Description
Randy Shochet has officially filed his response to Bruce Matzkin's Motion to Reopen the Case and Motion to Vacate the December 18, 2025 Order. In this filing, Jeremy Hales argues that the motion should be denied for several procedural reasons, including that the challenged order is not a final order, Bruce Matzkin was never a party to the case, and any challenge should have been brought through a timely interlocutory appeal—not months later through a motion to vacate.
In this video, we'll break down:
Randy's response to the motion to reopen.
The arguments regarding standing and procedural deadlines.
Why the filing contends the December 18, 2025 order should remain in effect.
What this could mean for the ongoing litigation.
This video discusses publicly filed court documents and is intended for commentary, education, and news reporting. The statements summarized here reflect the positions and legal arguments presented in the filing—they are not findings of fact by the court.
📄 Court Filing Discussed:
Defendant Jeremy Hales's Response in Opposition to Nonparty Bruce Matzkin's Motion to Reopen Case for Limited Purpose and Motion to Vacate Order
Don't forget to Like, Subscribe, and turn on notifications so you don't miss future updates on this case.
#whatthehales, #grudgejudge, #buckleup, #LawsuitUpdate,
If you would like to Buy MrCoop a Kofi ☕. Feel Free. https://ko-fi.com/mrcoop
Tip Jar; https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/8RBUNHYA7BDJN
Email; mrcoopshow@gmail.com
MrCoop P.O. Box 597 Auburndale FL. 33823
This livestream contains original commentary, live discussion, and analysis by MrCoop. Any court filings, public records, clips, or screenshots shown are used for commentary, criticism, education, and discussion.