Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00799-JJF Document 34 Filed O2/08/2008 Page 1 of 2
RICHARDS, Layton Sr Fiwcsarz
A PROFEl5$iONAL ASSOCUXTIQN
ONE RODNEY SQUARE.
920 NORTH KING 5TREEr DIRECT DIAL. NUMBER
l-EE E KAUPMAN Wiumuorou, De;t.AwARe react 3O&_55,_7&-,,32
(302) 55 I—'7'7OO KAuFMAn@RLF c02~1
Fax <;ac>a> esi-7701
WWW¤RLF.COM
February 8, 2008
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.,
United States District Court Judge
J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
844 N. King Street, Room 4124
Lock Box 27
Wilmington, DE l980l
Re: OHC Liquidation Trust v. Credit Suisse, et al.,
Adv. Proc. No. 0467060 QPJW [ I Civil Action Nu. 07-799 (.}JF[
Dear Judge Farnan,
Detendants respectfully submit that Plaintih°’s letter to Your Honor in response to
Detendants’ Motion to Strike PlaintiiT’s Jury Trial Demand (the "Motion”) was procedurally
defective and inappropriate. Defendants are, however, compelled to respond to Plaintiffs
February 7 letter to the extent it suggests Plaintiff’s jury trial right in this action has been
resolved through the C0urt’s January 23 Order or Judge Walslfs decision in the Bankruptcy
Court.
As an initial matter, Defendants are plainly entitled to make the Motion and Plaintiff is
entitled to oppose it. Pursuant to the Court’s standing order concerning non—dispositive motions
in non—patent cases, a `brieiing process and hearing date are established. Whatever arguments
Plaintiff may have in opposition should be made through that process, not through letters seeking
“guidance" from the Court.
To address the arguments set forth in Plaintitifs February 7, 2008 letter, this Court’s
January 23 Order withdrew the reference of this Adversary Proceeding to the Bankruptcy Court
on the basis of judicial economy Plaintiff ’s presumption that the Court has considered and ruled
on its supposed entitlernent to a jury trial is unsupported Indeed, during the January 22 status
conference, the Court expressly noted that it had not had the opportunity to review all of the
papers submitted in connection with the motion to withdraw the reference. Accordingly, any
suggestion by the Plaintiff that the Court has specifically considered or ruled on Plaintiff’s
alleged jury trial rights is wrong.
air l—3252l47-1

Case 1:07-cv-00799-JJF Document 34 Filed O2/08/2008 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Joseph J. I-iarnan, Jr.
February 8, 2008
Page 2
As explained in Det`endants” Motion, Judge Walslfs Decision and Order concerning jury
trial rights is in no way binding on this Court. As a non—Article III court, which has not been
granted authority over _jury trials and matters related thereto by this Court, the Bankruptcy Court
cannot be the final arbiter of whether a party has a right to a jury trial. Moreover, because this
Court maintains original jurisdiction over Chapter ll and related cases, this Court has the
inherent power to revisit de novo any interlocutory order by the Banlcruptcy Court. Against this
backdrop, Der"endants’ Motion is both necessary and appropriate.
Defendants respectfully suggest that further discussion of these issues should be made in
the context of formal motion and briefing practice consistent with the Court’s standing order
regarding rrorndispositive motions in non—patent cases. Of course, should the Court have any
questions or concerns regarding the foregoing or anything else related to this matter, counsel are
available at the Court’s convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
Lee E. Kaufman
cc: VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
R. Paul Wickes, Esq.
Mary K. Warren, Esq.
Michael J. Osnato, Jr., Esq.
J. Justin Williamson, Esq.
Marla Rosoff Eslcin, Esq.
Tony Castanares, Esq.
Stephan M. Ray, Esq.
Scott H. Yun, Esq.
Whitman L. Holt, Esq.
mr 1-s:rs:».14v—1

Case 1:07-cv-00799-JJF

Document 34

Filed 02/08/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00799-JJF

Document 34

Filed 02/08/2008

Page 2 of 2