Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00799-JJF Document 54 Filed O3/19/2008 Page 1 of 2
Ricunnos, LAYror~1 8. Fiuoan
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
Oui; Ftoouer Sounne
920 Nouns Kms Smear
Wruuiuorow, DELAWARE sooo: Draecr Dim. Nuwsea
Steven J Fiuumnw (302) G5 I ,7*}-OO 302*65 §m7592
F·[email protected]“ CCM
FAX: (302) as l··77DE
www.ni.r com
March 19, 2008
BY ELECTRONIC FILING AND
VIA HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Joseph I Farnan, Jr.
United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, Delaware i9801
Re: OHC Liquidation Trust v. Credit Suisse, et al. (In rc Oakwood Homes
Corp. l, C.A. No. 07-'799»JJF
Dear Judge Farnan:
l write on behalf of all parties to the above—referenced action to seek clarification from
the Court with respect to briefing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
On February 29, .2008, Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment and an
opening brief contemporaneousiy therewith in conformity with Local Rules 7.1.2 and 7.1.3.
Defendants anticipated that Plaintiff would file an answering brief pursuant to Local Rules 7.1.2
and 7.1.3. However, Plaintiff understood that, in lieu of an answering brief, it was required to
file a countenstatentent certiiying that genuine issues of material fact exist pursuant to this
Court’s Summary Judgment Procedure Order (the "Order"). On March 13, 2008, Plaintiff tiled
such a countenstatement, which contained its certification of the genuine issues of material fact `R
(together with selected record citations) that Plaintiff believes exist.
Alter conferring, Plaintiff and Defendants have reached an impasse. Defendants believe
that this Court’s Order requiring a countenstaternent is intended for use only in patent cases, is
not applicable to the present non~patent proceeding and should not be utilized here. Conversely,
Plaintiffbelieves that the Court has not limited the application of the Order to patent cases, that
the Order is applicable in this case, and that the Order’s procedures should he utilized here.
The patties respectfully request the Court’s guidance as to whether Plaintiff should tile an
answering brief, or whether Defendants should file a response to Plaintiffs counterastatement.
ln order to resolve this dispute fairly, and subject to Court approval, the parties have agreed that
(i) should the Court require Plaintiff to lile an answering brief, Plaintiff may utilize the full ten
business days afforded under Local Rule 7.l.2(b) from the date of the Court’s ruling; and (ii)
ru. r r-:+262222-3

Case 1:07-cv-00799-JJF Document 54 Filed O3/19/2008 Page 2 of 2
The bionorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
March 19, 2098
Page 2
should the Court require Defendants to tile a response to Plaintiff"s counter—state111e11t,
Defendants may take {ive business days after the Court’s ruling to tile such a response.
If Your Honor should have any questions or concerns, counsel remains available at the
C0urt’s convenience.
Respectfully,

Steven 3. iinernan (#4025)
SJF/Eli
cc: VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
R. Paul Wiekes, Esquire
Mary K. Warren, Esquire
Michael J. Osnato, Jr., Esquire
.I. Justin Williamson, Esquire
Marla Rosoff Eskin, Esquire
Tony Castanares, Esquire
Stephan M. Ray, Esquire
Scott H. Yun, Esquire
Whitman L. Holt, Esquire
aura-2262228-2

Case 1:07-cv-00799-JJF

Document 54

Filed 03/19/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00799-JJF

Document 54

Filed 03/19/2008

Page 2 of 2