Paige v. Copeland-Hanzas

7ermont Superior Court
Filed 03/13/25
Orange Unit

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Orange Unit Case No. 24-CV-04754
5 Court Street
Chelsea VT 05038
802-685-4610
www.vermontjudiciary.org

H. Paige v. Sarah Copeland-Hanzas et al

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
Title: Motion to Strike OR OTHERWISE RULE (Motion: 3)
Filer: H. Brooke Paige
Filed Date: January 30, 2025

The motion is DENIED.

The Attorney General has corrected the oversights and alleged issues in Plaintiff's Motion to
Strike. Whatever initial service problems Plaintiff alleges in the initial filing have been cured. While

it may not have been pretty, the process has been completed. The Court finds no benefit accruing

to either party or to the administration of justice by belaboring or continuing this undercard fight.

Rule 5(h) is drafted to allow the Court a variety of options to deal preliminary defects in
service. V.R.C.P. 5(h) (A)-(C). In this case, the Court has held off ruling on the underling Motion
to Dismiss until the proper certificates were filed and the filing was brought into compliance with

Defendant's obligations under Rule 5. Now that it has, the Court can take up the Motion to
Dismiss consistent with the plain language of Rule 5(h)(B).

The Court finds neither a legal nor factual basis within this issue to impose the draconian

remedy of striking the motion under V.R.C.P. 12(e). There has been no prejudice to Plaintiff. He
has the motion, and the service issue has been resolved. The only possible prejudice would be a

foreclosure of Plaintiff's window to respond to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. To that end,

the Court will give Plaintiff 30 days from the date of this Order to file a reply or opposition to the

State's Motion to Dismiss.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike is Denied. Plaintiff has until Monday,

April 14, 2025 to file an opposition or reply to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Court will
Entry Regarding Motion Page 1 of 2
24-CV-04754 H. Paige v. Sarah Copeland-Hanzas et al
then permit the Defendant 15 days, in accordance with Rule 7 to file any reply or response necessary
to Plaintiff’s filing.

Electronically signed on 3/13/2025 12:15 AM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)

__________________________________
Daniel Richardson
Superior Court Judge

Entry Regarding Motion Page 2 of 2
24-CV-04754 H. Paige v. Sarah Copeland-Hanzas et al