A federal judge has dismissed claims brought by several women against defendant Aerial Recovery in an ongoing lawsuit involving Timothy Ballard, according to recent court records. The dismissal follows a period of significant litigation activity in the Utah District Court regarding the long-standing case filed in late 2024.
Legal Motion to Reconsider Dismissal
Court documents from the Utah District Court reveal that plaintiffs Celeste Borys, Mary Hall, Sashleigha Hightower, Krista Kacey, Kira Lynch, and Bree Righter filed a motion to reconsider an order regarding sanctions and the dismissal of their claims against Aerial Recovery. The motion was filed on July 2, 2026.
Ongoing Litigation Complexity
The litigation involves a complex array of parties and legal maneuvers. According to the case docket for Borys et al v. Ballard et al, the plaintiffs are represented by attorney Alan W. Mortensen of Mortensen & Milne, along with attorneys Suzette Rasmussen, Lance L. Milne, Christopher J. Cheney, and Joshua S. Ostler from All Utah Law PLLC.
Defendants Named in Case
The lawsuit, originally filed on October 22, 2024, has seen numerous developments involving various defendants. The case list includes Timothy Ballard, Michael Porenta, Matthew Cooper, MS Williams and Company, and Operation Underground Railroad, Inc. as named defendants in the proceedings.
History of Court Orders
The court has issued several significant orders since the case began. On October 1, 20 $ ext{25}$, Judge Robert J. Shelby granted a motion to set aside and denied as moot a motion for default judgment, which included vacating an entry of default against Aerial Recovery. This order required Aerial Recovery to respond to an amended complaint within fourteen days.
Procedural Extensions and Deadlines
Further procedural changes occurred in December 2025, when Judge Shelby granted motions for extensions of time. This order required Defendant Aerial Recovery to answer or respond to the Second Amended Complaint by December 18, 2025, and required Timothy Ballard to respond to the same complaint by January 12, 2026. As a result of these extensions, the court vacated a hearing that had been scheduled for February 10, 2026.
Current Status of Proceedings
The case continues to progress through the federal court system. Aside from the recent motion filed in July 2026, the docket also shows a substitution of counsel occurred on June 30, 2026, as the legal battle involving the multiple plaintiffs and defendants moves forward.
