IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD
APRIL D. GALLOP
CAMERON BAY HOMEOWNER’S
Case No. CL1800208200
MOTION TO STRIKE
Comes now Plaintiff, April Gallop, by Pro-Se, with this motion under Virginia Code
8.01-274 and Supreme Court rule 3:19(a) moves to Strike all of the Defendant’s responses on
record on the grounds that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under VA 13.1-861 and VA
13.1-909; and that the Defendant Cameron Bay Homeowner’s Association failed to timely file a
response (answer) to the original pleadings and has lost the right to defend. For that reason,
Defendant’s responses are inappropriate and should be stricken.
Accordingly, this Court cannot hear anything else besides transferring the case to the
court to the proper jurisdiction. In support of this motion the Plaintiff states the following:
I. The Chesterfield County Circuit Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
A motion challenging the court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over a lawsuit
may be raised by motion at any time. See § 8.01-276. The law permits a Defendant to object to
venue if not properly laid by the plaintiff according to the venue statutes. See Va. Code § 8.01-
Virginia Law 13.1-861 provides that any member aggrieved by an election of directors
may “apply for relief to the circuit court in the county or city in which the principal office of
the corporation is located, or, if none in the Commonwealth, in the county or city in which its
registered office is located,” (Emphasis added). The Court, pending a decision, may by order
restrain any person from exercising the power of director if such relief is equitable. Id. Further,
Virginia Law 13.1-909 (C) states that “[v]enue for a proceeding brought under this section lies in
the city or county where the corporation’s principal office is or was located, or, if none in
the Commonwealth, where its registered office is or was last located.” (Emphasis added).
In the instant action, this case was initially filed in the appropriate court and the Plaintiff
properly served the Defendant. A Motion for Order to Restrain was filed with in the Richmond
Circuit court pursuant to Virginia Law 13.1-861. Therefore, the change of venue or transfer from
the Richmond Court to this Chesterfield circuit court was improper and only created more delay
and unnecessary jurisdiction problems. Besides, the judge ignored the law while transferring the
case because in actions where the venue is considered as the subject to objection, the action is
considered to be tried where it was started.
The Cameron Bay Homeowner’s Association’s principal office is located in the city of
Richmond at ACS West Inc., 1904 Byrd Ave Richmond, VA 23230 (Exhibit A). The day to day
business operations is handled at ACS West Inc. 1904 Byrd Avenue Richmond Virginia 23230.
This principal office has been listed on the State Corporate Commission Annual Report.
II. The Defendant failed to file a timely response
Under the rules of the Virginia Supreme Court, a defendant must file responsive
pleadings within twenty-one (21) days after service of process upon that defendant. Va. Sup. Ct.
R. 3:8(a). “A defendant who fails timely to file a responsive pleading as prescribed in Rule 3:8 is
in default.” Va. Sup. Ct. R. 3:19(a); AME Fin. Corp. v. Kiritsis, 281 Va. 384, 392 (2011). Va.
Sup. Ct. R. 3:19(a) proceeds to state that
“a defendant in default is not entitled to notice of any further proceedings in the
case, including notice to take depositions, except that written notice of any
further proceedings must be given to counsel of record, if any. The defendant
in default is deemed to have waived any right to trial of issues by jury”.
It is also worth noting that “[prior] to the entry of judgment, for good cause shown, the
court may grant leave to a defendant who is in default to file late responsive pleading[s].” Va.
Sup. Ct. R. 3:19(b); AME Fin. Corp., at 392. Circumstances in which courts have found good
cause to exist to exercise discretion to extend the time for filing include but are not limited to,
lack of prejudice to the opposing party, the good faith of the moving party, the promptness of the
moving party in responding to the opposing parties’ decision to progress with the cause, the
existence of a meritorious claim or substantial defense, the existence of legitimate extenuating
circumstances. See AME Fin. Corp., at 392 (citing See Westfall v. Westfall, 196 Va. 97, 103
(1954); Eagle Lodge, Inc. v. Hofmeyer, 193 Va. 864, 870 (1952); Worsham v. Nadon, 156 Va.
438, 443 (1931)).
Plaintiff was obligated to respond within 21 days after being served. Plaintiff avers that
the Defendant failed to file the Defendant’s responsive pleading within the said 21 days limit
provided under Rule 3:8. The Plaintiff communicated primarily with the previous listed Senior
Litigation Attorney, Mr. Donald E. Morris, to make effort to obtain mutual agreeable dates to
schedule hearings. Much time after the 21 days, Attorney Morris provided meeting minutes that
were not signed via email. (Exhibit on record) Meeting minutes don’t satisfy the definition of
Election Records. Nor can it be used as adequate response to the Motion for Judicial Dissolution.
If the defendants believed the Petition was insufficient, the Defendant could have made such a
statement within that timeframe. Plaintiff avers that prompt notification within the 21 days could
have been submitted (as Attorney Morris did for the hearing scheduled on or around 21 August
Further, there is no good cause why Defendant failed to file the pleading(s) on time. The
Defendant did not care to file a Motion for leave to file late responsive pleadings. This shows
how the Defendant blatantly disobeyed the law. Plaintiff also states that the Defendant has not
presented before this Court any evidence that there were legitimate extenuating circumstances
that made Defendant not to file on time. The Defendant or their listed attorney had a duty to
inform the Court and the Plaintiff if the Defendant or the listed Attorney became ill, for instance.
However, no such notification was provided to the Court on or before the 21 day deadline.
Plaintiff avers that Mrs. Kimberly Manly, Community Manager, a representative of ACS
West Inc., or any of the listed Officers of the Cameron Bay Homeowner’s Association could not
provide the documentation for independent audit or inspection prior to filing during normal
course of day-to-day business at designated hours. Attorney Morris, the previously listed
Attorney, couldn’t provide or submit the documentation within the 21 days’ timeframe or any
time after his medical emergency (except for unsigned Meeting Minutes) so we could come to
some final impasse. Yet, the newly listed Attorney states in the Defendant’s response,” Mr.
Morris (former Attorney) planned to present evidence to support the dismissal of this action or
its transfer to the proper venue.” Again, the only document Plaintiff received from Attorney
Morris was a copy of incomplete meeting minutes, which were not signed. So it appears the
Defendant’s tactic was litigation by ambush. It is trite law that “if a person negligently or
intentionally withholds or destroys relevant information that will be required in an action is liable
for spoliation of evidence.” Further, “suppression of evidence, is the concealment, destruction or
withholding of, or refusal to give, material evidence which one has or knows is legally or
morally bound to reveal. It is normally considered an obstruction of justice and a criminal
The Defendant listed as Cameron Bay Homeowner’s Association is identified as a
Virginia Non-stock Corporation. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Judicial Review of Elections under
13.1-861 provides that the Defendant submit adequate proof of election records (which can’t be
backdated) to determine the persons elected or order a new election or grant such other relief as
may be equitable. Yet no answer, adequate response, no ballot or any other form of Elections
Records was submitted to the Court within 21 days. Thus the Defendant’s response consists of a
confusing labyrinth of arguments filled with irrelevant information and doesn’t appear to be
made in conformity with the rules.
In light of the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff moves to Strike the Defendant’s Response
in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment; Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Judicial Dissolution and Motion for Judicial Review of Elections; Pleas; Briefs; and
Demurrers. Upon obtaining proper leave from this Honorable Court or any applicable law, the
Plaintiff reserves the right to amend, alter or add to this Motion prior to any scheduled hearing or
trial. In addition to the foregoing, Plaintiff prays this Court transfers the case to which
jurisdiction is proper as a matter of law. The plaintiff asks that this court does so sua sponte.
6042 Walking Path Lane
Midlothian Va, 23112
(804) 447-5473 Telephone
(804) 251-1564 (Fax)
CERTIFICATION OF MAILING
Plaintiff affirms that a copy of the above Motion to Strike was served upon the Defendant to this
action by electronic and/or U.S. mail to their respective addresses as stated below:
6042 Walking Path Lane
Midlothian Va, 23112
(804) 447-5473 Telephone
(804) 251-1564 (Fax)
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )