Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

I———I———»—--~©ase --1 :·05=cv>OO022-IVI PT Document 39-2 Filed
nnv»2o—2aos 15¤@¢l oanssv~nnnonEv *”·· @?’E’“
DIEASTEY M AHONIEY & BENDIER, LTD.
ATTORNEYS Ar mw - PIlOCr¤RS IN ADMIRALTY
riunctsi osasav SUi'1`l`·£ EBOO new JERSEY orvicai
HARRY G. MAHONEY l800 IOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVARD gg IANNER gwqgpjr
JAMES W DALY? PHIl.ADiELPl·IIA, PA l9lU3·297S ;4,¤,pgO5I$;5[_D_ Nj ggg33.24I9
I GERALDJ VAl..ENTI`NlI 2I5—5B7»9 I JAMES B. BURNSI FACSIMHJE: 2lS-587-9456 FACSIMILE: g5h.4gq..6g6g
JANEA nortrnt
BARBARA 0 Moanowi-c nmsct E~MAIl.: [email protected] O,,cO,_.,,,,,,_,
HENRI MARCELI? VOICE-MAH. EXTENSION til 77 mann I: saunas
I CARLA P MARESCAi0 wittmm r._ panssv
I ADAM J. ?AN’“iANOt its mira
I CRAIG M STRAW Inatssnaanwss
I WAJLDA R?VEi1S·|· May 2{)’ 2(]{]5 l9!I-I.997
I CARMEN H BELLT t.u.so Mimosa wanna
CHRISTOPHER C NEGREIE raise mzivmcu can im.
STEPHEN} PARISII attstinsnurtt on BAK
I CHRISTOPHER T HUBBR a also Mamas; nv an
; PATRICIA I2 rvieamsatt
Mtcnamr noilctet
‘ rttov o szsomi
i
I The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
U-S. District Court for the District of Delaware
J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
344 N. King Street
I Room 6325
Lockbox to
I Wilmington, DE 19801
RE: St. Paul Mercury Insurance Ca. et. al. v. Msly Yan; Civil Action No. 05-0022
I Dear Judge Jordan:
I We represent plaintiffs in the above action. We write, in advance of ora} argument on
I various motions scheduled for May 25, 2005, to advise the Court of a new development which
I may affect the Coiu’t’s handling of this matter.
On May 9, 2005, the Honorable James "I`. Giles ofthe United States District Court For the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued an order (copy enclosed) directing that the declaratory
iudgment action filed 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 doclteted in Delaware, but we expect
I that will happen shortly,.
in light ofiudge Giles’ 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 alter the Pennsylvania case is transferred, and
I we have sought to reach an agreement with opposing counsel in that regard. Unfortunately, we
I have been unable to reach an agreement concerning same.
I
I
l

t Case 1 :05-cv-00022—l\/I PT Document 39-2 Filed 05/24/2005 Page 2 of 2 mq
l my-gn-goes 15= on oEQSEY—Mt»2HUNEY P @3
l
i Pm M, 2 ,0 The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
May 20, 2005
We believe Judge Giles’ order effectively renders moot the motions filed in this Court,
and the wording of the order contemplates that our action in this Court will be thc only action to
proceed, with the Pennsylvania plaintiffs having arr opportunity to participate as parties in the
Delaware action should they desrr Opposing counsel has advised us, however, that they intend
to press Milly Yan’s motion to dismiss our action in this Court so that only the t·ranst`erred, inter-
lilctl Pennsylvania action would proceed here. We believe, however, that if the Pennsylvania
action is to survive at all, it must be consolidated into our clients’ existing action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(rr) and that the two actions dtrcreafter be managed together by
the Court., We have sought the consent of the Pennsylvania plaintiffs to proceed in only one
action by re·aiigning themselves as defendants in the existing action. This would permit them to
answer the amended cornplaint in that action and assert whatever claims for declaratory judgment
p or otherwise they might wish to pursue, including all claims they had asserted in Pennsylvania.
l Opposing counsel has so far not consented to this arrtmgcment. Pending rr resolution of the
i above issues, we are reserving our rights to seek the dismissal ofthe Pennsylvania action alter it
has been dockcted in Delaware
if the Court should desire to convene a telephone conference to discuss the above matters
prior to the May 25"‘ argument, wc are available any time on May 24, 2005,
l Thank you for your consideration of the above.
I
Very truly yours,
DEASEY, MAHONEY & BENDER, LTD.
BY: .» `
Q JA ES B. BURNS
rsnxae
, Gzunsurnnce Clientstm Pnui-rUSF&G··350 ·- 35l\Sr Paul v. Milly Yun-~2l939\Cune.sponricnceUordru1 5-20-05 wpd
cc: Yvonne 'l"akvorian—Saville, Esquire (vr'nfac.ri"mrl'e)
, Jonathan M. Cohen, Esquire (vfafncsr'"mile)
Joshua Van Naarden, Esquire (viczfcrcsrmite)
Joseph Koury, Esquire (vfufncsimilc)
l
l
l
I