Judge Andrews orders explanation why pro hac vice status should not be revoked for saving best argument for reply brief

Judge Richard G. Andrews recently issued what appears from the Court’s docket to have been a sua sponte order directing a defendant to explain why its pro hac vice counsel should not have their admission revoked as a result of filing a reply brief that raised, for the first time, the defendant’s best argument in support of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Funai Electric Co., Ltd. v. Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC, C.A. No. 15-558-RGA (D. Del. Nov. 6, 2015).  The Court also ordered the plaintiff to file a sur-reply addressing the merits of the defendant’s argument.

The full text of the docket order was as follows:

ORAL ORDER:  Defendant’s Reply Brief (D.I. 14) raises an issue not in either of the earlier briefs, in particular, whether Plaintiff meets the “arising from” requirement of section 3104(c)(1).  It cites in particular Sprint Nextel.  (D.I. 14, pp. 2-4).  Plaintiff is ORDERED to respond to on the merits to the argument.  Defendant’s counsel are ORDERED to explain why they should not have their pro hac vice status revoked for saving their better argument for the reply brief.  Both letters are due November 13, 2015.  Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 11/6/2015.
%d bloggers like this: