Judge Worrell asks city to submit new arguments before issuing written opinion in default judgment

Over six weeks have passed since Charlottesville Circuit Court Judge Claude Worrell granted a motion of default judgment against the city, voiding a zoning code created to significantly increase the number of housing units that could be built.

After another hearing in court today, Judge Worrell has invited attorneys for the City of Charlottesville to submit additional written testimony about how the city feels it can prevail in a lawsuit filed by property owners who argue the city overstepped its authority.

Plaintiffs in White v. Charlottesville have argued the city did not sufficiently follow Virginia code and regulations they claim require localities to coordinate with the Virginia Department of Transportation when considering new rules for zoning.

On June 30, Worrell verbally granted a motion of default from the plaintiffs after their counsel had noticed that attorneys with the firm Gentry Locke had not responded in time to a May 22 to file a key document with the court. That immediately canceled a trial that had been scheduled for June 2026.

On July 22, the city filed a motion asking Worrell to reconsider.

As the hearing began just after 1:30 p.m., attorney Michael J. Finney with Gentry Locke thanked Worrell for agreeing to hear the motion and apologized for what he said had been a mistake.

“That should not have happened and is the reason we are here,” Finney said.

Finney argued that Worrell may have applied the wrong standard when he granted the default judgment. That action rendered the Development Code voided ab initio, as if it had never been in place. He said the failure to file a response to the plaintiff’s amended complaint was a “reasonable mistake” and Worrell had discretion under Virginia Supreme Court rules to allow the city’s attorneys to provide the document late.

“The city has been an active participant,” Finney argued, citing as evidence a May 30 email from Ryan Starks of Gentry Locke to plaintiffs’ attorneys seeking to discuss pre-trial details.

Finney said the city learned about the unfiled document on June 2 when the motion for default judgment was filed in court. He said they responded a day later with a motion of their own seeking forgiveness and permission to file the response anyway.

Finney said the city is prepared to argue at trial that it has met obligations to coordinate planning with VDOT. He said the granting of default judgment was too harsh.

“If at all possible, a decision should be made on the merits,” Finney said, saying that citizens, property owners, and developers are all waiting on the outcome.

Before attorneys for the plaintiffs had a chance to give their testimony, Judge Worrell asked Finney for a preview of what some of the city’s arguments would be in court related to transportation.

“Have you had a chance to do the math on vehicle trips per day?” Worrell asked.

Finney responded that he did not have that information handy, but the argument would revolve around the definition of a “state-controlled highway.”

“Nothing erroneous”

Alyssa Hart with the firm Flora Petit was in court to argue for the plaintiffs. She said the city had not presented any new information about why their case should continue.

“What is happening here is that the June 30 motions are being heard all over again,” Hart said. “We feel there is nothing erroneous about the court’s decision.”

Hart said the city has other avenues to proceed and pointed out that City Council has already referred the voided Development Code to the Planning Commission for re-adoption.

In response, Finney said that vote on July 21 was just an initiation and the actual process to readopt the code is an uncertain one.

“It is all theoretical until something happens,” Finney said.

Worrell did not appear persuaded by Finney’s arguments. He opened his remarks with a reminder that he had said on June 30 that the trial would have provided an interesting public discourse on the nature of zoning. He said the nature of zoning was that everyone has to follow the same set of rules.

“There are certain processes that everyone has to follow,” Worrell said.

Under Virginia law, the plaintiffs in White v. Charlottesville had 30 days to file a lawsuit after City Council approved the new code on December 18, 2023. He noted if the plaintiffs had filed their suit a day over their deadline, the case would not have proceeded. The same logic applies to the default judgment.

“I don’t think the court has discretion,” Worrell said.

One of the open questions since June 30 has been whether the city has had a zoning code in place. Worrell said state law requires localities to have a zoning code.

“The city cannot replace something with nothing,” Worrell said. “There is already a zoning ordinance in place.”

On July 11, the city announced it would still take applications under the Development Code until Judge Worrell issued a written order.

From the bench, Worrell initially said he would do so by Friday, August 15 but returned to the central matter of the case—Did the city sufficiently coordinate planning with VDOT? He said that question has to be answered if Charlottesville wants to restore the Development Code.

“If the city failed to follow the letter of the law, then the city cannot be successful in this lawsuit,” Worrell said. “If they didn’t comply with the statute, the city loses.”

Worrell invited attorneys with Gentry Locke to submit arguments in writing about the transportation issue. Finney said they could do so by Monday morning. That will give the plaintiffs’ attorneys until Wednesday and Worrell will issue a written ruling on August 22.

“That’s where we are,” Judge Worrell said before adjourning.

Stay tuned for the most thorough coverage of development here on Charlottesville Community Engagement.

Before you go: This story was first published in the August 13, 2025 edition of Charlottesville Community Engagement and then posted here a day later. Have questions? Do so in the comments!