Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv—OOO22-l\/IPT Document 18 Filed O3/31/2005 Page 1 of 3

\laeez1t.l\ iililerale. -1r Alieraativu Dlspuie Resolution
Inn Connor l1IITeratu me
.lc|1`r<:yM Gcrtlllam \·lneem..»\ Bllleruto
.lusepl1R Htiien. lll nslllam Swann Leu
l)£1vld.·'\ Qertlitaiti Carl Selaaee
\-’u:·0nica0 FausL —·
Catherine Zwnlak Kilian M_l[.Cl} 3 1
.. I » , ‘ >
`imum i" hmm \’l’rin:r's Email Address:
Guc1:·ge`1‘ Lees. lll l}i¥<61:·L» ·1»t1e.¤¢»¤n
Gawain FZ Mellaalel Reply to: Wilntingmii
ELECTRONICALLY
The Honorable Kent A, lordan
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
844 N. King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: St. Paul Mc1·c1zr-jr Ivzmrmzcc Camprmy aw-za! Pac}: and Presents, Inc.
v. Maly Tm:
Civil Action No. 05-0022 (KA])
Dear ludge ]orclan:
Our firm, along with Francis I Deasey, Esq. and the Deasey, Mahoney Sc Bender, Ltd. law
firm, represents plaintiffs St. Paul l\/lereury Insurance Company and Pack. and Process, Inc. with
regard to the al>ove—listed action. I write with respect to defendant Yan’s recently-tiled Jlflurimz to
Disvrzm (1)..1. 16) and Plaintil`ls’ 11/lation fbr Orrlcr Etguiuiny Lrm:2·—Filcri Action Filed in thc En-.srcw-z
Di.s·n’écr ty‘1’c2myslmuirz (D1, 11) (the Jl/lation to Erguizz). Very recently, Chase T. 13rot;l<.stedt, Esq
entered his appearance as Delaware counsel for the Defendant, and moved the aclmission pro Imc
vice of ]onat§1an Cohen, Esq. and loshua Van Naarden, Esq. of the Kline St Specter law firm.
Previously, Stephen B Potter, Esq. of the Delaware law tirm of Potter, Carmine 8: Aaronson had
tiled a J`vlm:·iu1-z ru DéQsm£.srs (DI. 7) on beitalf`ol*`del`e11dtt1it Yan, and, as a result, a Stzpularcrl Bricfizgg
Scfyrrlzrlr was entered into, that btiellng schedule was executed by Mr Potter, and listed the Kline 8;
Specter firm as CO-COiI11SCl to the Defendant.
After reviewing the recently—filed Mririzirz ru iDr.rmi.rs (DI, 16), I contacted Mr. Van Naarden,
who agreed with my suggestion that this motion was nearly identical to the original Marian rv Di.smr.s;r
(DI. 7), except that the 1T101'C 1`CCe11t lHO’ClO1`l was in 1'QSpOt1sC KO the Allletleleel COH1plRil`l€ rhat Out
tirm Bled. The more recent motion also rernoved a portion of the original motion having to deal
Illllktratirar Gemilulll ii Hitler!. IEA
www laggbtlc com
tilllll 1)a1a1w:»11: Avenue
ZtmilliliiheAvenue \\‘H:silngiun Dli lilllmi 701 llt:lau1»·:1tl|Awnmz
SuIlu2U3 E'!) ll0x2Ifi5 lli*l|ul¤i1\¥ll!e:n1·l1 DIC §€l!l71
l‘€i:wiII'l<. Elli 51702 ‘¤l•`§1¤11Il1i;letai DI;} llllillll ·· ZZIGG l’l:nn l’2a<1at1:illl2-`~I2!l- llllitl l’I1:1nu;1l02 -421}- llltlll llnll 1·'re·e: 800 - litfl ·2·1!lZ5
------- .. . ...... .. .... ;:Hx,;;ug.{;;;g.-75.m .... .. .. . ..... ..... . .... .. . ........ ...... . ........... .. .. .. .... 1*1m3U2.¤.·l2i1..rl1U|ll1 .... . ..... . ..... . .... . ..... .. .... .. .... .. .. .. .... .l"i§\.§...i.ll.l2‘2¥_Z‘m7" _____ __ __ , ,

Case 1 :05-ev—OOO22-IVIPT Document 18 Filed O3/31/2005 Page 2 of 3
Bifferato, Gentilotti Sc Biden, IRA.
The Honorable Kent A. Iotclan
March 31, 2,005
Page Two
with Paclt and Process, Ine.’s presence as a party} Mt. Van Naarclen further indicated that
defendant Yan would accept the Plaiutii`f`s’ previouslyhled Mm-zumazdzmz ufLmi¤ in
Opputititm tn 1).tj‘i:1zrltt¢zt?s· Mritivz-1 to Dinners (DL 10) as responsive to the nevviyéiiecl motion,
in light of the suhstantiai similarity of both motions. Pinaily, Mr, Van Naarden eorifirnieel
that M12 Potter no longer serves as Delaware counsel to the Defendant, a fact also
eoniitined in an earlier conversation with Mr. Broeltstedt.
On March 2.8, .2005, the Plaintiih; filed their Application for Oral ,/Iigjmtzcrzzf Pm-tsumzr
rv D. Dal. LR 7.1.44 (DI. 13), through which they request that the Court schedule oral
argument as soon as practicable Following the completion of briefing on both the Marian to
L?ismé.ts· and the Plaintiff? [Victim:. to Eaytiivr As of the drafting of this letter, the Defendant
has not responded to the Plaintifl`s’ Motion to E1-gmt, and the parties did not stipulate to a
briefing schedule other than the default provisions of the Local Rules. My understanciing
fiom my conversation with Mi ·r.. Van Naatden is that defendant Yan intends to file a Reply
in support of` her Merimz to ]f)én1¢i.ts within the time frame suggested by the Srzpultmzd
Btnfitgg Sclacdzzlc, and that her response to the Mmivtz to lit-gvitz is forthcoming,
Plaintit`l`s therefore respectfully request that the Court excuse them from {orrnaily
responding to the Deti:ndant’s recently-filed A/Iarim-z to D£Qsmi.ts·, and that the Court consider
htieting completed on that niotion when the Defendant files her Reply. Plaintiffs also
reiterate their application for oral argument on that ntotion, as well as on the Marian tv
Eigvin when the htiehng thereon is compieteclr To the extent a formal response to the
Defendancs recently-filed ]‘vI0ti`mi tv Ijitzizist is required, Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all
arguments raised in their fl/Icnzomndimz ry”Lm1> in Oppnsititm tv D.tj%zzdmzz"?t [Orgyinrtl] Jl/lation
to .Di.SJ1Zll.5"St
l,REMAINDEll. OP PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.}
’"l`he Amended Complaint, unlike the Complaint, names Paclt and Proeesss, Inc, as a
plaintif`f§

Case 1:05-cv-00022-MPT Document 18 Filed O3/31/2005 Page 3 of 3
Biffcrato, Gcutilotti Sc Biden, P.A.
The I·I0u0mblc Kem A, Iorclam
March 31, 2005
Page Thrcc
We nrc available: at {hc COl.ll“llJS pleasure: should ic have any qucssionsl
Res uily,
,,01.lzc ( M6
oscph K. Koury (#4272)
xc: Chase T. Breclastczdc, Esq (by fm;)
Francis }. Dcascy, Esql (by {mc)
Suzphcu IB, Petter, Esq. (by Eu:)
loslmu. V LU] NL1L11'{TlC1}, Esq. (by fax)