Opposing Counsel Tells Court Mace's Motion Is 'Intended to Delay This Litigation, Harass Plaintiff, Its Members, and Agents'

"her Motion is intended to delay this litigation, harass Plaintiff, its members, and agents."

That is from a brief filed February 2, 2026, in Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, written by Rene Dukes, the attorney for Assignment Desk Works, LLC (ADW), responding to Rep. Nancy Mace's emergency motion to intervene, dismiss, and impose sanctions in the ADW v. Berg civil case. The full fifteen-page memorandum is reproduced below, and the original PDF is available here.

The memorandum, as filed

Pages 1, 4, 11, 12, 14, and 15 of 15 are shown, the caption page, the "real party in interest" analysis, the sanctions section containing the key quoted passages, and the signature page.

Page 1 of 15, case caption and title of the filing: "Plaintiff's Notice of Motion, Motion and Memo in Opposition to Proposed Intervenor's Emergency Motion to Intervene, Motion to Dismiss, and for Sanctions Against All Parties." Electronically filed February 2, 2026.

Page 4 of 15, the intervention-as-of-right analysis; Dukes concludes: "Simply put, Proposed Intervenor cannot establish herself as a real party in interest to this case, and she should not be allowed to intervene as of right."

Page 11 of 15, sanctions argument under Rule 11 and the S.C. Frivolous Civil Proceedings Sanctions Act; the "No reasonable attorney" passage and the core "delay this litigation, harass Plaintiff" finding appear here.

Page 12 of 15, Dukes details the congressional floor-speech citation and concludes that it, combined with "hurtful, public allegations," is "clearly meant to harass and intimate members of Plaintiff."

Page 14 of 15, conclusion; the "meant solely to harass and delay" passage appears in the closing paragraph requesting sanctions, costs, and attorney's fees.

Page 15 of 15, signature block; Rene Dukes, Saxton & Stump, 151 Meeting Street, Suite 400, Charleston, SC 29401, signed and dated February 2, 2026.

What the filing says

ADW v. Berg is a breach-of-contract action: ADW sued former employee Alexis Berg in May 2025, alleging she violated a non-disparagement clause in a prior settlement agreement. Mace, who was not a party to that case, filed her own motion in January 2026 seeking to inject herself into the proceedings, asking the court to let her intervene, dismiss the complaint, and sanction all parties. Dukes filed the opposition brief opposing every request and asking the court to sanction Mace instead.

On the core standing question, Dukes argued that Mace had no cognizable interest in a dispute she had nothing to do with. ADW's counsel wrote that Mace "cannot establish herself as a real party in interest to this case," noting that her motion did not address the settlement agreement at the heart of the suit or Berg's alleged breach of it. Instead, Dukes wrote, Mace's filing recycled allegations of wrongdoing from unrelated litigation and mischaracterized the case, repeatedly calling it a "defamation action" when no defamation claim was pleaded.

Dukes went further in the sanctions section, arguing that the filing crossed a legal line. Under the South Carolina Frivolous Civil Proceedings Sanctions Act, Dukes wrote, a pro se filer must certify her claim is not meant to harass or injure another party and is not interposed for delay. Mace's motion, Dukes argued, met neither standard:

"No reasonable attorney would believe that the alleged facts of her Motion support any cognizable claim under existing law. Rather, her Motion is intended to delay this litigation, harass Plaintiff, its members, and agents."

The brief called out one detail in particular, Mace's decision to attach her own congressional floor speech to a court filing:

"She even brings up the speech she made on the floor of the United States House of Representatives in which she identified by name certain members of Plaintiff."

Dukes argued that bringing that speech into the motion, along with "hurtful, public allegations" and repeated references to sanctions from unrelated cases, was itself evidence of improper purpose: "Filing a motion filled with citations to prior litigation and hurtful, public allegations are clearly meant to harass and intimate members of Plaintiff."

The brief closed by asking the court to strike the motion from the docket, deny all relief, and award ADW its costs and attorney's fees, because:

"her Motion is meant solely to harass and delay"

The arguments quoted above are the contested positions of one party in active litigation, not findings of fact and not adjudicated conclusions. The underlying allegations in ADW v. Berg and related cases are disputed; the SLED investigation remains open; Nancy Mace denies Patrick Bryant's allegations, and Bryant denies Mace's; no claims have been adjudicated. See People in the Public Record for context on the parties.

Sources & related coverage:

• The filing itself: Plaintiff's Memo in Opposition to Proposed Intervenor's Motions (PDF, 15 pages), Plaintiff's Notice of Motion, Motion and Memorandum in Opposition to Proposed Intervenor's Emergency Motion to Intervene, Motion to Dismiss, and for Sanctions Against All Parties, Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg, Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Case No. 2025-CP-10-2671, filed February 2, 2026.
• The state docket is verifiable on the SC Judicial Branch Public Index (Charleston County) under Case No. 2025-CP-10-2671.
• Case background: The Litigation