Patel v. Chan: Essential Court Case Documents (Baltimore Circuit Court)

baltimore-court-logoThis page lists the essential court documents relating to the unusual Baltimore Circuit Court Case of Mitul R. Patel v. Mathew Chan (misspelled in court documents). It is a lawsuit purportedly filed by Suwanee Georgia dentist Mitul R. Patel on June 15, 2016. I was never served or otherwise notified of this case or lawsuit. I only found out on August 10, 2016 when Yelp emailed me and informed me they received a court order with a request by Patel to Yelp to take down my Yelp review of Mitul R. Patel. So far, we believe Patel hired Richart Ruddie’s reputation management firm, Profile Defenders, who used its suspicious and questionable Lawsuit Removal scheme to defraud the Baltimore Circuit Court into issuing a court order to compel various consumer review websites to remove my negative reviews of Patel.

Read & Follow Media & Press Coverage of Patel v. Chan (Baltimore Circuit Court Case)

(Note: Most Recent Court Document Entries at the Bottom)


Baltimore City Circuit Court Case #: 24C16003573 [Latest docket : Last updated March 30, 2017]

Patel v. Chan: Complaint (June 15, 2016)

Patel v. Chan: Consent Motion for Injunction & Final Judgment (Filed simultaneously with Complaint on June 15, 2016)

Patel v. Chan: Order Granting Injunction & Final Judgment (July 26, 2016)

Case was closed until reopened on September 6, 2016 by Matthew Chan of Columbus Georgia.


Patel v. Chan: Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Consent Judgment/Order (September 6, 2016) [Exhibits only]

Patel v. Chan: Intervenor’s Motion to Intervene, Motion to Strike Judgment, and Answer to Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Consent Judgment/Order (September 21, 2016)

Patel v. Chan: Defendant Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Intervenor’s Motion to Intervene, Motion to Strike Judgment (October 12, 2016)

Patel v. Chan: Defendant’s Response to Intervenor’s Motion to Intervene, Motion to Strike Judgment (October 24, 2016) [Exhibits in Separate File]

Patel v. Chan: Defendant’s Letter to Judge Jackson Regarding Case Status (March 8, 2017)

Patel v. Chan: Defendant’s Submission of Supplemental Exhibits (March 20, 2017)


As of March 30, 2017, this case is still sitting eerily quiet at the Baltimore court. It was so quiet, I wrote a letter to the judge, called opposing counsel, and spoke to the supervisor at the Clerk’s office that the case has now been sitting five months!


Follow Defiantly on Twitter at or the Defiantly Facebook Fan Page at Subscribe by Email to the Defiantly Blog in the Blue Box in the Upper Right Corner.


About Matthew Valor 102 Articles
Matthew is the Publisher and Editor of He is also the Founder, Editor, and Host for Matthew is the author of several business books & audio programs. He is an entrepreneur, real estate investor, and First Amendment advocate.


    • You are correct. It is oddly quiet. I have been waiting for the judge to rule on the motion. I am not sure what is taking so long. I will be writing in to find out the status soon.

  1. By the way, thank you for fighting back against this nonsense. It doesn’t really effect you much, yet your the only one who can challenge a phony judgment. I’m sure you’d rather not have to do this stuff on your own, but it will surely help others that you have done so.

  2. Hey Matthew, noticed on your supplemental exhibits, pg 2, item D, the case number is reported incorrectly by doubling the digit 8. The actual Case No. should be: 24C15004789
    I imagine its unimportant, but just a head’s up.

    • Dave,

      Damn! You are correct and certainly have an eye for detail. Good on you for catching that typo. I will try to be more careful going forward. Obviously, spellcheck would not catch those sorts of clerical errors.

      Honestly, I hadn’t planned on sending the supplemental exhibits but I thought the information was hugely important for the judge and court to know about as the Ruddie connection is directly relevant to Patel as a client who hired Ruddie to begin with!

      This simple case is taking much longer to resolve than I ever expected. I am dumbfounded. But the upside is that the longer the case sits out there, the more that seems to likely be uncovered. I know a lot more today than this all started back in August 2016.

      However, come June 15, 2017, it will be the one-year anniversary that Chan v. Patel came into existence as a sham case.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.