IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
THR33SIX8,
Plaintiff,
v,
ALBERTWELLESLEY, in their official
capacity as Associate Director of the Ridgeway
State Bar,
RASHHYYY, a pseudonym,
COMPLAINTANTS, a pseudonym
Defendant.
DEFENDANT ALBERTWELLESLEY’S
MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT
Hon. Arthur_Chen
Docket Number: RSC-CV-8427
The Defendant, Mr. AlbertWellesley, by and through his undersigned attorney,
respectfully moves this Court to set aside the default judgement against him due to insufficient
and improper service. Although Mr. AlbertWellesley is aware of the lawsuit against him, he was
never summoned in the first place.
Every lawsuit in Ridgeway must be in accordance of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and
upon a showing of good cause, this Court can set aside default and allow Mr. AlbertWellesley to
respond to the lawsuit.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO SET ASIDE
- 1 -
BACKGROUND AND CONTROLLING RULES
1. On August 31, 2026, Plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit, naming Mr. AlbertWellesley as a
Defendant.
2. Only a few days later, Plaintiff’s attorney took it upon himself to begin the summons
process, without a Judge ever even taking the case or allowing the summons process to
begin.
3. In a written affidavit, Plaintiff’s attorney explained that they had DM’d Mr.
AlbertWellesley a summons, as well as the Solicitor General Detachment_Result.1
4. The summons which was given, was improper for a multitude of reasons, but one
important fact is that it did not explain when Mr. AlbertWellesley was required to appear.
Instead, Plaintiff himself set that deadline by himself in the case channel.
5. Days later, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgement. In this motion, made under
oath, the Plaintiff explains that he showed proof of serving Mr. AlbertWellesley. Looking
back however, no proof was ever shown. At most, it shows Detachment_Result being
contacted, but not Mr. AlbertWellesley.
6. The Rules allow Mr. AlbertWellesley to ask this Court to set aside default against him,
under Rid. R. Civ. P. 37(9) upon a showing of good cause.
1 Both of these are false statements. (1) Mr. AlbertWellesley never received any message from Plaintiff or his
attorney regarding a summons; and (2) Detachment_Result is not the Solicitor General.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO SET ASIDE
- 2 -
ARGUMENT
A. IMPROPER SERVICE
7. For the following reasons, default should be set aside for Mr. AlbertWellesley because he
was never actually served, and the process by which the Plaintiff did service was
incredibly wrong.
8. Under Rid. R. Civ. P. 12(1)(3) and (4), a defendant may raise the defense of improper
process, and insufficiency of service of process. Here, Plaintiff went his way to
personally ‘serve’ a summons to Defendant, and later wrote in a sworn affidavit that they
served process. This is improper, and breaches the procedural rules.
9. As sworn in their statement, Plaintiff’s attorney states that because they are a licensed
attorney, they are “procedurally allowed to do the service of summons on his own.”
Citing Rid. R. Civ. P. 4(8)(2).
10. Rule 4(8)(2) allows for an attorney to deliver service only when “so ordered”. Plaintiff is
in breach of this rule, because:
a. Being an attorney does not automatically give them the authority to effect service;
and,
b. The Court never entered an order allowing alternative method of service, in fact,
it never even ordered for service.
11. Plaintiff even served the wrong persons, and never even served AlbertWellesley himself.
Instead, Plaintiff decided to serve upon “Solicitor General Detachment_Result”.
Detachment_Result is not the Solicitor General of Ridgeway.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO SET ASIDE
- 3 -
12. Although stating under the penalty of perjury in a sworn statement that they served
AlbertWellesley, they have not demonstrated that.
13. Under Rid. R. Civ. P. 4, a summons can only be issued by the Clerk upon request of the
plaintiff. Here, the Plaintiff has failed to request for a summons, and the Clerk has not
provided one.
14. Rule 4 requires that a summon contain specific information, including the case number,
date to appear and defend, a warning regarding default judgement, and bear the signature
of the Clerk. Here, the “summons” contained no information. AlbertWellesley cannot
know when he was expected to appear, for what reason, and be fairly warned of default.
15. Even assuming that a copy of the complaint is sufficient for summons, which it is not,
Plaintiff’s counsel cannot serve it himself. Under Rule 4(3), all summons are served by
the Sheriff’s Office, unless a specially authorized person is permitted by the Court.
Nothing on the record demonstrates that Plaintiff’s attorney was authorized to
hand-deliver a ‘summons’.
16. Because AlbertWellesley is sued in his official capacity, the summons must also be
delivered to either the Attorney General, or Solicitor General. See Rule 4(4). However,
Plaintiff’s attorney has not served either of these offices, but instead a random attorney in
the justice department. That is an insufficient process.
17. Should this Court find that the process of service was insufficient, it has the authority to
set aside default, and should do so.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO SET ASIDE
- 4 -
B. PLAINTIFF LIED IN MULTIPLE FILINGS
18. In many of their filings, made before a Judge even took the case, Plaintiff or his attorney
stated that Mr. AlbertWellesley was served.
19. More specifically:
a. The Return of Service states Mr. AlbertWellesley was served, but does not show
proof as required by the rules;
b. The Motion for Default Judgement states Mr. AlbertWellesley was served on
September 2, 2026.
20. Mr. AlbertWellesley never received any summons, from anyone in-fact.
C. PLAINTIFF DECIDED TO SKIP THE RULES BECAUSE IT TOOK TOO LONG
21. The Court might be wondering why Plaintiff took it upon himself to do a terrible job of
servicing.
22. In conversation with Plaintiff’s attorney, they demonstrated they didn’t actually know
they were not allowed to do this. They explained that they did not ask RCSO to deliver
the summons (as the rules require) because “they are very inactive”
23. It’s not Plaintiff’s job to decide how to serve, or when. If the Court thinks that service by
RCSO (the default method of summons) would impact the case, then it could simply
authorize Plaintiff to serve himself. However, Plaintiff skipped that part.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO SET ASIDE
- 5 -
CONCLUSION
24. The reality is that Plaintiff filed a lawsuit, and when no Judge took the case, they went
out of their way to do the summons themselves. This was improper, namely because they
were not given permission to do so, and because the Defendant himself was not
summoned.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO SET ASIDE
- 6 -
Date: September 9, 2026
Respectfully submitted,
Counsel for the Defendant
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO SET ASIDE
- 7 -
