In the case of APPLEGATE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. v. APPLEGATE ESTATES, LLC Et Al late yesterday (Friday October 2, 2026) Mastrianni’s lawyersa filed a Motion To Set Aside Default For Failure To Plead as well as a Second Request To Revise Plaintiff’s Amended Revised Complaint. The main takeaway was this line from the motion:
Good cause exists because Defendants are actively advancing the pleadings, contemporaneously file a targeted Second Request to Revise directed to newly added Count Five, and seek to litigate the claims and defenses on their merits without prejudice to Plaintiff.
What this could mean for us:
Legal bills in six figures!
More telling excerpts from yesterday’s pleadings:
9. The handling attorney at the undersigned law firm, Maxwell LaFrance, abruptly left Kahana & Feld, LLP without advance notice in August 2026. (Motion page 2)
The procedural record demonstrates active participation rather than abandonment of the defense. Defendants previously filed a request to revise, and the operative pleading later added Count Five and other new claims. In reviewing the materially amended pleading and the proper sequence for responding to those claims, Defendants determined that Count Five requires revision before they can plead further. Defendants now tender a focused Second Request to Revise addressing defects in that newly added count. (Motion page 3)
Count Five alleges contractual liability against Applegate Estates based on its status as declarant and against Mastrianni based on his alleged service as a member of the declarant-appointed executive board. Those allegations present distinct asserted bases for contractual liability against separate defendants. Separating the claims will identify the agreement and undertaking allegedly attributable to each Defendant and permit each Defendant to respond to, and test the legal sufficiency of, the claim asserted
against that Defendant. (Second Request page 2)