Presented here in the case of O’Briant  VS. Moniak et al are the Original Summons, Amended Motion to Dismiss, and Motion to Strike.

Updated June 15, 2024

1. Plaintiff’s Original Summons, April 27, 2023.

2.  Defendants’ May 26, 2023 Motion to Dismiss and May 30, 2023, Amended Motion to Dismiss. 

The Amended Motion is 16 pages, and pages 20-82 are Exhibit A documents.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike.

4. Plaintiff’s Affadavit of Default directed against Defendant Eureka Research, LLC.

5. Defendant’s Response to Motion to Strike. June 26, 2023. (Not filed in case record but provided during discovery process. )

6. June 26, 2023. Answer by Defendants.

(Note: Not in the case file was a July 2023 agreement between both parties to withdraw all Motions and the Affidavit of Default without prejudice. No further filings ever occurred.)

7. November 3, 2023. Transcript of Deposition of Defendant Moniak.

(Note: The sealed deposition was posted to the case index on April 4, 2024

8. December 6, 2023. Notice of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), a court-ordered action which set forth a 90-day deadline to enter into mediation.

(Note: Since 2016, ADR has been mandated by the South Carolina Supreme Court for civil actions. Trials can not occur without mediation first occurring, unless exemptions are granted.

The Plaintiff in this case failed to pursue the mandated mediation. Under ADR Rule 5(f), a case “shall not be on the circuit court trial roster until a Proof of ADR is filed.”

ADR Rule 10(a), Proof of ADR, states:

“If by the time required by these rules, no Proof of ADR has been filed with the Office of the Clerk of Court and the case has not been exempted or deferred from ADR by court order, the court may issue a Rule to Show Cause why sanctions should not be imposed, including the dismissal of an action without prejudice or the striking of a pleading. The court may also manage such cases through status conferences and/or scheduling orders.”

Because the Plaintiff indicated an intent to dismiss the case, and without any concessions by the Defendant, no Rule to Show Cause was issued, and no sanctions were imposed.)

9. Dismissal, with Prejudice, May 13, 2024.

(Note. There was no “settlement.” As noted above, had an agreement not been reached to dismiss with prejudice—thus preventing any retrying of the case—the Court could have dismissed the case without prejudice, which would have required refiling and allowed for counterclaims.)