Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Mer-ZG-%e 11?05M:v—00022—ll7Hi'i5EY·|TJ‘Bit§lDl'i1`ent 38 Filed 05/20/2005 Page 1 of 2 P- @2/*34
DlEASlEY M AHO NlEY & BENDIEIR. LTD.
ATFORNEYS AT mw · Pnocroks IN Aoiviuzatrv
rr HARRY G. MAHONEY 1800 JOHN F , KENNEDY BOULEVARD 80 ·rANN5p_ 51*9,55;]*
mans w. nAI.v1· PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2978 r—rAoooNI=rsI.o, NJ 0s0i2·2419
GERALD J. VALENTINII 21 5-587-9400 856,429,63]]
JAMES B- BURNSI FACSIMILE: 215-587-9456 r=AcsIMIu;; sswzs-sssz
JANE A. NORTHt
BARBARA C. MORROW1·<> DIRECT Ii·MA1l..: JBBUI HENR1 MARCEL1· VOICEMAII, I5x"I‘ENsIoN #177 max 4:. saunas
CARLA P. MARESCATO wI1.uAIvI II. vsassv
ADAM J. PANTANOt 19s I-·l993
CRAIG M. STRAW JAMES ci, snwss
WARD A. RIVERST May 2Q, 20()5 Im.1991
CARMEN H. BELLT t mso MEMBER NJ an
CHRISTOPHER C. NEGRETE mcse Mrmsek ca aan
STEPHEN J. PARISH o uso Msrvrnan on an
CHRISTOPHER T. HUBER ¤ Auo MEMBER NY an
PATRICIA I;. McENTEER
MICHAEL I. H[NK.LEf
TROY D. SISUMT
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
844 N. King Street
Room 6325
Loekbox IO
Wilmington, DE 19801 .
RE: St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co. et. al. v. Maly Yan; Civil Action No. 05-0022
Dear Judge Jordan:
We represent plaintiffs in the above action. We write, in advance of oral argument on
various motions scheduled for May 25, 2005, to advise the Court of a new development which
may affect the Court’s handling of this matter.
Ou May 9, 2005, the Honorable James T. Giles of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued an order (copy enclosed) directing that the declaratory
judgment action tiled in that Court by the underlying tort plaintiffs be transferred to the District
of Delaware. As of this writing, the case has not yet been docketed in Delaware, but we expect
that will happen shortly.
In light of Judge Gilcs’ ruling, we have discussed with counsel for Maly Yan in this
action ·~ who also represent the plaintiffs in the transferred Pennsylvania action — our views on
how the two actions in Delaware should proceed after the Pennsylvania case is transferred, and
we have sought to reach an agreement with opposing counsel in that regard. Unfortunately, we
have beeI1 unable to reach an agreement concerning same.

P. @3 @4
mm/`2@—€%@s$e 1i05@€v-OOO22-I\I/ll5lPEY'lilldibli1hi*i1bnt38 Filed 05/20/2005 Page 2 of 2 ”
me M, 2 ,0 The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
May 20, 2005
We believe Judge Giles’ order effectively renders moot the motions tiled in this Court,
and the wording of the order contemplates that our action in this Court will be the only action to
proceed, with the Pennsylvania plaintiffs having an opportunity to participate as parties in the
Delaware action should they desire. Opposing counsel has advised us, however, that they intend
to press Maly Yan’s motion to dismiss our action in this Court so that only the transferred, later-
filed Pennsylvania action would proceed here. We believe, however, that if the Pennsylvania
action is to survive at all, it must be consolidated into our elients’ existing action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) and that the two actions thereafter be managed together by
the Court. We have sought the consent of the Pennsylvania plaintiffs to proceed in only one
action by re-aligning themselves as defendants in the existing action. This would permit them to
answer the amended complaint in that action and assert whatever claims for declaratory judgment
or otherwise they might wish to pursue, including all claims they had asserted in Pennsylvania.
Opposing counsel has so far not consented to this arrangement. Pending a resolution of the
above issues, we are reserving our rights to seek the dismissal of the Pennsylvania action after it
has been doeketed in Delaware.
If the Court should desire to convene a telephone conference to discuss the above matters
prior to the May 25* argument, we are available any time on May 24, 2005.
Thank you for your consideration ofthe above.
Very truly yours,
DEASEY, MAHONEY & BENDER, LTD.
BY: .» n
JA ES B. BURNS
J BB/de
G:\lr¤surarrce Clients\St Paul·USF&G·350 ~ 351\$t. Paul v. Maly Yan·2I939\CerrespondeneeUonlam 5-20-05.wpd
cc: Yvonne Takvorran-Saville, Esquire (via facsimile)
Jonathan M. Cohen, Esquire (via facsimile)
Joshua Van Naarden, Esquire (viafacsimile)
Joseph Koury, Esquire (via facsimile)