That Randall S. “The Unhinged Attorney” Newman, Esq., working on behalf of Christopher “Denver Metro Audits” Cordova, filed his opposition to “Superstar” Steve Vondran’s, working on behalf of Jonathan “Frauditor Troll” Huneault, motion to dismiss the lawsuit along with a new motion to hold defendant Nneka Ohiri in default which resulted in another last-minute filing by Vondran.
Originally, Cordova was suing Huneault for copyright infringement and declaration of copyright infringement.
Since that filing, Nneka Ohiri, Huneault’s wife, was added to the lawsuit as she owns the AdSense account associated with the Frauditor Troll YouTube channel and a count of misrepresentation was added against the pair.
On October 13, Vondran filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit that focused on Huneault, providing no defenses for Ohiri. This was followed by Newman’s first attempt to hold Ohiri in default on October 14.
There was a great deal of public criticism of Newman for filing the motion for default so quickly and not allowing Vondran to correct a “simple mistake” of ignoring Ohiri in the filing.
Vondran filed a second motion to dismiss on October 15; adding Ohiri’s name to the heading of the documents but offering no other changes or direct defense of Ohiri.
Eventually both sides would agree to drop the motion of default against Ohiri in exchange for the addition of Huneault’s 14693663 Canada Inc. corporation to the lawsuit in a new amended complaint.
Newman filed his amended complaint on November 3, outlining the case against all three defendants.
Vondran filed a new motion to dismiss on November 24, again focusing on Huneault and providing no defense for Ohiri (who isn’t listed in the heading of the documents), or Huneault’s 14693663 Canada Inc. corporation.
The court issued an order clarifying hearing dates for the motion to dismiss on December 1. Newman now had until December 15 to reply to the motion to dismiss, with Vondran having until December 29 to respond.
A hearing to hear the motion was scheduled for January 13, 2026.
Newman filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss Monday evening, along with a new motion to hold Ohiri in default.
Attorney Newman wrote:
“On October 16, 2025, the Court approved a Stipulation between the parties whereby Plaintiff agreed to vacate the default and file a First Amended Complaint on or before November 3, 2025. In that stipulation NNEKA OHIRI agreed to file a response to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on or before November 24, 2025. (ECF No. 36, ¶¶ 3-4, 6).
NNEKA OHIRI failed to file a response to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint by November 24, 2025. Although NNEKA OHIRI’s name appears in the electronic docket text generated by the ECF system for the other named Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 43), she was not named as a moving party in the Notice of Motion, was not identified in the caption or headings, sought no relief on her behalf, and no arguments were asserted for her in either the Notice of Motion (ECF No. 43) or the Memorandum in Support thereof (ECF No. 43-1). Accordingly, NNEKA OHIRI did not join in the motion and did not otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint.
Accordingly, the time within which Defendant may respond to the First Amended Complaint herein has expired. Defendant, NNEKA OHIRI, has not answered or otherwise moved with respect to the First Amended Complaint, and the time for her to do so has not been extended.
As of the date of this declaration, no responsive pleading or motion has been filed on behalf of NNEKA OHIRI.”
Minutes after the filing, Vondran again filed updated documents listing Ohiri’s name in the motion to dismiss. However, these were the same documents that he filed on November 24 and offer no defense or mention of Ohiri in the filings.
It’s unclear where the case goes from here. Despite the date listed incorrectly in Vondran’s Monday night filing, the hearing for the motion to dismiss is still scheduled for January 13, 2026.
While the admission of Ohiri’s name into the new documents filed by Vondran as a “replacement” for the previous documents, Vondran providing no defense for Ohiri for a second time is a confusing strategy at best.
Vondran had over three weeks to update his motion to dismiss to provide a defense for Ohiri, and his actions to willingly exclude the defendant must be further explained in his official opposition to Newman’s filing.
This is a breaking news story.
Cordova v. Huneault – 47-1 – Declaration in Support of Request for Default Cordova v. Huneault – 47 – Request for Default Cordova v. Huneault – 46 – Plantiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to DismissCordova v. Huneault – 48 – Defendants Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Cordova v. Huneault – 48-1 – Memorandum Cordova v. Huneault – 48-2 – Declaration of Jonathan Huneault Cordova v. Huneault – 48-3 – Exhibits A-D Cordova v. Huneault – 48-4 – Proposed Order
