect such a transfer. Rule 2-327
allows a Circuit Court to transfer a civil suit to another Circuit Court in Maryland.
It does not authorize a transfer out of the State. Because this Court cannot grant
the relief Schmalfeldt seeks, his Motion to Transfer should be denied.
SCHMALFELDT HAS EXHAUSTED HIS PRELIMINARY MOTIONS TO DISMISS
As noted above, the Court has already denied a Motion to Dismiss from
Schmalfeldt. A defendant isnt entitled to file serial motions to dismiss instead of
filing an answer. Rule 2-322 is clear.
If a party makes a motion under this Rule but omits any defense or
objection then available to the party that this Rule permits to be
raised by a motion, the party shall not thereafter make a motion
based on the defenses or objections so omitted[.]
Rule 2-322(f). Schmalfeldt filed a Rule 2-322 motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction which was denied. By omitting improper venue, insufficiency of
process, and insufficiency of service of process he can no longer file a motion based
on those defenses. Also, by omitting subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a

Schmalfeldt claims that he wishes to avoid traveling in part because of the

danger metal detector pose to his implanted medical devices. Mr. Hoge has
watched Schmalfeldt successfully pass through the metal detectors at the entrances
to the District Courthouse, the Circuit Courthouse, and the Circuit Courthouse
Annex in Westminster. According to the Milwaukee County Government website,
one must pass through a metal detector to enter the Milwaukee County Courthouse.
See http://county.milwaukee.gov/Courts/Jury/FAQ.htm#FAQ3_Q13.
2

claim, failure to join a party, discharge in bankruptcy, and governmental immunity,

he cannot raise those defenses in an additional Rule 2-322 motion that would toll
the requirement to file an answer.
Schmalfeldt has submitted an improper second Motion to Dismiss. Docket
Item 57. That Motion attempts to raise a defense of improper venue, but that
defense was omitted from the first Motion to Dismiss denied by the Court. He has
waived that defense. This instant third Motion to Dismiss also improper, and both
Schmalfeldts second and third Motions to Dismiss should be denied.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge requests the Court to DENY Defendants Schmalfeldts
Motion to Transfer Plaintiffs Case or Dismiss Under the Doctrine of Forum Non
Conveniens and to GRANT such other relief as the Court may find just and proper.
Date: 1 July, 2016

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 1st day of July, 2016, I served copies of the foregoing on
the following persons:
William M. Schmalfeldt by First Class U. S. Mail to 3209 S. Lake Drive, Apt. 108,
St. Francis, Wisconsin 53235 (last known address)
William Ferguson by First Class U. S. Mail to 10808 Schroeder Road, Live Oak,
California 95953
Brett Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817 (last known address)
Tetyana Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817 (last known address)

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: 1 July, 2016
William John Joseph Hoge

William John Joseph Hoge,

Plaintiff,
v.

IN THE

CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY

MARYLAND
Case No. 06-C-16-070789

Brett Kimberlin, et al.,

Defendants.

PROPOSED ORDER
Upon consideration of Defendants Schmalfeldts Motion to Transfer
Plaintiffs Case or Dismiss Under the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens, Plaintiffs
Opposition thereto, and any Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition, this _________ day of
_________________, 2016, said motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________________________
JUDGE FRED S. HECKER,
Circuit Court for Carroll County