VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF NORFOLK
PRETTY LAKE 5757, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.:
CITY OF NORFOLK VIRGINIA,
And
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF NORFOLK,
Defendants.
MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
AND FOR A FINDING OF CIVIL CONTEMPT
Plaintiff Pretty Lake 5757, LLC (“Pretty Lake” or “Plaintiff”), by counsel, respectfully
moves this Court, pursuant to Va. Code §§ 18.2-456 and 18.2-457 and the Court’s inherent
authority to enforce its own decrees, for the issuance of a Rule to Show Cause directing Defendant
City of Norfolk (the “City”) to appear and show cause why it should not be held in civil contempt
for its violation of this Court’s Final Order. In support, Plaintiff states as follows:
1. On December 20, 2024, this Court entered its Opinion Letter, and thereafter its Final Order,
in this action, adjudicating that Pretty Lake is the fee simple owner of the Pretty Lake
Parcel and the Snake Parcel, subject only to the City’s right of way limited to the purpose
of public transportation; that the City had not acquired the Property by adverse possession;
and that the City’s gazebos, trash cans, park benches, grills, and other improvements were
not consistent with the limited purpose of the right of way.
2. On April 21, 2026, the Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed this Court’s judgment in all
respects in City of Norfolk v. Pretty Lake 5757 LLC, Record No. 0073-25-1. The City’s
subsequent petition for rehearing en banc was denied on May 8, 2026, which was less than
seventy-two (72) hours after the City requested the rehearing en banc. This Court’s
judgment is therefore final and binding upon the City.
Page 2 of 9
3. The City had full knowledge of this Court’s Final Order and the Court of Appeals’
affirmance, having been a party to both proceedings and having litigated them through
counsel.(The Norfolk City Attorney’s Office).
4. Notwithstanding this Court’s Final Order adjudicating Pretty Lake’s ownership, the City
— acting through its employees and agents at the direction of the City Attorney’s Office
— has repeatedly entered upon the Property without Pretty Lake’s permission and
removed, seized, and in some instances destroyed Pretty Lake’s personal property, and is
presently buying to make changes to on said real estate. .
5. Most recently, on May 22, 2026, the City’s employees and agents entered the Property
without permission and removed Pretty Lake’s property, including, without limitation,
security cameras, construction fencing, construction barrels, and a large escalator valued
at approximately $10,000.00.
6. Each such entry and taking is a direct and willful violation of this Court’s Final Order,
which adjudicated that the Property belongs to Pretty Lake and that the City’s use is
confined to a right of way for public transportation. The City’s conduct treats this Court’s
judgment as a nullity.
7. Civil contempt is the appropriate remedy. The City’s conduct disregards a clear and
definite judicial command of which the City has full knowledge, and Pretty Lake has been
harmed thereby. A Rule to Show Cause is warranted to compel the City’s compliance with
this Court’s Final Order, to compel the return of Pretty Lake’s property, and to compensate
Pretty Lake for the losses occasioned by the City’s noncompliance.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Pretty Lake 5757, LLC respectfully requests that this Court:
(a) issue a Rule to Show Cause directing the City of Norfolk to appear before this Court and show
cause why it should not be held in civil contempt for its violation of this Court’s Final Order;
(b) upon hearing, hold the City in civil contempt;
(c) order the City to purge its contempt by immediately ceasing all unauthorized entry upon the
Property and by returning to Pretty Lake all property removed therefrom;
Page 3 of 9
(d) award Pretty Lake its damages, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred as a result of the
City’s contempt; and
(e) grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
PRETTY LAKE 5757, LLC
By: ____________________________________
Of Counsel
Louis N. Joynes, II, Esquire (VSB No. 25822)
JOYNES & GAIDIES LAW GROUP
502 Viking Drive, Suite 201
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452
Telephone: (757) 486-3000
Facsimile: (757) 486-4732
Email: mike@joyneslaw.com
Co-Counsel for Petitioners
Stephen E. Heretick, Esquire (VSB No. 29919)
KINSER LEFTWICH KAHLE, P.C.
308 Cedar Lakes Drive
Chesapeake, Virginia 23322
Telephone: (757) 547-9191
Facsimile: (757) 547-9135
Email: steve@klklaw.com
Co-Counsel for Petitioners
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this ______ day of ____________, 2026, a true and accurate copy
of the foregoing was served upon the following, by [hand delivery / electronic mail / first-class
mail]:
Kristopher R. McClellan, Esq.
Adam D. Melita, Esq.
Office of the City Attorney, City of Norfolk
810 Union Street, Suite 900
Norfolk, Virginia 23510
Counsel for the City of Norfolk
Page 4 of 9
____________________________________
Counsel for Plaintiff
Page 5 of 9
VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF NORFOLK
PRETTY LAKE 5757, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.:
CITY OF NORFOLK VIRGINIA,
And
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF NORFOLK,
Defendants.
RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion for Issuance of a Rule to Show Cause filed by
Plaintiff Pretty Lake 5757, LLC, and for good cause shown, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant City of Norfolk appear before this Court on __________, 2026, at
______ __.m., to show cause, if any it can, why it should not be held in civil contempt of this Court
for its failure to comply with this Court’s Final Order entered in this action; and it is further
ORDERED that the City of Norfolk be served with a copy of this Rule, the Motion, and the
supporting Memorandum of Law not less than ______ days prior to the hearing date set forth
above.
ENTERED this ______ day of ____________, 2026.
________________________________________
Judge
Page 6 of 9
VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF NORFOLK
PRETTY LAKE 5757, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.:
CITY OF NORFOLK VIRGINIA,
And
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF NORFOLK,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND FOR A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiff Pretty Lake 5757, LLC submits this Memorandum of Law in support of its request
for injunctive relief and for the issuance of a Rule to Show Cause against the City of Norfolk.
INTRODUCTION
This is, a basic, a request that the Honorable Norfolk Court enforce its own judgment. After
full litigation and a bench trial, this Court adjudicated that Pretty Lake owns the Property in fee
simple and that the City’s rights are confined to a right of way for public transportation. The Court
of Appeals of Virginia affirmed in every respect. Rather than accept that result, the City has
repeatedly sent employees onto the Property to remove and destroy Pretty Lake’s belongings —
most recently on May 22, 2026. The relief sought here does not ask the Court to decide anything
new; it asks the Court to give effect to what it has already decided.
I. THE STANDARD FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
A party seeking a temporary injunction in Virginia must generally demonstrate (1) a
likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that it will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief;
(3) that the balance of the equities favors the moving party; and (4) that the injunction serves the
public interest. See Rule 3:26; Levisa Coal Co. v. Consolidation Coal Co., 276 Va. 44, 61 (2008).
An injunction is an equitable remedy appropriate where the legal remedy is inadequate.
Virginia courts have long recognized that injunctive relief is the appropriate remedy to
restrain a continuing trespass to real property, precisely because the repeated and ongoing nature
Page 7 of 9
of the intrusion makes the legal remedy of successive damages actions inadequate. See Black &
White Cars, Inc. v. Groome Transp., Inc., [pin cite]; Bd. of Supervisors v. Rowe, 216 Va. 128
(1975). Where the plaintiff’s title and right to possession have already been judicially established,
the case for restraining further intrusion is at its strongest.
II. EACH FACTOR IS SATISFIED
Likelihood of success on the merits. Pretty Lake’s ownership is not merely likely — it is
settled. This Court held that Pretty Lake is “the fee simple owner” of the Property, subject only to
the City’s right of way, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. A claim premised on an
adjudicated and affirmed property right satisfies the likelihood-of-success element as a matter of
law.
Irreparable harm. The City’s conduct is a continuing trespass to and interference with
real property of which Pretty Lake is the adjudicated owner. Each unauthorized entry deprives
Pretty Lake of the use and quiet enjoyment of its Property and results in the removal and
destruction of its belongings. The injury from a continuing trespass is, by its nature, not adequately
remediable at law, which is why equity intervenes to restrain it.
Balance of the equities. The equities are entirely one-sided. The injunction would require
the City only to refrain from entering land that has been judicially determined not to belong to it.
A party cannot claim hardship from being ordered to obey the law and a final judgment.
Public interest. The public interest is served, not disserved, by enforcing final judgments.
The Court of Appeals expressly noted that the Property “is scarcely used by the public” and that
the City “will still have access to its right of way to allow for public transportation.” Enjoining the
City’s self-help intrusions therefore imposes no cognizable burden on the public.
III. THE COURT MAY ENFORCE ITS JUDGMENT THROUGH CIVIL CONTEMPT
Independent of its injunctive authority, this Court possesses the inherent power, codified
at Va. Code §§ 18.2-456 and 18.2-457, to enforce its decrees through contempt. “Contempt of
court” includes the “[d]isobedience or resistance . . . to any lawful . . . order [or] decree . . . of the
court.” Va. Code § 18.2-456(A)(5).
Page 8 of 9
Civil contempt requires that there be (1) an order or decree that is clear and definite, (2) of
which the alleged contemnor had knowledge, and (3) with which the alleged contemnor failed to
comply. See Petrosinelli v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., 273 Va. 700, 706
(2007); Leisge v. Leisge, 224 Va. 303, 309 (1982). The purpose of civil contempt is remedial —
to coerce compliance with the court’s order and to compensate the injured party.
Each element is satisfied here. This Court’s Final Order is clear and definite as to Pretty
Lake’s ownership and the limited scope of the City’s right of way. The City has full knowledge of
the Order, having litigated it through trial and appeal. And the City has failed to comply — indeed,
it has acted in open defiance of the Order by repeatedly entering the Property and removing Pretty
Lake’s belongings. A Rule to Show Cause should issue, and upon hearing the City should be held
in civil contempt and directed to purge its contempt by ceasing its intrusions and returning Pretty
Lake’s property. In fact attorneys with the City Attorney’s Office actually told members of Pretty
Lake 5757 that they didn’t care what the Honorable Judge Lannetti ruled cause he was wrong.
IV. PRETTY LAKE IS ENTITLED TO RETURN OF ITS PROPERTY
In addition to injunctive and contempt relief, Pretty Lake is entitled to the return of its
specific personal property under Virginia’s detinue statute. See Va. Code § 8.01-114. Detinue lies
to recover specific personal property wrongfully detained, together with damages for its detention,
and permits recovery of the property itself or, in the alternative, its value. The City’s removal and
retention of Pretty Lake’s cameras, fencing, construction barrels, and escalator are precisely the
wrong detinue is designed to remedy.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Pretty Lake respectfully requests that the Court enter the
requested injunctive relief, issue a Rule to Show Cause directing the City to appear and show cause
why it should not be held in civil contempt, and grant such further relief as is just.
Respectfully submitted,
PRETTY LAKE 5757, LLC
By: ____________________________________
Of Counsel
Page 9 of 9
Louis N. Joynes, II, Esquire (VSB No. 25822)
JOYNES & GAIDIES LAW GROUP
502 Viking Drive, Suite 201
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452
Telephone: (757) 486-3000
Facsimile: (757) 486-4732
Email: mike@joyneslaw.com
Co-Counsel for Petitioners
Stephen E. Heretick, Esquire (VSB No. 29919)
KINSER LEFTWICH KAHLE, P.C.
308 Cedar Lakes Drive
Chesapeake, Virginia 23322
Telephone: (757) 547-9191
Facsimile: (757) 547-9135
Email: steve@klklaw.com
Co-Counsel for Petitioners
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this ______ day of ____________, 2026, a true and accurate copy
of the foregoing was served upon the following, by [hand delivery / electronic mail / first-class
mail]:
Kristopher R. McClellan, Esq.
Adam D. Melita, Esq.
Office of the City Attorney, City of Norfolk
810 Union Street, Suite 900
Norfolk, Virginia 23510
Counsel for the City of Norfolk
____________________________________
Counsel for Plaintiff