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 July 8, 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)

.

Patel v. Chan: Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Consent is Denied [By Judge Philip Senan Jackson due Unconforming Affidavit] (May 3, 2017)

.

Patel v. Chan: Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Consent Judgment/Order is Vacated [By Judge-in Charge Althea Handy] (June 28, 2017)

Patel v. Chan: Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Consent Judgment/Order is Granted [By Judge-in Charge Althea Handy] (June 28, 2017)

Patel v. Chan: The 2016 Consent Motion for Injunction & Final Judgment is Stricken [By Judge-in Charge Althea Handy] (June 28, 2017)

Patel v. Chan: Intervenor’s Motion to Dismiss Case is Granted [By Judge-in Charge Althea Handy] (June 28, 2017)

Patel v. Chan: Revised Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Consent Judgment/Order is Vacated [By Judge-in Charge Althea Handy] (July 7, 2017)

.

As of July 8, 2017, it appears that the case of Patel v. Chan is now dismissed and closed with the bogus consent judgement/order properly disposed by Judge Althea Handy.

In summary, after waiting eight long months from my first filing and contacting the Baltimore Court with my original Motion to Vacate Consent Judgment/Order (September 2, 2016), that motion was shockingly and frustratingly denied by Judge Philip Senan Jackson (May 1, 2017) due to his belief that my affidavit did not conform to Maryland standards.

I subsequently refiled a revised and updated Motion to Vacate Consent Judgment/Order (May 22, 2017) with a corrected affidavit. Judge-in-Charge Althea Handy stepped in June 28, 2017 and vacated Judge Jackson’s order denying my motion. Additionally, she signed a series of court orders that properly brought the many disturbing outstanding issues to proper closure.

By vacating Judge Jackson’s denial order, Judge Handy effectively revived my original Motion to Vacate Consent/Judgment Order. She also granted Mitul Patel’s Motion to Intervene & Motion to Strike Judgment (which I supported). Ultimately, between my and Patel’s Maryland lawyers efforts, we were able to bring the case to a proper close by:

  • Vacating of the bogus July 22, 2016 Consent Judgment/Order
  • Striking the bogus June 15, 2016 Consent Motion for Injunction & Final Judgment
  • Dismissal of the case

Unfortunately, Judge Handy dismissed the case without specifically stating with or without prejudice. My assumption is that because she did not specifically state that the case was dismissed with prejudice, she was dismissing the case without prejudice. I don’t agree with that particular stance but I am prepared to accept it for the sake of closure moving on from the Baltimore City Circuit Court.

I communicated with Patel’s lawyers several times over the course of the past year over various issues concerning the case. Because I was “pro se” (representing myself), I appropriately dealt with matters that mutually affected my and Patel’s case. I am happy to report that my communications with Patel’s lawyers were civil, professional, and respectful. They never attacked, disrespected, or disparaged me. They did not inflame the situation. They clearly knew I was not a lawyer and was careful.

We disagreed on a couple of issues. We found the long wait on the Baltimore City Circuit Court frustrating. We also found the initial denial by Judge Jackson over my affidavit surprising. It is especially notable given the fact that Patel’s own Georgia affidavit was similar in format to mine. If Judge Jackson was going to disregard my affidavit due to not conforming to Maryland rules, he would eventually have to do the same with Patel’s affidavit as well. Fortunately, it never came to that because Judge Jackson never ruled on Patel’s Motion to Intervene/Motion to Strike.

As I said, as far as I am concerned the issues relating to the Baltimore City Circuit Court have come to a close. However, there are remaining “wrap-up” communications I need to make with Patel’s Maryland lawyers before I move to the next step.

I will provide comments on what my “next steps” might be in a future update.

=====

Follow Defiantly on Twitter at http://twitter.com/defiantlynet or the Defiantly Facebook Fan Page at http://facebook.com/defiantly.net. 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 Defiantly.net. He is also the Founder, Editor, and Host for ExtortionLetterInfo.com. Matthew is the author of several business books & audio programs. He is an entrepreneur, real estate investor, and First Amendment advocate.

6 Comments

    • 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.


*