‘Crazy’ Lawsuit Is Getting Riskier for Brian and Hannah Judd

Brian “Phontaine” Judd and Hannah Judd are asking a Utah judge to enter default against Greta Money in their defamation lawsuit, even though their own lawyer still hasn’t filed the written order he personally told me was being worked out with defense counsel months ago.

Judge Shawn Howell ruled from the bench Dec. 15, 2025, on Money’s motion to dismiss in Judd v. Money. The ruling was mixed. The court allowed the Judds’ defamation per se, defamation, and false light claims to move forward at the pleading stage, while dismissing their tortious interference and emotional distress claims. At the end of the hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel volunteered to prepare the written order memorializing that ruling. Judge Howell told him to circulate it to opposing counsel for approval as to form and to contact the court if any issues came up. That order never appeared on the docket.

On Feb. 20, 2026, I contacted Justin Heideman, the Judds’ attorney, as an interested third party and reporter following the case, and asked why the order had not been filed. Heideman told me the hearing audio has to be ordered, transcribed, reviewed by both parties, drafted into a proposed order and circulated before submission to the judge.

“It’s normally about a 90 to 120 day process to get the order properly put before the court,” he told me. “We just got the transcript and now it’s being transcribed,” he said.

“Should have it back here in the next couple of days,” he added.

I called Heideman again on May 21, more than five months after the hearing. He again told me the order was being finalized and said counsel for both sides had been working through the language to avoid another dispute. “One of the things I learned a long time ago, if you file an order that opposing counsel objects to, then they file their objection, then you have to file your response, then you have to go have a whole other hearing, and by the time all that’s done, you’re eight months down the road,” Heideman said. He told me the order could appear soon.

“We should have that order on file,” he said. “It may even happen tomorrow. If you don’t see it, I would say within the next 3 to 5 days.”

Court filings that followed tell a different story.

On July 31, the Judds moved for a default certificate and default judgment against Money, arguing she had failed to answer the surviving claims within 14 days of the Dec. 15 oral ruling. They asked Judge Howell to enter default as to liability on the first three causes of action, the same defamation-based claims that survived the motion to dismiss. Their proposed order stated that Money failed to respond after the court dismissed the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action and left the rest of the verified complaint standing.

Money answered the complaint on Aug. 4 and denied the key allegations. Her answer asserts several defenses, including truth or substantial truth, opinion, rhetorical hyperbole, public-figure and actual-malice issues, lack of damages, and what her lawyers describe as a libel-proof or defamation-proof reputation defense. Money also opposed the default motion that same day.

In the opposition, Money’s attorneys said they’d been waiting on plaintiffs’ counsel to prepare the order since the Dec. 15 hearing. They attached an email chain as proof.

On Jan. 2, 2026, Jason Hull emailed Corwin Bennett to ask when defense counsel would see the proposed order, noting that it technically had been due the previous Monday, 14 days after the hearing. Bennett replied Jan. 5, copying Heideman and Melissa Foster Bird, and said it was taking “a little longer” because of holiday scheduling complications. He wrote that he anticipated circulating a proposed order for review “by or before this Friday.” According to Money’s attorneys, no order came, no further communication came about the proposed order, and plaintiffs’ counsel never warned them before seeking default. The defense filing argues that plaintiffs caused the problem by failing to do the thing their side volunteered to do.

Money’s lawyers also framed the lack of warning as an ethics issue. They argued that the Standards of Civility and Professionalism for Utah lawyers require a party to give notice to counsel before seeking default. If plaintiffs had done that, the defense argued, Money’s lawyers would have told them they were still waiting for the proposed order and would file an answer. The defense said the default motion could have been avoided if plaintiffs had followed that professional notice practice.

In February and May, Heideman told me an order was moving through the usual transcript, review, drafting and conferral process. In May, he specifically said counsel had been working through the language to avoid objections and another hearing. Money’s lawyers later told the court no proposed order had ever been served. If that Aug. 4 filing is accurate, Heideman’s explanation to me doesn’t hold up.

The Judds’ Aug. 14 reply doesn’t show that the order was prepared, circulated or filed. Plaintiffs instead argue an oral ruling is “notice of the court’s action” under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 12 and that Money’s answer was due 14 days after the Dec. 15 hearing, whether or not a written order ever appeared. They also argue that defense counsel’s explanation amounts to neglect, not good cause, and that professional workload or a mistaken reading of the rule shouldn’t excuse the failure to answer.

Judge Howell will decide whether the oral ruling started Money’s answer deadline. But the explanation I was given privately doesn’t match the posture the Judds later took publicly in court. Privately, I was told the order was being worked through with both sides before filing. Publicly, once plaintiffs sought default, they argued the missing order didn’t matter.

On Aug. 27, plaintiffs filed a request to submit the default motion for decision and asked for a hearing. That filing says the default motion was filed July 31, Money opposed it Aug. 4, plaintiffs received an extension, plaintiffs replied Aug. 14 and the time for a Rule 7(f) objection expired Aug. 21. It doesn’t say the Dec. 15 order was ever filed. It doesn’t show the order was ever circulated. It simply asks the court to take up the default issue.

The default fight arrives while the Judds appear to be trying to keep the case alive without getting too deep into discovery. They sued Money over statements she allegedly made online after the release of The Crazy Train, the Judds’ 24-part YouTube series. My guess is they, and their lawyers, expected Money to settle quickly rather than be drawn through a very expensive court battle. I think they’ve underestimated her.

If this case survives the default fight and moves forward, Money’s attorneys may be able to demand records and testimony about how The Crazy Train was made. They may be able to obtain raw recordings, production records, messages, emails, notes and metadata. They may be able to ask where recordings were made, who was present, who knew they were being recorded, whether consent was obtained and how the material was edited before publication.

The Crazy Train appears to include secretly recorded conversations. People whose voices appear in those recordings have told me they didn’t know they were being recorded. In my opinion, that creates serious legal exposure if any of those recordings captured confidential California communications without everyone involved consenting.

California Penal Code section 632 makes it a crime, subject to exceptions, to intentionally record a confidential communication without the consent of all parties. The statute defines a confidential communication as one carried on in circumstances reasonably indicating that a party wants it confined to the people involved, while excluding public gatherings, open proceedings and circumstances where the parties may reasonably expect to be overheard or recorded. The California attorney general’s office describes a violation as punishable by a fine, jail, prison or both.

I’m not saying that I know that any particular recording in The Crazy Train violated California law. The answer would depend on the location of the recording, who was recorded, whether the conversation was confidential, whether everyone consented and whether any exception applies. Heideman acknowledged that point in my May call with him. But discovery could force answers to those questions, and the answers could expose my suspicion that the Judds secretly recorded protected conversations, published them and created criminal exposure for themselves in the process.

The Judds can accuse Money of defamation, but Money can test their claims, their damages, their production methods and their credibility. Discovery can reach the plaintiffs’ conduct if it’s relevant to the claims and defenses. If the Judds’ case depends on the reputation and legitimacy of The Crazy Train, then its making may become fair game.

Remember, the Judds haven’t won their defamation case. Judge Howell simply allowed three claims to proceed under Utah’s lenient pleading standard. She also declined, at that stage, to treat the Judds as limited-purpose public figures. Money’s attorneys argued the Judds had thrust themselves into a public controversy by producing and releasing The Crazy Train, which they describe as a whistleblowing documentary about alleged misconduct by law enforcement, Child Protective Services and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You know my opinion on that. Judge Howell said she didn’t have enough evidence at the motion-to-dismiss stage to decide whether there was a public controversy affecting the public or a segment of it in an appreciable way. That issue will likely come back into play later if the case proceeds.

The Judd’s default request is bold, and, in my opinion, pretty cavalier. Plaintiffs’ counsel volunteered to prepare the written order. Defense counsel says he never did. Heideman told me the order was being processed and worked through with defense counsel. The filings say that never happend, and claim the plaintiffs didn’t need the order, anyway. If the Judds get default, they could avoid having to prove liability on the merits. If they don’t, the case moves toward the place that may be far more dangerous for them.

In my opinion, discovery is the risk the Judds should worry about most. If they built their terrible reality show on clandestine recordings, discovery may force them to answer for it.

Related Posts:

• After 24 Episodes of Hurling Wild Accusations at Others, Brian “Phontaine” and Hannah Judd Cry Defamation in $5.6MM Lawsuit
• Brian “Phontaine” Judd is Trying to Silence Me. Here’s My Answer.
• The Judds’ Case Was Mostly Dismissed, The Remainder Survived on Utah’s Lenient Pleading Standard
• A “Clever Hoax” or a Narrative Trick? Examining the Judds’ Latest Episode of The Crazy Train