Free Reply Brief - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cv-00285-JJF Document 10 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 1 of 4
I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ILIS COMPUTER, INC., :
Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-285 (JJF)
v. :
BLUELINE INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
Defendant.
REPLY OF ILIS COMPUTER, INC. IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS
MOTION SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE A SUR REPLY BRIEF
Plaintiff ILIS Computer, Inc. (“ILIS") hereby submits this very short reply to the
Answering Memorandum Of Blueline International LLC in Opposition to ILIS Computer, Inc. ’s
Motion Seeking Leave to File a Sur Reply Brief (the "BlueLine Response") (D.I. 9, 8/3/07).
In its Response, BlueLine International, LLC ("BlueLine") objects to the request of ILIS
to submit a short corrective sur reply brief relating to the pending BlueLine motion to dismiss.
Yet BlueLine has failed to provide any substantive explanation for its prior misstatement of the
appropriate law, and for its ignoring of the record facts other than to pass the ball and suggest
that the Court can figure it out. ILIS believes the system works more efficiently if the parties
provide as much candid assistance to the Court as possible by citing to the Court the most
applicable known controlling authority and citing to or at least acknowledging the relevant and
applicable record facts.
For example, BlueLine, in its Reply Brief of De]%na’ant BlueLine International, LLC, in
Support of its Motion to Dismiss or Trans]%r (the "Reply"). (D.I. 7, 7/26/07) cites to 5th Circuit
and 7th Circuit caselaw in support of its “amount in controversy" argument under 28 U.S.C. §
1332. BlueLine did not, however, cite to, or even attempt to distinguish relevant and controlling
Third Circuit case law that is directly on point on this issue. Maybe BlueLine did not know
about this controlling Third Circuit case law, or the similar U.S. Supreme Court case law, both of
B # 665206 V.1

Case 1:07-cv-00285-JJF Document 10 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 2 of 4
which are provided in the ILIS proposed Sur Reply Brief. Accordingly, one reason ILIS is
seeking to submit a corrective sur reply brief is to assist the Court and point out, in its view, the
most relevant controlling case law for this (Third) Circuit that is directly on point on the issue of
minimum "amount in controversy" under § 1332. See, e. g., Harq’ord Fire Ins. C0. v. Pettinaro
Constr. Co., Inc., etal., C.A. No. 91-702 (SLR), 1993 WL 152076, *3 (Feb. 10, 1993) (granting
sur reply to allow party to respond to supporting points of law raised for the first time in a reply
memorandum).
With respect to the issue of personal jurisdiction to be exercised over BlueLine, BlueLine
argued in its Reply that ILIS had conceded certain legal points. Nothing could be further from
the truth. As such, another reason ILIS is seeking to submit its corrective sur reply brief is to
clarify the appropriate record facts where ILIS plainly alleged the multitude of continuous and
substantial contacts as between BlueLine and Delaware over at least the past two years.
Finally, BlueLine’s attempt in its Reply (and attached Supplemental Declaration of Tareq
Bhuiyan) to explain away BlueLine’s website advertising are completely new arguments that are
first, incredible, and second, not supportive of BlueLine’s position. Accordingly, a third reason
that ILIS is seeking to submit its sur reply brief is to address the newly submitted declaration of
Mr. Bhuiyan, and to point out the flawed reliance on such arguments by BlueLine. Sec, In Re
ML-Lee Acquisition Fund IL L.P. and ML—Lee Acquisition Fund (Ret. Accounts) IL L.P. Sec.
Litig., C.A. No. 92-60 (JJF), 848 F. Supp. 527, 566, n. 28 (D. Del. 1994) (determining it
appropriate for a party to file a sur reply so that the party has an opportunity to respond to "new"
arguments raised in a reply); see also, Acierno v. Cloutier, etal., C.A. No. 92-385 (SLR), 1993
WL 215133, *1 (D. Del. June 9, 1993) (same)
- 2 -
B # 665206 v.l

Case 1:07-cv-00285-JJF Document 10 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 3 of 4
ILIS contends that logic and fairness dictate that ILIS be permitted to point out these
inaccuracies to the Court so as to provide a more accurate and complete record of the law and
facts to the Court. See, generally, Montgomery Ward & C0., Inc., and Reliance Ins. C0. v.
C0l0nial Penn Franklin Ins. C0., C.A. No. 01-421 (JJF), 344 B.R. 256 (D. Del. 2006).
For these reasons, as further supporting the arguments and analysis presented in ILlS’
opening brief, ILIS respectfully requests that the Court grant ILIS’ motion seeking leave to file a
short sur reply, and enter the proposed Sur Reply into the record to clarify the record facts and
applicable law at issue.
Respectfully submitted,
Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP
Dated: August 6, 2007 . f
Kevin W. Goldstein (DE B #2967)
Michael P. Migliore (DE Bar #4331)
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 576-5850
Facsimile: (302) 576-5858
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
ILIS Computer, Inc.
- 3 -
B # 665206 vi

Case 1:07-cv-00285-JJF Document 10 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply of [LIS Computer, Inc. In
Further Support Of ItsMotion Seeking Leave to File a Sur Reply Brief was filed electronically
and was served upon the following counsel of record on August 6, 2007 using the ECF System
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
David L. Finger, Esquire
Finger & Slanina, LLC
One Commerce Center
1201 Orange Street, Suite 725
Wilmington, DE 19801-1155
Michael P. Migliore
B # 665206 v.1