I. Parties

Petitioner Thomas D. Coates is an adult resident of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, and was the defendant in General District Court cases GV25031521-00, GV25031898-00, and GV25037264-00 involving landlord-tenant disputes with Rose Hall Village or Rose Hall Apartments, LLC.

Respondent Rose Hall Apartments, LLC is a landlord entity that filed and prosecuted unlawful detainer proceedings against Petitioner in the Virginia Beach General District Court relating to the premises located at 3416 Warren Place, Apt. 201, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452.

To the extent necessary to effect the supervisory and ministerial relief requested herein, Petitioner also names as Respondent the Clerk of the Virginia Beach General District Court, in official capacity only, concerning the issuance and processing of writs of possession and eviction described below.

II. Jurisdiction and Nature of Action

This is a civil action seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive or supervisory relief under the Court’s general equity powers and under Virginia’s declaratory judgment authority, to determine the legal validity of certain writs and orders and to direct their treatment going forward.

Petitioner does not seek an appeal of any General District Court judgment, and does not seek to litigate an unlawful detainer action in this Court. Instead, Petitioner seeks declarations and supervisory directions concerning writs and ministerial actions that are alleged to be void on their face because they preceded any lawful judgment for possession and bypassed statutory protections.

Petitioner does not demand a jury trial and seeks purely equitable and declaratory relief.

The amount in controversy in terms of declaratory and injunctive relief is not a specific sum of money; Petitioner seeks no money judgment in this action. The appropriate case classification is therefore Declaratory Judgment — No Monetary Damages.

Petitioner has no adequate remedy at law for the ultra vires issuance and execution of writs without a judgment, and faces ongoing harm in future proceedings if the legal status of those writs is not clarified.

III. Factual Background

On October 21, 2025, in case GV25031521-00, the Virginia Beach General District Court entered judgment in favor of Petitioner on possession in an unlawful detainer proceeding brought by Rose Hall Village or Rose Hall Apartments.

Thereafter, Rose Hall Apartments, LLC initiated a new unlawful detainer action against Petitioner, docketed as GV25037264-00, with the first merits hearing set for March 10, 2026.

As of January 13, 2026, no merits hearing had been held in GV25037264-00 and no written judgment for possession had been entered in that case.

On January 12, 2026, Petitioner filed a written motion for continuance of the January 13 setting, supported by serious cardiac and medical issues that limited his ability to appear, and requesting that the matter be continued to the March 10 date.

On January 22–23, 2026, Petitioner filed additional emergency motions and notices in the General District Court, including challenges to the timing and legality of any writs, objections to docket acceleration, and further medical documentation.

Despite the absence of a merits hearing and despite these filings, a court clerk issued a writ of possession and writ of eviction on or about January 13, 2026, purportedly based on a “judgment for possession” that did not exist on the docket at that time.

The General District Court subsequently set or confirmed March 10, 2026 as the hearing date on the unlawful detainer, but the sheriff executed an eviction at Petitioner’s residence on February 4, 2026, physically removing Petitioner before any full merits hearing or meaningful appeal opportunity on GV25037264-00.

As a result, the usual sequence required by the unlawful detainer statutes — judgment for possession, appeal window, and then, if appropriate, writ issuance and execution — was inverted: Petitioner was evicted first, and the first full merits hearing on the unlawful detainer is still noticed for March 10, 2026.

A fuller description of the January 12–February 4, 2026 events and the judgment–writ–eviction sequence is set forth in Exhibit A — Declaration and Timeline Regarding Judgment–Writ–Eviction Sequence, which is incorporated herein by reference.

IV. Grounds for Declaratory and Supervisory Relief

Under Virginia’s unlawful detainer scheme, a writ of possession or eviction may issue only after a judgment for possession has been entered and subject to the statutory appeal period and protections built into Virginia Code § 8.01-126 et seq.; writs issued in the absence of a qualifying judgment, or before a hearing, are void or voidable.

Issuing writs of possession and eviction on or about January 13, 2026, before any merits hearing in GV25037264-00 and without a valid judgment for possession, exceeded the lawful authority of the court’s ministerial officers and deprived Petitioner of the process contemplated by the statutes and by due process.

Executing an eviction at Petitioner’s residence on February 4, 2026, based on such writs, further entrenched this defect by removing Petitioner from his home before the scheduled March 10, 2026 merits hearing and before he had any realistic opportunity to litigate the unlawful detainer or pursue effective appeal remedies.

The question whether these writs and the resulting eviction were legally valid is separate from any dispute over rent amounts or landlord–tenant money issues; it concerns the face of the writs, the timing of their issuance, and compliance with statutory preconditions for dispossessing a tenant.

Petitioner therefore seeks declaratory judgment and narrowly tailored supervisory or injunctive relief to clarify that such writs are void on their face and to direct how they may be treated in future proceedings involving Petitioner.

Official Time-Stamped Chronology

General District Court — Virginia Beach
Rose Hall Apartments LLC v. Thomas D. Coates
Unlawful Detainer Proceeding — GV25037264-00

4. 12/XX/2025 — Clerk: The unlawful detainer complaint in GV25037264-00 was docketed in the Virginia Beach General District Court with the first merits hearing set for March 10, 2026. No hearing was held and no judgment was entered on that date.
5. 01/12/2026 — Clerk: I filed a written Motion for Continuance supported by medical documentation, asking that any January setting be continued to March 10, 2026. The motion was received and stamped by the clerk, but no written judicial ruling granting judgment for possession was entered at that time.
6. 01/13/2026 — Approximately 9:14 a.m. — Clerk: A writ of possession in GV25037264-00 was issued, even though no merits hearing had been held, no judgment for possession had been entered, and no appeal period had begun. The writ issued solely on clerk-processed paperwork and landlord signature, with no judicial order or judgment reference.
7. 01/13/2026 — Approximately 9:14 a.m. — Clerk: A writ of eviction was issued simultaneously with the writ of possession, at the same timestamp, again without any intervening judgment, merits determination, or judge’s signature, and without my presence or default.
8. 01/22/2026 — Clerk: I filed a Motion to Quash or Hold the writs, along with related emergency filings challenging the timing and legality of any writs and asking that enforcement be stopped in light of the absence of a judgment. No stay was entered and the writs remained active.
9. 01/26/2026 — Judge: An accelerated hearing was held. I appeared. No judgment for possession was entered against me, and the matter was reset to March 10, 2026. No written order was entered that validated or re-issued the January 13 writs.
10. 02/04/2026 — Approximately 8:30 a.m. — Sheriff: The Sheriff executed the writs at my residence, physically removing me from 3416 Warren Place, Apt. 201, even though no merits judgment for possession had been entered, my Motion to Quash remained outstanding, and the first full merits hearing remained set for March 10, 2026.
11. 03/10/2026 — Judge (scheduled): The first full merits hearing on the March 10, 2026 date was scheduled to occur only after my eviction and dispossession had already taken place, meaning the statutory sequence of “hearing