Is the defense still in default because they failed to physically serve the Plaintiff in compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure?

Category 1: Procedural Default and Compliance 1. Is the defense still in default because they failed to physically serve the Plaintiff in compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure? If the Defendants have no proof of service, what prevents any court from issuing a default judgment on this basis? 2. Did the Defendants intentionally mislead the court and Plaintiff by submitting conflicting certificates of service to create the appearance of compliance with procedural deadlines? 3. Should the court consider the Defendants ’ failure to file or serve in compliance with Rule 12(a) as sufficient grounds to uphold a default judgment against them? 4. How has the Defendants ’ submission of conflicting certificates of service prejudiced the Plaintiff ’s ability to obtain timely relief, both emotionally and financially? 5. Is it within the judge ’s discretion under Rule 6(b) to grant an extension without a specified deadline, or does this omission constitute judicial oversight or negligence? 6. Does the failure of the court to retroactively apply the extension order to cure the Defendants' default status under Rule 12(a) render the Defendants' filings procedurally invalid, and should this oversight result in the reinstatement of the Plaintiff ’s default judgment motion? Category 3: Extrinsic Fraud 7. Did the conflicting dates on two certificates of service —one dated June 23, 2023, and another dated June 26, 2023 —constitute extrinsic fraud by the Defendants, as they imply misrepresentation of compliance with filing and service deadlines? 8. Should the submission of conflicting certificates of service be viewed as obstruction of justice, given its impact on the Plaintiff ’s ability to obtain a fair hearing? 9. Does the lack of a specific deadline in the extension order create an environment that facilitates extrinsic fraud by allowing the Defendants to delay filings indefinitely without accountability? Category 4: Ethical and Legal Violations 10. Did the Defendants ’ actions violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) by submitting certificates of service that misrepresented compliance with procedural requirements? 11. Does the submission of knowingly false certificates of service by the Defendants ’ counsel constitute perjury? 12. Did the Defendants ’ counsel violate their ethical obligation to act with candor toward the tribunal by submitting conflicting procedural filings? 13. Should the court impose sanctions on the Defendants or their counsel for engaging in bad faith conduct and procedural abuse? 14. Does the judge ’s omission of a deadline in the extension order deviate from the procedural requirements of Rule 6(b), and does this deviation undermine the fairness and efficiency of judicial proceedings? Category 5: Broader Impact on Judicial Integrity iii 15. How does the submission of fraudulent procedural documents undermine trust in the judicial process and the fair administration of justice? 16. Should the court establish stricter consequences for procedural fraud to prevent erosion of procedural standards and ensure equitable treatment of all litigants? 17. Was the submission of conflicting certificates of service a deliberate strategy by the Defendants to buy time and delay resolution of the case? 18. Were the conflicting certificates submitted to confuse the record and obstruct the Plaintiff ’s ability to effectively challenge the Defendants ’ procedural failures? 19. Does granting an extension without a deadline create a precedent that undermines judicial efficiency, trust, and fairness by allowing procedural ambiguity to remain unaddressed? iv List of All Parties 1. Petitioner: Nyah Sekel, representing herself (Pro Se). 2. Respondents: o CH MF BTH II/Alexandria Old Town LLC, et al. o Bozzuto Management Company o Alexan Florence o Gallagher Eveliys & Jones LLP Case Reference: Sekel v. CH MF II, Alexandria Old Town LLC, et al., No. 24-1914, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, judgment entered October 24, 2024