Motion To Strike Melita 2019

VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF NORFOLK
ROY L. PERRY-BEY,
RONALD M. GREEN,
Plaintiffs, Case No: CL1900281600

v.
CITY OF NORFOLK,
Defendants.
MOTON TO STRKE CITY ATTORNEY’S DEMURRER AND SPECIAL PLEA
Now Comes Plaintiffs, pursuant to applicable Local Rules of
Civil Procedure and Local Rule of the Norfolk Circuit Court,
Plaintiffs, respectfully moves this Court for an Order (a)
striking Defendants improper DEMURRER AND SPECIAL PLEA filed
electronically, on April 24, 2019, Because Defendants motion,
signing pleadings, and other papers; representations to the
Court with Defendant Adam D. Melita, making an improper or
prohibited appearance and as “COUNSEL OF RECORD” for the
“City’s Defendants” (“the City of Norfolk”), for which Melita
is a Defendant or subject of the amended Complaint filed April
12, 2019, for Declaratory Judgment “DEFENDANT” is prohibited in
the above matter were tendered in bad faith in violation of
Local Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule of the Norfolk
Circuit Court. “INCLUDED BUT LIMITED THERETO”; states as follows:

1). Violation of Applicable Local Rules of Civil Procedure and
Local Rule of the Norfolk Circuit Court.
2). This Motion to Strike is brought pursuant the applicable
Local Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule of the Norfolk
Circuit Court of Virginia. Because Defendant’ Melita motion is
filed on behalf of himself and “DEFENDANTS” the City of Norfolk,
styled Norfolk City Council are “non-responsive” scandalous and
filed for an improper purpose. Pursuant to applicable Local
Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule, the Circuit Court may
strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter.
3). The Court may act: on its own, or on a motion made by a
party either before responding to the pleading, or if a response
is not allowed within 21 days after being served with the
pleading.
4). Applicable Local Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule of
the Norfolk Circuit Court violation of Defendant Adam D. Melita,
acting as Counsel for himself, Norfolk City Council and the City
Attorney’s Office Defendants, signing pleadings, motions, and
other papers; representations to the Court; Sanctions are
warranted by reason of prohibited appearances of “DEFENDANT”
Melita could be construed as unauthorized practice of law. See
Richmond Ass’n of Credit Men v. Bar Assoc., 167 Va. 327 (1937),
the opinion further conclude that it would be improper for any

attorney employee of a corporation to assist the corporation in
the unauthorized practice of law. See “UPL Op. No. 1983-#167.
5.) The Defendants are attempting to ambush the Plaintiffs and
Court and by engaging in non-responsive, manipulative procedure
delays, disguised as a response.
6.) Plaintiffs ask the Court to ORDER Defendants the City of
Norfolk, to respond to it’s Declaratory Judgment without further
delay, or risk default judgment.
7.) Plaintiffs’ ask the Court to deny Defendants improper
attempt to ambush the April 29, 2019, proceeding with it’s
non-response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Mandatory Injunction.
8.) Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to disqualify Adam D.
Melita, “DEFENDANT” April 19, 2019, and the City of Norfolk,
“Defendants” has not responded.
9.) Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend and amended
complaint for declaratory judgment circa April 12, 2019, against
the City of Norfolk, and “DEFENDANTS” has not responded as
required by the applicable Local Rules of Civil Procedure and
Local Rule of the Norfolk Circuit Court.

Wherefore; Plaintiffs prays this honorable Court Strike the
City Attorney’s Defendants, frivolous DEMURRER AND SPECIAL PLEA
as non-responsive to motion for mandatory injunction on behalf
of the City of Norfolk, defendants and for violation or failure
to comply with Applicable Local Rules of Civil Procedure and
Local Rule of the Norfolk Circuit Court and order the “City of
Norfolk” Defendants to comply with this Court’s Applicable Local
Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule, and Order that “Melita”
a “DEFENDANT” enjoined from engaging in any further unethical
actions or misconduct and grant the Plaintiffs such other and
further relief as is just and equitable.
Wednesday, April 24, 2019
Respectfully Submitted,
MR. RONALD M. GREEN MR. ROY L. PERRY-BEY

5540 Barnhollow 89 LINCOLN STREET #1772
NORFOLK, VA 23502 HAMPTON, VA 23669
(757) 466.2965 (804) 362.0011
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically mailed on this
24th day of April, 2019 to to Adam Melita, Deputy City Attorney, City of Norfolk,
City Hall Building, 9th Floor, 810 Union Street Norfolk, VA 23510.
By_______________________________
MR. ROY L. PERRY- BEY, PLAINTIFF
89 LINCOLN STREET #1772
HAMPTON, VIRGINIA 23669
By_______________________________
/s/MR. RONALD M. GREEN, PLAINTIFF
5540 BARNHOLLOW ROAD
NORFOLK, VA 23502

Motion To Strike Melita 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion To Strike Melita 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion To Strike Melita 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF NORFOLK

Plaintiffs, Case No: CL1900281600

MOTON TO STRKE CITY ATTORNEY’S DEMURRER AND SPECIAL PLEA

Now Comes Plaintiffs, pursuant to applicable Local Rules of

Civil Procedure and Local Rule of the Norfolk Circuit Court,

Plaintiffs, respectfully moves this Court for an Order (a)

striking Defendants improper DEMURRER AND SPECIAL PLEA filed

electronically, on April 24, 2019, Because Defendants motion,

signing pleadings, and other papers; representations to the

Court with Defendant Adam D. Melita, making an improper or

prohibited appearance and as “COUNSEL OF RECORD” for the

“City’s Defendants” (“the City of Norfolk”), for which Melita

is a Defendant or subject of the amended Complaint filed April

12, 2019, for Declaratory Judgment “DEFENDANT” is prohibited in

the above matter were tendered in bad faith in violation of

Local Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule of the Norfolk

Circuit Court. “INCLUDED BUT LIMITED THERETO”; states as follows:

Local Rule of the Norfolk Circuit Court.

2). This Motion to Strike is brought pursuant the applicable

Local Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule of the Norfolk

Circuit Court of Virginia. Because Defendant’ Melita motion is

filed on behalf of himself and “DEFENDANTS” the City of Norfolk,

styled Norfolk City Council are “non-responsive” scandalous and

filed for an improper purpose. Pursuant to applicable Local

strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,

immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter.

3). The Court may act: on its own, or on a motion made by a

party either before responding to the pleading, or if a response

is not allowed within 21 days after being served with the

4). Applicable Local Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule of

the Norfolk Circuit Court violation of Defendant Adam D. Melita,

Attorney’s Office Defendants, signing pleadings, motions, and

other papers; representations to the Court; Sanctions are

warranted by reason of prohibited appearances of “DEFENDANT”

Melita could be construed as unauthorized practice of law. See

the opinion further conclude that it would be improper for any

the unauthorized practice of law. See “UPL Op. No. 1983-#167.

5.) The Defendants are attempting to ambush the Plaintiffs and

Court and by engaging in non-responsive, manipulative procedure

delays, disguised as a response.

6.) Plaintiffs ask the Court to ORDER Defendants the City of

Norfolk, to respond to it’s Declaratory Judgment without further

delay, or risk default judgment.

7.) Plaintiffs’ ask the Court to deny Defendants improper

attempt to ambush the April 29, 2019, proceeding with it’s

non-response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Mandatory Injunction.

8.) Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to disqualify Adam D.

Melita, “DEFENDANT” April 19, 2019, and the City of Norfolk,

“Defendants” has not responded.

9.) Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend and amended

complaint for declaratory judgment circa April 12, 2019, against

the City of Norfolk, and “DEFENDANTS” has not responded as

required by the applicable Local Rules of Civil Procedure and

Local Rule of the Norfolk Circuit Court.

City Attorney’s Defendants, frivolous DEMURRER AND SPECIAL PLEA

as non-responsive to motion for mandatory injunction on behalf

of the City of Norfolk, defendants and for violation or failure

to comply with Applicable Local Rules of Civil Procedure and