Judge Starr's Latest Game: Using His Own Consolidation to Block Default Judgment - by Lisa Weingarten Richards

                                           Artwork by Tommy Richards using Photoshop 7.0

October 22, 2025

Judge Brantley Starr just pulled off a maneuver: he consolidated two cases himself, then used that consolidation as grounds to deny a default judgment he had previously authorized and scheduled for hearing.

What Just Happened

On October 22, Judge Starr issued a two-page order Memorandum Opinion and Order AND Order Setting Deadline/Hearing – #106 in Richards v. X Corp (N.D. Tex., 3:25-cv-00916) – CourtListener.com that:

1. Denied default judgment against Linda Yaccarino (former X CEO who resigned 10 hours after the amended complaint was filed against X Corp and Trump, which specifically mentioned her deceptive behavior as CEO. Because she fled X, we were forced to sue her individually in order to conduct discovery and depose her. She then never answered the lawsuit and instead, defaulted).
2. Vacated the clerk's entry of default against Yaccarino - removing the default that was already entered
3. Vacated the November 12 default hearing
4. Scheduled X Corp's motion to dismiss for November 12 instead - requiring in-person attendance
5. Denied our reconsideration of the remote appearance motion "as moot" - avoiding any ruling on the substance

The Timeline Shows the Retaliation

September: Yaccarino defaults. Starr schedules default judgment hearing for November 12.

October 1: Starr denies our request to appear remotely, claiming travel costs must be "[]proportionate to relief sought" - a legal standard that doesn't exist. Richards v. Yaccarino, 3:25-cv-01863 – CourtListener.com (see docket entry 16)

October 7: We file reconsideration of the remote hearing denial, exposing that he invented this legal standard. The true proportionality test in Rule 43 (amended 1996) asks whether video transmission costs are reasonable relative to the case stakes and party resources—meaning video should be preferred when its cost is proportional. After federal courts invested in Zoom infrastructure during COVID, video transmission costs are now essentially zero, making remote appearances maximally proportional under the rule, not prohibited by high case value.

October 10: Starr “sua sponte” (on his own) consolidates the cases (after previously denying our consolidation motion as "moot"). The November 12 Yaccarino default hearing remains scheduled - still requiring in-person attendance.

October 21: We file a Notice, requesting the court to rule on the reconsideration for a remote hearing. #105 in Richards v. X Corp (N.D. Tex., 3:25-cv-00916) – CourtListener.com

October 22: Starr uses his own consolidation to deny the default judgment, vacates the clerk's entry of default, vacates the November 12 hearing entirely, schedules X Corp's motion to dismiss for November 12 instead (also requiring in-person attendance), and denies our reconsideration as "moot." Memorandum Opinion and Order AND Order Setting Deadline/Hearing – #106 in Richards v. X Corp (N.D. Tex., 3:25-cv-00916) – CourtListener.com

The Retaliatory Pattern

Notice what happened: Even after consolidation on October 10, the November 12 Yaccarino default hearing remained scheduled. Starr only eliminated it the day after we filed the notice of the reconsideration challenging his fabricated legal standard for in-person appearance.

If consolidation were really the reason he couldn't enter default judgment, he would have vacated the hearing on October 10 when he consolidated. Instead, he kept it scheduled until we challenged his reasoning - then eliminated it.

This isn't judicial reasoning. This is retaliation for refusing to be bullied into traveling thousands of miles for an uncontested default hearing.

The Double Standard on "Joint Liability"

Months ago when we moved for default against Trump, Starr didn't say "I can't enter default while Yaccarino is still litigating." Instead, he ordered expedited briefing on the Trump default motion - showing he was prepared to enter default against Trump even while X Corp was litigating. Richards v. X Corp, 3:25-cv-00916 – CourtListener.com (see document # 95)

He only mentioned this "joint liability" rule after we challenged his fabricated legal standard about remote appearances.

Same-Date Scheduling as Retaliation

And here's the final insult: Starr didn't just cancel the November 12 hearing - he replaced it with X Corp's motion to dismiss hearing on the exact same date, still requiring in-person attendance. Note that the court does not typically hold hearings for motions to dismiss according to its local rules. (CIVRULES.pdf see page 6 -  LR 7.1(g))

Why This Ruling Is Wrong

The case Starr cites in his opinion today (GFRS Equipment) says judgment "generally should not be entered" against defaulting defendants while co-defendants litigate - but "generally" means it's discretionary, not mandatory. It depends on the situation. Starr also cites other cases to purportedly prove this point, but all are from 2019-2020 - well before this case was filed. And he knew about these cases when he initially ordered the Yaccarino default hearing and when he ordered expedited briefing on the Trump default motion.

Courts routinely enter judgment against defaulting defendants even when co-defendants remain, especially when there's individual liability, consciousness of guilt through strategic resignation, and no prejudice to co-defendants actively litigating their defenses. The Fifth Circuit confirmed in Williams v. Taylor Seidenbach, 958 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc), that courts have discretion under Rule 54(b) to enter partial final judgment even when other parties remain in litigation.

The Pattern: Four Mandamus-Worthy Actions

This is the fourth time his actions have warranted Fifth Circuit intervention:

First Mandamus: Improper Venue Transfer (April 2025)

Starr ordered transfer to Fort Worth - where known Musk ally Judge Reed O'Connor presides - claiming X's Terms of Service required it. The Terms clearly allow "the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas" (any division). SpirituallySmart.Com's Blog: Oath Breakers: When Judges Choose Lies Over Truth - Assisted by Artificial Intelligence

Second Mandamus: False Procedural Choice on Local Counsel (July 2025)

Judge Starr offered two options: appoint local counsel OR file a motion to proceed without local counsel. When we selected the second option with a detailed motion documenting our extraordinary circumstances - including attorneys declining representation due to fear of Elon Musk - Starr denied the motion without explanation, refused to provide guidance on sufficient grounds, and kept changing the geographic requirement. SpirituallySmart.Com's Blog: Oath Breakers: When Judges Choose Lies Over Truth - Assisted by Artificial Intelligence

Third Mandamus: Recusal Denial (July 2025)

We moved for Starr's recusal given Trump appointed him and Musk (X's owner) gave Trump $277 million while receiving $15.4 billion in government contracts. Starr denied recusal using a fabricated legal standard, ignoring 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)'s "appearance of impartiality" requirement. The Fifth Circuit denied our petition and en banc review. (We have two blog posts on this issue SpirituallySmart.Com's Blog: Fighting for Justice: The Long Road to the Fifth Circuit En Banc Petition - by Lisa Weingarten Richards & Artificial Intelligence ;  SpirituallySmart.Com's Blog: BREAKING: Judge Starr's Legal Error Exposed - Fifth Circuit Precedent Demands Recusal - by Lisa W Richards and Artificial Intelligence)

Fourth: Consolidation Retaliation

Starr consolidated the cases sua sponte after denying our consolidation motion, then used his own order to block the default judgment he had previously authorized. When we challenged his fabricated requirement for in-person appearance, he eliminated the default hearing, vacated Yaccarino’s default, and scheduled X Corp's motion to dismiss for the identical date—still requiring in-person attendance. The message: challenge his orders, and he'll simply create new reasons to force the same illegitimate, burdensome travel.

Context: The Remote Hearing Standard

For contrast: Senior Judge Michael Urbanski in the Western District of Virginia ruled today we can appear remotely for hearings in our case against Google "to save you all the drive to Harrisonburg" - approximately 60 miles away.

Judge Starr demanded we fly 1,000+ miles for an uncontested default hearing, then eliminated that hearing to force the same cross-country travel for a contested motion instead.

Next Steps

We'll be filing an Objection to the October 22 Order preserving all arguments and documenting the pattern of retaliation.

This latest maneuver - using a sua sponte consolidation order to eliminate a scheduled default hearing in retaliation for challenging judicial overreach - would be the fourth mandamus-worthy action in this case. Whether the Fifth Circuit would grant relief is another question entirely, given their reluctance to police district judges and their previous denial of our recusal petition.

The Bottom Line

Judge Starr refused to recuse himself from a case involving the president who appointed him and that president's largest donor ($277 million in campaign contributions, $15.4 billion in government contracts). Since that refusal, his actions have warranted four Fifth Circuit mandamus petitions in one case. He's invented legal standards at least twice. He's used his own sua sponte orders as grounds to deny relief. He's scheduled hearings strategically to retaliate for challenges to his rulings.

Every procedural manipulation since his recusal denial proves we were right: this judge cannot fairly preside over this case.

---

Case: Richards v. X Corp., et al., No. 3:25-cv-916-X (N.D. Tex.) Richards v. X Corp, 3:25-cv-00916 – CourtListener.com