Michigan Supreme Court Weighs its Second Reversal of COVID-Era Wedding Venue Contract Case Kalamazoo County Courts Decided Without a Trial

In short. Fourteen COVID-era lawsuits arose from the same contracts and the same executive orders. Ten were dismissed with prejudice. One was tried, and the jury cleared the venue unanimously on every count. Of the three that remain, one was decided by a private arbitrator, one was decided on the pleadings and later reversed by the Court of Appeals, and one was decided by default and is now before the Michigan Supreme Court. No court has ruled on the defenses in that last case.

MSC weighs second remand

The last of fourteen COVID-era lawsuits against a Kalamazoo wedding venue is now before the Michigan Supreme Court on an application for leave to appeal. It arrived there without ever having been tried. Judgment was entered against the venue by default in Kalamazoo County's 8th District Court. The 9th Circuit Court affirmed. On November 25, 2025 the Court of Appeals affirmed as well, 2–1.

One of the three Court of Appeals judges refused to join that judgment. A written dissent is uncommon on that court — it means a judge was willing to put on the public record that the majority got the law wrong. Judge Kristina Robinson Garrett dissented. She would have vacated the default and sent the case back.

"Because the district court failed to apply the proper legal framework when it analyzed defendant's motion, I would vacate the district court's order and remand for further proceedings."

Joseph v. Entertainment Managers, LLC, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued November 25, 2025 (Docket No. 369697) (Garrett, J., dissenting), p 1.

"A trial court necessarily abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law."

Joseph (Garrett, J., dissenting), unpub op at 4 (quoting Pirgu v United Servs Auto Ass'n, 499 Mich 269, 274 (2016)).

No court has ruled on those defenses. The Supreme Court has not said what it will do with the case.

It is the second of these lawsuits to reach that Court, and the path of the first is the reason this one is worth watching.

First Remand: Stallworth

In Stallworth, the 8th District Court entered a $25,000 judgment after granting the couple summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(9) — failure to state a valid defense. That motion is tested solely by the pleadings. It may be granted only when the defendant's answer is "so clearly untenable that as a matter of law no factual development could possibly deny the plaintiff's right to recovery." It is not a mini-trial on paper. The court may not weigh evidence, find facts, or pick a winner while material allegations remain in dispute.

The venue had denied the material allegations and pleaded defenses. A categorical denial is itself a valid defense under that rule — enough to send the case forward. The district court granted the motion anyway, treating the couple's account as established and the venue's denials as if they were not in the file.

The 9th Circuit Court affirmed. And on May 12, 2023 a Court of Appeals panel of Mark T. Boonstra, P.J., with Jane E. Markey and Christopher P. Yates, refused to hear the appeal in a single sentence:

"The application for leave to appeal is DENIED for lack of merit in the grounds presented."

Three rulings. All three left the judgment standing.

The Michigan Supreme Court then intervened and sent the case back. A different Court of Appeals panel took it up — and on August 29, 2024 reversed unanimously, holding that both Kalamazoo courts had erred.

The Court of Appeals said so in its unpublished opinion in Stallworth v. Entertainment Managers, LLC, No. 363874:

"We also agree with Entertainment Managers, LLC that the district court and circuit court erred by ignoring the defenses in their answer and affirmative defenses, considering evidence attached to the pleadings as substantive evidence on which the courts made findings of fact, and granting equitable relief and statutory relief to the Stallworths on the basis of the pleadings alone."

Stallworth v. Entertainment Managers, LLC, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued August 29, 2024 (Docket No. 363874), p 3.

The grounds that lacked merit in May 2023 were the grounds the case was reversed on in August 2024.

That is the record the second case now enters, and the parallel is what the venue's application rests on. In Stallworth, the Court of Appeals left a Kalamazoo judgment standing until the Supreme Court required it to look again — and it then reversed, unanimously, because the courts below had granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(9) when questions of fact remained. That rule asks only whether the defendant's pleadings state a valid defense; it does not permit a court to ignore those pleadings, treat one side's attachments as proof, resolve conflicting facts, and enter judgment on the merits. In Joseph, the Court of Appeals has again left a Kalamazoo judgment standing, over a dissent saying the defenses may be absolute and were never reached.

What the Supreme Court makes of that is the open question.

What the thirteen lawsuits before it produced is a record that has never been set out in one place.

Those lawsuits arose out of the same collision: event rental and service contracts signed in 2019, and Michigan executive orders issued in 2020 that made the events as contracted inconvenient to hold — restricted in size, in seating, in service — but, for all but a handful of dates, still possible. Nobody caused the collision. The cases were about who absorbed it.

What happened to the other thirteen is the more interesting record. Ten were dismissed with prejudice. Of the three that produced a decision against the company, one was decided on the pleadings without any hearing, one in private arbitration outside the courts, and one by default before any defense was considered.

Across the whole group, one case was decided by a jury that heard the evidence, one by a private arbitrator, and the two remaining ones by courts that entered judgment without any evidentiary hearing at all.

What the COVID orders required

In March 2020, Governor Gretchen Whitmer issued a series of executive orders under the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act and the Emergency Management Act. From March 24 to June 1, 2020, Michigan was under a full stay-at-home order with public gatherings limited to ten people. Capacity limits, distancing and mask requirements persisted into 2021. In October 2020 the Michigan Supreme Court held the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act unconstitutional, but restrictions continued under Department of Health and Human Services epidemic orders through June 2021.

The orders bound venues and guests alike. A business that hosted a wedding in violation of them risked enforcement action, and for a stretch of weeks in 2020 no lawful path to holding one existed at all.

Outside those weeks, though, the events could go ahead. Smaller, distanced, masked, and nothing like what anyone had pictured in 2019 — but they could be held, and most were.

That distinction carried legal weight. A contract rendered impossible to perform can be rescinded; one rendered less pleasant to perform generally cannot. The dispute was never really about whether the venue could perform. It was about who bore the cost of a state order that neither side asked for, and whether a couple who declined the restricted version of their wedding was entitled to the money the venue had already spent producing it.

The venue contracts

The agreements specified non-refundable progress payments for services rendered more than twelve months before the event date, rather than refundable deposits — a distinction at issue in every case. The company's model depended on booking a limited number of peak dates a season, sold a year or more in advance, with a majority of each event's cost incurred before the event date through staffing, multi-venue leases, equipment and vendor commitments.

The company states that every affected couple was given the same two options: hold the event on its original date under the restrictions then in force, or reschedule on full credit within two years, including peak Saturday dates available at short notice — terms more generous than the partial credit the contracts required. Only a small number of events fell inside the weeks when gatherings were barred outright and so could not be held at all; for the rest, both options were open. The company reports that most clients took one or the other, and that their events were held.

Powers: Unanimous Jury Verdict

Only one of the fourteen was ever tried. On March 14, 2023, a Kalamazoo County jury returned a unanimous jury verdict for Entertainment Managers LLC — the company behind the Loft 310 and Skydeck venues — on every count.

According to court filings, the Powers booked three venues in September 2019 for an August 21, 2020 wedding and paid approximately $24,000. The contracts characterized the payments as non-refundable progress payments; the couple characterized them as deposits.

In May 2022, WWMT aired an I-Team segment in which Kristyn Powers described the dispute: "It was all ripped away, it was all emotionally draining." Their attorney, Phillip Hamilton, called it "a pattern of conduct."

The case was tried in Kalamazoo County Circuit Court in March 2023. Both sides put on evidence. The jury cleared the company on every count — the only one of the fourteen in which a jury heard the evidence and said who was right.

Stallworth: reversed for an improper (C)(9) judgment

Stallworth v. Entertainment Managers LLC never reached a trial. The issue on appeal was not that evidence was missing — it was that the courts entered judgment under MCR 2.116(C)(9) when they were not allowed to.

The Stallworths moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(9) — failure to state a valid defense. That motion is decided on the pleadings alone. No evidence, no testimony, no findings of fact.

It is meant to be nearly impossible to win. The test is whether the defendant's pleadings are "so clearly untenable that as a matter of law no factual development could possibly deny the plaintiff's right to recovery" — not whether the defendant is likely to lose, but whether there is nothing there at all, such that no amount of evidence could change the outcome. A defendant who simply denies the allegations clears that bar, because the denial itself creates the dispute a trial exists to resolve. The Court of Appeals said so directly:

"when a defendant categorically denies a material allegation, it is a valid defense that could deny a plaintiff's right to recovery, and summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(9) is improper"

The venue had denied the allegations. On the rule's own terms the motion should have failed where it started.

Kalamazoo County's 8th District Court granted it instead, and awarded $25,000. The 9th Circuit Court affirmed.

The venue asked the Court of Appeals to review that. On May 12, 2023, a panel of Mark T. Boonstra, P.J., with Jane E. Markey and Christopher P. Yates, refused, in an order one sentence long: "The application for leave to appeal is DENIED for lack of merit in the grounds presented."

The Michigan Supreme Court disagreed. It remanded the case, and the Court of Appeals took it up as on leave granted. On August 29, 2024 an entirely different panel — Brock A. Swartzle, P.J., with Kirsten Frank Kelly and Adrienne N. Young — unanimously reversed.

Both courts had misread the rule in the way described above — treating a categorical denial as though it were not a defense. The circuit court had compounded it by reviewing the case under the wrong standard altogether:

"the circuit court erred because the standard or review for a motion for summary disposition is de novo, not clear error or an abuse of discretion"

The holding is a list of things the courts below were not permitted to do:

Note what the panel did not say. It did not say the wrong person had found the facts. It said facts had been found where none could lawfully be found at all — on a motion decided from the pleadings, with no evidence, no testimony and no hearing. A judge is entitled to find facts at a bench trial. There was no trial.

The panel reversed and remanded for further proceedings and did not retain jurisdiction.

It is worth restating what that sequence amounts to. A district judge, a circuit judge, and three Court of Appeals judges had each looked at this case and left the judgment in place. Five judges, fifteen months, and no evidentiary hearing at any point. The correction came only because the Supreme Court required the Court of Appeals to look a second time, with different judges.

Clancy: arbitration without a readable record

Clancy v. Entertainment Managers LLC never reached a jury. The contract sent disputes to binding arbitration under the American Arbitration Association's commercial rules — and required that the arbitration "include a written record of the arbitration hearing."

How the case got there matters. Counsel for Clancy and Hedge first filed an AAA demand under the consumer rules — not the commercial rules the contract required. Those consumer procedures strip away rights the commercial rules preserve: meaningful discovery, a fuller hearing, and cost-sharing. Instead they push the business to bear most of the fees. The company's filings describe that as a recurring plaintiffs' tactic in these cases: file under consumer rules; when the venue refuses to proceed under rules the contract never agreed to, sue in court claiming the company "failed to arbitrate." Entertainment Managers LLC refused the consumer track, stating it would arbitrate under the commercial rules in the agreement. After the consumer demand was dismissed, the couple sued in Kalamazoo County's 9th Circuit Court. The company moved to compel arbitration under the contract. Judge Alexander Lipsey granted that motion — the venue's motion — and stayed the case so the parties could proceed under the commercial rules. WWMT nonetheless carried the claim that the company would not respond to arbitration and portrayed the circuit court as having ordered Reedy into the process against his will. The register of actions and the court's own ruling show the opposite: Judge Alexander Lipsey was granting Entertainment Managers LLC's motion to compel arbitration on the commercial rules in the contract. As the company's later application to the Michigan Supreme Court summarized the October 27, 2020 hearing and Exhibit E order: "The trial court orally denied Defendant's Motion for Summary Disposition but granted the Defendant's request to compel arbitration and ordered that the matter be stayed ninety (90) for that purpose." Clancy v. Entertainment Managers, LLC, Defendant-Appellant's Application for Leave to Appeal (Mich. filed May 12, 2023), p 7 (citing Exhibit E, Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Disposition and to Compel Arbitration).

"I am going to order that upon filing the answer, that these proceedings be stayed pending the parties going to arbitration. And there will be a 90-day period of time in which that arbitration should be handled. … But I am going to require that the answer be filed, which means I'm denying the motion to dismiss in lieu of the answer. I am going to require that parties do in fact begin the process of going to arbitration."

Hearing transcript, Clancy v. Entertainment Managers, LLC, Kalamazoo Circuit Court (Hon. Alexander C. Lipsey), Oct. 27, 2020, pp 27–28 — on file.

The hearing was held on February 24, 2021, on the American Arbitration Association's expedited track before arbitrator Michelle Harrell, then of Maddin, Hauser, Roth & Heller, P.C.. Harrell found the company had breached the contract, rejected the couple's conversion claim, and awarded a refund plus fees and costs. The circuit court confirmed the award and entered judgment of $78,273.13. That is the ordinary outcome under Michigan law: a court must confirm an arbitration award unless a party proves one of the narrow statutory grounds to vacate it — corruption or fraud, evident partiality, misconduct, or the arbitrator exceeding her powers — and may not reweigh the evidence or retry whether the contract was breached. Vacatur is rare even when awards are challenged. One widely cited empirical study of federal court decisions found judges vacated only about 4% of disputed awards. On February 2, 2023, the Court of Appeals affirmed in all respects, including the fee award.

A factfinder did hear evidence here, and did find against the company. That is what separates Clancy from Stallworth and Joseph. But an arbitrator is not a court. Harrell was chosen by contract, sat in private, and issued an award that judges review only for whether she exceeded her powers — not whether she got the contract right. No reviewing court decided whether the company had actually breached. On appeal, that question was never open.

What the company challenged was not merely the result. It argued the arbitrator failed to follow the governing rules, failed to apply the contract's terms as written, and failed to produce the written hearing record the contract required for appeal. That record was never produced.

A panel of Michael J. Riordan, P.J., with Jane E. Markey and James Robert Redford, wrote that the arbitrator's pre-hearing order had summarized AAA Rule 28 — the rule that puts the cost and arrangement of a stenographer on whichever party wants one:

"In response, the arbitrator issued an order summarizing the relevant portions of Rule 28 and cited the rule for the parties' further reference. Defendant did not follow the rule's requirements for arranging a stenographic record."

Clancy v. Entertainment Managers, LLC, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued February 2, 2023 (Docket No. 357990) (Riordan, P.J., and Markey and Redford, JJ.), p 7–8.

Opening the hearing itself, Harrell changed course on the record:

"What I've decided to do today is I am going to record this proceeding. … If anyone wants to retain a stenographer to make a transcript of that, I will make the — the audio available. The full audio. … So, it's going to be recorded in its entirety. Okay, Mr. Reedy? I saw in the — in the contract it said that — you know, an agreement of the parties to make a record, and I want you to feel like what's happening here today is — is transparent and will be recorded."

Harrell recorded the hearing and sent the file to both sides. Then she withdrew it. The Court of Appeals itself summarized her follow-up email: she had "not listened to the recording and could not confirm its completeness or lack of technical glitches," and "not being a court reporter prevented her opining on the limitations and accuracies of the recording," so she "left it to the parties to determine whether the Zoom recording would be the official record." The parties did not agree. The company's filings state that the plaintiffs objected to certifying the recording as official. By then the hearing was over. A stenographer cannot be sent back to a hearing that has already happened.

Both reviewing courts treated the missing record as the company's problem. The circuit judge said the company "apparently presumed that those proceedings would … have an official recording," attributed the objection to inexperience, and called it "Monday morning quarterbacking." The Court of Appeals went further:

"Contrary to defendant's assertion, the arbitrator did not disallow an official recording of the arbitration hearing or prevent defendant from arranging a stenographic recording of the proceeding. Defendant simply failed to arrange for the creation of a record in accordance with the governing rules."

Clancy, unpub op at 8 (Riordan, P.J., and Markey and Redford, JJ.).

The opinion also recites that the company's first lawyer had waived the written-record requirement, and that Ryan Reedy retracted the waiver when he took over. The company's position is that the waiver never took effect: AAA required any waiver in writing by November 20, 2020, and nothing in the AAA file shows one was filed.

Neither court had read a hearing transcript when it wrote any of that, because none existed. The Zoom recording was not transcribed until after the Court of Appeals had already ruled. That transcript is the record of the arbitrator saying, on the day of the hearing, that she was recording the proceeding because the contract required a record — the opposite of a party that "simply failed to arrange" one.

The company then asked the same panel to reconsider and to expand the record so the court could review what the hearing actually contained. On March 31, 2023, Riordan, Markey, and Redford denied both the motion for reconsideration and the motion to expand the record. The court never read the transcript. The company filed it with the Michigan Supreme Court instead, in an application for leave to appeal that told that court the opinion "contains numerous misstatements of the record and, frankly, appears to completely disregard the evidence cited by Defendant," and argued the award had been procured through "fraud, collusion and undue means."

What the company says that record would have shown goes to the merits, not only procedure. Its filings argue the award turned on a single clause read in isolation — Paragraph 3 of the cancellation section, which gave the venue the option to cancel if the venue became inoperable. Michigan law requires a contract to be read as a whole: give effect to every provision, avoid any reading that leaves part of it meaningless, and harmonize terms that appear to conflict. Read that way, the company argues, the clause that governed was Paragraph 1, covering cancellation by the customer. The venue offered to modify the contract rather than cancel it; the couple rejected the offer and cancelled the booking themselves; and under Paragraph 1, no refund was owed.

The Court of Appeals declined to reach that argument, holding it had not been preserved in the courts below. The company's answer is that it was argued at the arbitration hearing — and that the transcript quotes both sides doing so, including opposing counsel's opening statement framing the case as coming "down to one question. What does that cancellation pro- — policy provide?" That transcript was not before the Court of Appeals when it held the question unpreserved.

None of it changed the outcome. The Supreme Court did not take the case. The judgment was paid and satisfied in April 2024.

Clancy is the largest judgment in the group and the one most often described as a court loss. It is also the one case where a factfinder did hear the evidence — and the only account of what Harrell heard is a recording she declined to vouch for, which no reviewing court read before deciding both that its absence was the company's fault and that the argument it contains had never been made.

Joseph: default judgment at the Supreme Court

Joseph v. Entertainment Managers LLC was decided on a procedural default, and it is the reason there is still something pending.

James Joseph filed suit in March 2022 in Kalamazoo County's 8th District Court — the same court whose disposition of Stallworth the Court of Appeals would later reverse for granting summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(9) while material facts remained in dispute.

What produced the default was a calendaring error by the company's lawyer, not by the company. In the Court of Appeals' later words, "the cause of defendant's failure to answer the complaint appears to be that defense counsel failed to properly calendar the answer's due date after requesting an extension." Counsel negotiated a two-week extension to March 29, 2022, did not file by it, and filed the answer on April 8 — seven days late, and before the default was served on the company on April 11.

A default judgment of $11,548 was entered on June 15, 2022. The company moved to set it aside. The district court refused, and its stated reason was that intent did not matter:

"I frankly just don't find that that's good cause. It's not a matter of intent. The Court Rules are the Court Rules. Yeah, sometimes they — somebody doesn't do something like calendaring something, forgetting about something, and it comes back to bite 'em, but I'm kind of a stickler for following the Court Rules."

The circuit court affirmed. That judge said on the record that he would have handled the matter differently but considered himself bound to defer.

On November 25, 2025 the Court of Appeals — Cameron, P.J., with Redford and Garrett, JJ. — affirmed, 2–1. The company lost that appeal, but the majority did not defend how the case had been handled below. It found the district court's reasoning "faulty in two regards": intent can be relevant to good cause, and a default by definition follows from a failure to comply with the rules, so treating non-compliance as disqualifying would leave almost no default that could ever be set aside. It accepted that the lapse was "unknowing and unintentional" and that the company "did not completely fail to answer the complaint." It affirmed regardless, on two grounds: that the result still fell within the range of principled outcomes, and that the company had not preserved a meritorious defense to every count. On the lawyer's mistake it applied a rule with nothing to do with the case — "generally, an attorney's negligence is imputed to the client and is not a basis for setting aside a default judgment."

Judge Garrett dissented. Beyond the passage quoted at the top of this article, her opinion records that the standing objection was not raised late or in passing: it "was a defense that defendant asserted in its affirmative defenses filed with its answer to the complaint," was argued again at the hearing on the motion to set aside, and was supported by a verified statement from Ryan Reedy, the company's member manager, in the form MCR 2.603(D)(1) requires. She also recorded Reedy's sworn account that the event was rescheduled twice and that the bride and groom then chose "for personal reasons" not to hold it at all.

She would have vacated the district court's order and remanded for reconsideration under the proper framework.

The defenses the company says were never reached are documented in its own filings, and it raises three questions it says no court has answered. Its complaint-stage position is that the plaintiff pleaded he had signed Contract #1354619, while the copy of that contract attached to his own complaint carries two signatures — his daughter's and his son-in-law's. The payments, totaling $11,388, came from the bride's mother. And the January 18, 2021 rescheduling addendum, which states that it supersedes any prior agreement, provides in capital letters that the client "AGREES TO NOT REQUEST ARBITRATION OR FILE A LAWSUIT for any reason related to the original contract or rescheduled event dates."

The company frames the result as a trap with no exit: if the plaintiff did not sign the contract, he had no standing to sue on it; if he did, its own terms barred the suit he filed. Its application records the same answer from every level below — district court: did not address; circuit court: did not address; Court of Appeals: did not address.

The Michigan courts' case search lists the matter as MSC #169695, pending on application. An application for leave asks the Supreme Court to take the case; the Court has not indicated what it will do with it. The company is asking for the procedural relief the Supreme Court granted in Stallworth — a remand to the Court of Appeals, which then reversed. That is precedent for the request, not a forecast of the outcome.

What the record shows

Fourteen cases arose from the same contracts and the same restrictions. Ten were dismissed with prejudice. Of the four that produced a decision, one was an arbitrator's award that no court reviewed on the merits, and one was a default judgment entered without any adjudication of the merits at all. Neither involved a finding about what the company did or failed to do.

That leaves the two occasions on which a court engaged the facts.

One was a trial. On March 14, 2023 a Kalamazoo County jury returned a unanimous verdict for the company on every count. The other was Stallworth, the only case in which a court weighed the facts against the company — and the Court of Appeals reversed it unanimously, holding that the courts below had ignored the company's responsive pleadings, made factual determinations, weighed conflicting facts, and decided the merits on a motion that permits none of that.

One trial, one unanimous jury verdict for the company. One court that weighed the facts against it, unanimously reversed for doing so.

Documents

Every factual claim in this article rests on one of the records below. Opinions published by the Michigan Courts are linked directly. Records marked on file are public court documents that Michigan Courts does not publish online; Axo News holds copies and provides them on request.

Case	Record	Date
Powers v. Entertainment Managers LLC	Judgment Following Jury Trial (signed excerpt), Kalamazoo County 9th Circuit Court, Case No. 2021-0328-CZ — Hon. Curtis J. Bell	Mar 2023
Powers v. Entertainment Managers LLC	Register of Actions (Jury Verdict – No Cause of Action)	through May 16, 2023
Stallworth v. Entertainment Managers LLC	Court of Appeals order denying leave, "for lack of merit in the grounds presented," No. 363874 — on file	May 12, 2023
Stallworth v. Entertainment Managers LLC	Michigan Supreme Court order remanding to the Court of Appeals under MCR 7.305(H)(1), 513 Mich 853 — on file	2023
Stallworth v. Entertainment Managers LLC	Court of Appeals opinion reversing, No. 363874	Aug 29, 2024
Clancy v. Entertainment Managers LLC	AAA evidentiary hearing transcript, Case No. 01-20-0015-4731 — on file	Feb 24, 2021
Clancy v. Entertainment Managers LLC	Court of Appeals opinion affirming, No. 357990	Feb 2, 2023
Clancy v. Entertainment Managers LLC	Court of Appeals order denying reconsideration and motion to expand the record, No. 357990	Mar 31, 2023
Clancy v. Entertainment Managers LLC	Application for leave to appeal, Michigan Supreme Court — on file	May 12, 2023
Joseph v. Entertainment Managers LLC	Court of Appeals opinion affirming, 2–1, No. 369697	Nov 25, 2025
Joseph v. Entertainment Managers LLC	Dissent of Judge Garrett, No. 369697	Nov 25, 2025
Joseph v. Entertainment Managers LLC	Application for leave to appeal, Michigan Supreme Court No. 169695 — pending	2026

Ten further cases were dismissed with prejudice. Their case numbers are listed in the body.

Corrections

Axo News corrects errors of fact. If a statement in this article is wrong, send the sentence and the document that contradicts it to [email protected]. Corrections are made to the article and recorded in the table below.

Date	Change
August 3, 2026	Linked Powers Judgment Following Jury Trial (signed excerpt) and Register of Actions as article attachments.
July 25, 2026	First publication of this version.

Reuse

Quote from this article with attribution and a link. The court records it relies on are public documents and belong to no one.

— Sofia Alvarez, government desk, AXO News