Judge G. Joseph Curley Jr. conducted the hearing Wednesday with participants both in court and via Zoom.
The two sides claiming ownership of Miss America are going to have to sit down and talk, a judge ordered this week.
But Fleming counters that she cannot be ousted because she is the true pageant owner.
His side claims she is holding passwords to everything from bank accounts to email lists hostage, even threatening criminal charges, which were never filed.
Her side says she is "an empowered woman" — as those the pageant presents — standing up to a rich bully.
State and local leaders have been stuck in the middle.
It's now up to a Palm Beach County judge to decide.
But first, Judge G. Joseph Curley Jr. says the sides need to pick a mediator and start talking.
That could be a tall order on its own.
It was clear Wednesday during a hearing before Curley held with participants both in court and logging on via Zoom that each side is standing its ground, and has no patience for the other.
Even who logged in to view the proceedings was a point of contention.
"I have an inquiry about some of the others guests that have been appearing at some of our hearings," said Ilan Nieuchowicz, who is leading Fleming's legal team.
He pointed to names like "Robin's Karma" and "Concerned."
Nieuchowicz said there have been anonymous posts on community boards about the previous proceedings and "they're definitely tilted one way, and not ours," he said, telling the judge "just thought it was important for the court to be aware of who's here on Zoom."
"It's an open hearing as you know," the judge responded, without requiring anyone not involved in the litigation to identify themselves.
Curley said he has not been made aware of any posts, and does not expect that to happen.
"I'll just call balls and strikes as best I can," he said.
Both sides noted things need to move, as the pageant season is already well underway.
But Straub's side alleges that the defense seems to be stalling, with repetitive motions, plans for 12-day depositions and, in one case, a request for 143 documents from one witness.
"There appears to be — with no disrespect to the other side — an effort to delay this as long as possible," said Straub attorney Steven Rothman, who was in the courtroom with Straub.
The judge said one of his main concerns are the allegations that there is a lack of transparency in the sharing of information.
Nieuchowicz indicated that is a safety concern.
He noted that his side had just filed a motion the night before seeking a protective order due to alleged threats "from Mr. Straub to me and my firm and some of my colleagues."
"We're concerned that’s going to happen with other witnesses," Nieuchowicz added. "There's a reputation of litigiousness and his way of handling things, and we have concerns."
But Rothman said it's those kind of accusations that have his side concerned, with motions "where Mr. Straub was called a predator and someone who's making threats with no evidence before the court."
The judge tried to keep the proceedings on track, laying out a plan that includes both parties choosing a mediator that the court is to be advised of before a 10 a.m. July 1 hearing.
"Have you guys gotten in a room to try and sort through the issues?" Curley asked.
Both sides indicated they had not.
Now, they must and have that process completed by Aug. 1.
All parties have to file a written summary of the case with a list of issues at least a week before the scheduled mediation conference, the judge ordered.
"Completion of mediation prior to calendar call is a prerequisite to trial," Curley wrote in his order. "If mediation is not conducted, or if a party fails to participate in mediation, the case, at the Court’s discretion, may be stricken from the trial calendar, pleadings may be stricken, and other sanctions may be imposed."
