IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
BRXKEN_NOOB,
Plaintiffs.
v.
COLINTHEGREATEST,
Defendants.
___________________________/
CIVIL DIVISION
CASE NO.: 08-2024-CV-002273-F017
JUDGE ENFORCEMENTBEYOND
ORDER FOR DECLARATION OF MISTRIAL - SUA SPONTE
THIS MATTER came before Superior Court Judge TaxesArentAwesome (“Taxes”) on
February 09, 2024. Plaintiff brxken_noob (“Noob”) submitted before this Court a civil complaint
against Defendant colinthegreatest (“Colin”). The Court permitted these proceedings to progress
past pre-trial and trial stages, with no apparent verdict or judgment being rendered. This Court,
having reviewed the relevant file, transcripts, and orders, intervenes and submits an order sua
sponte declaring mistrial, for the reasons explained below.
I. BACKGROUND
On February 9, 2024, Noob’s counsel filed suit against Colin, and on the same date,
Taxes granted a forty-eight hour period to file civil complaint, it is at this point in which a
proceeding that has taken six months began. On the following day, February 10, 2024, the Court
received the civil complaint, summons, appearance of counsel, and initial disclosures, with Colin
being served later that date and appearing before the Court alongside his own counsel. On
February 16, 2024, Colin’s counsel submitted their response to the civil complaint, at this time,
Magistrate Judge bommes had been assigned. Parties could not coincide an opening in their
schedules to meet with the Magistrate for trial proceedings, and as such, Taxes retained control
over the proceedings. On February 18, 2024, Colin’s counsel sought to depose a third-party
witness and a special master was appointed. Over the course of several days, up until February
25, 2024, no deposition was taken due to scheduling conflicts, until the same date, when a
deposition was taken on the court record.
On March 4, 2024, no report had been presented by the special master, nor by March 9,
2024, was the report presented. On March 18, 2024, Judge Taxes rendered decisions on two
objections raised during deposition. On March 21, 2024, Judge Taxes provided his calendar and
attempted to schedule a trial, though parties could not agree to attend by March 24, 2024. Judge
Taxes continued to attempt scheduling through until April 17, 2024, when the proceeding was
assigned to Chen, then a magistrate judge, for the purposes of conducting trial. On March 21,
2024, at 01:41 AM EST, Chen conducted trial proceedings. On April 24, 2024, Taxes resigned
from the Court, having not assigned Chen to write the opinion in the matter. On April 25, 2024,
Chen became a Superior Court Judge and was assigned this proceeding under his docket. On
March 28, 2024, Chen noted that a judgment would be rendered. On April 30, 2024, additional
counsel for Colin appeared.
On May 5, 2024, Chen once again re-affirmed that judgment would soon be rendered. On
May 15, 2024, Chen once again re-affirmed that judgment would be rendered upon his return.
From this time, until June 26, 2024, reminders were persistently issued. Associate Justice
Jackson first appeared on June 12, 2024, requesting to re-assign the matter to his docket for the
purpose of closing the proceeding, this did not take place, nor did Chief Judge Medvedeva
complete any reassignment to Justice Jackson. On July 24, 2024, judgment had not yet been
rendered. On July 30, 2024, replacement counsel appeared for Colin, seeking reassignment
which could not be provided as trial had already been conducted. On July 31, 2024, this Court
intervened to determine whether the proceeding would be concluded. On August 4, 2024, Chen
affirmed that the judgment would be rendered by Wednesday, presumed to be August 7, 2024.
On August 7, 2024, Chen noted that he’d deliver the judgment on the same date, the judgment
was not delivered. On August 8, 2024, Chen delivered a restricted document that could not be
opened by any party. On August 13, 2024, this Court began the process to conduct a mistrial,
while providing ample warning that the proceeding would be mistrialed if judgment was not
rendered.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A mistrial is a “trial that the judge brings to an end without a determination on the merits
because of a procedural error or serious misconduct occurring during the proceedings”. Black's
Law Dictionary 1200 (11th ed. 2019). The Ridgeway Rules of Civil Procedure provide no
guidance on the issuance of a mistrial order, nor do the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure,
from which the Ridgeway Rules of Civil Procedure are based. Lacking any rule explicitly
describing mistrial or guidance on such’s declaration, the Court has previously opted to examine
the decisions of the federal judiciary and various non-binding precedents and statutes.
The federal judiciary affords trial courts a broad level of discretion where verdict could
not be rendered impartially, or where a verdict could be reached but must be reversed on appeal
due to obvious procedural error. See Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U.S. 458, 464, 93 S. Ct. 1066,
1070 (1973). States such as West Virginia similarly find that mistrials in civil proceedings are
"generally regarded as the 'most drastic remedy and should be reserved for the most grievous
error where prejudice cannot otherwise be removed.'" Pasquale v. Ohio Power Co., 187 W. Va.
292, 309 (1992). Further, states like Massachusetts have found that in deciding a motion for
mistrial “a judge must make a prospective determination, in other words, a prediction, about the
impact of specific events on a verdict that has yet to be reached.” See Fitzpatrick v. Wendy’s Old
Fashioned Hamburgers, et al., SJC 12937, ___ N.E.3d __ 2021 WL 2024453. A mistrial should
not be granted lightly when remedying a fundamental error that may prejudice the verdict. See
Davidson v. Davidson, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 364, 377-378 (1985).
Only one other proceeding in Ridgeway has ever attempted to address a mistrial,
certainly one of recent times and conducted by this very Court, and one which is relevant as it
sought to address the same scenario. Grounds for a mistrial exist where a “presiding trial judge
has been absent for a prolonged period of time, to such an extent where questions may be
brought as to the violation of a defendant’s right to a speedy trial”. See State of Ridgeway v.
nohatalex, RSC-CM-2721 (2024). The Court previously used federal rule standards in granting a
mistrial, standards which were once again adhered to in this proceeding. Id.
III. ANALYSIS
The declaration of a mistrial presents a rare occasion in the Ridgeway legal system, with
there being no rules guiding judges or attorneys on how to conduct mistrials. Certainly, little
precedent has been established in motioning or ordering mistrials, and as such, the Court has
been open to the suggestions and traditions of other states, and that of the federal judiciary. As
we established in nohatalex, the concept of death and absence have long been considered in
mistrial in states like North Carolina, a state which has served as an example for managing
mistrial procedure. This proceeding has progressed through two superior court judges, two
magistrate judges, and had the potential to reach two supreme court justices. The unusual set of
circumstances that present when a judge disappears shortly after conducting trial leave a
situation where no other judge may be as informed and capable of rendering judgment.
Throughout this matter, the original presiding judge resigned, and the magistrate judge
initially assigned to conduct trial proceedings was elevated to superior court judge. From the date
of his elevation until now, Judge Chen conducted various proceedings. Certainly, this Court can
acknowledge that Judge Chen is human, and that human life at times brings forth considerable
challenges that grasp control of all circumstances and of one’s own time, and Judge Chen has
had no exception, having a significant event take place in his life which caused his leave,
beginning from May 15, 2024, until May 29, 2024. Yet the Court must still act with
consideration for the rights of both the plaintiff and defendant, and it has not been fair for both
parties to remain without judgment. Where on one hand, the plaintiff awaits the opportunity to
receive monetary relief from their suit against the defendant, the same awaits for the relief from
the burdens of being tried before this Court.
The Court must then consider what potential avenues are available to provide relief to
both parties, and to bring a close to this 193-day old proceeding. Unfortunately, trial already
having been conducted, presents a position where no judge has the opportunity to examine
issues, nor is there a complete transcript of the trial that could be examined to help render a
judgment, leaving little to no options other than to receive judgment from the original trier, or to
render a mistrial. The Court sought to avoid a mistrial by providing ample warning, and
providing extensive timelines that would provide the broadest timeline permissible to allow for
Judge Chen to render his opinion on his own terms. No opinion was rendered, and as such, the
Court sought the consent of both parties. Defendant Colin consented and had no further
alternatives, while Plaintiff Noob denied to provide consent though also had no further
alternatives. The Court is left to weigh whether manifest necessity exists to determine whether a
mistrial could be ordered, and it finds that such necessity has long been surpassed.
Where a judge has appeared absent for a prolonged period of time, no lawfully appointed
magistrate judge has been left to conduct the remaining proceedings, and no timeline is provided
for the return of such a judge, the Court may as well determine that the judge is absent, has
abandoned their position, or has been deceased, and in these matters, manifest necessity is surely
met when trial has already begun. Chen first appeared in this proceeding on April 17, 2024, a full
125 days from the date of this order, Chen received these proceedings under his docket as
superior court judge on April 26, 2024, 116 days from the date of this order, days after he had
already conducted trial as a magistrate judge. Over the course of 116 days, reassurances were
provided that a judgment would be rendered to no avail. No doubt could remain that in
proceedings throughout various other states, far larger timelines may be found, and scheduling is
far sparser due to the severity of caseloads, yet the Court does not see similar caseloads or case
complexities, less excuse can be found for proceedings to prolong themselves over the course of
six months.
At such a stage where trial has concluded, judgment has not been rendered, and where
insufficient information exists to permit a judge to accept reassignment, an obvious procedural
issue has occurred. No final judgment or opinion is rendered, the proceedings are left in an
endless limbo where only the presiding judge could conclude the proceedings, unless the
proceeding in its entirety was vacated and retried under a different presiding judge. To permit the
proceedings to remain on the docket for further time would only serve against the administration
of justice and the efficacy of the judiciary.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the absence of the presiding trial judge for a
prolonged period prejudices the administration of justice to both the Defendant and the State.
The Court finds no manner in which to repair the presiding judge’s absence, but it can serve the
administration of justice in protecting the Defendant’s rights by remedying the effects of the
absence. The Court therefore sua sponte declares a mistrial.
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED in chambers in Milton, Ridgeway
County, Ridgeway, this 20th day of August, 2024.
ENFORCEMENTBEYOND
CHIEF JUSTICE
Copies to: Plaintiff / Defendant
perhcSIXTY, Counsel for Plaintiff
MatthewSandringham, Counsel for Defendant
