Skip to content

6 Comments

  1. Dave
    March 1, 2017 @ 3:37 am

    Anything new happening in this case? Seems odd no filings have been made for a while.

    • Matthew Valor
      March 1, 2017 @ 11:10 pm

      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.

  2. Dave
    March 1, 2017 @ 3:47 am

    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.

    • Matthew Valor
      March 1, 2017 @ 11:09 pm

      Thank you. I am looking forward to wrapping this case up. It is taking longer than I expected.

  3. Dave
    April 6, 2017 @ 4:35 am

    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.

    • Matthew Valor
      April 6, 2017 @ 4:26 pm

      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.