Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
ProPhase Labs Inc.
-
Order | Filed: January 22, 2024 | Entered: January 22, 2024 ProPhase Labs, Inc. v. Predictive Laboratories, Inc. et al
Contract: Other | Delaware
Oral Order
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendants counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel in this case ("Motion"), (D.I. 73), which is unopposed by Defendants, (id. at 2), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 73; D.I. 75; D.I. 78), and having held a hearing on the Motion via videoconference on January 22, 2024, hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) To the extent that the Motion relates to Defendant Predictive Technology Group, Inc. ("Technology"), the Court is not convinced that it would be appropriate to address the Motion now (or that it even has the authority to do so), because the case against Technology is currently stayed in light of a pending bankruptcy proceeding. (D.I. 94). As such, the Court will DENY the Motion as to Technology without prejudice to renew it if and when the stay as to Technology is lifted. If that occurs, and if circumstances have not materially changed, the Court will then expect to resolve the Motion as to Technology in an expeditious fashion without requiring further lengthy briefing. By no later than 7 days from the day when the stay against Technology is lifted, the parties shall file a two-page status letter informing the Court as to how it should proceed with resolving the Motion as to that party.; and (2) To the extent that the Motion relates to Defendant Predictive Laboratories, Inc. ("Labs"), it is GRANTED in the manner that follows. The Court has undertaken the context-sensitive inquiry required as to this type of motion, see Leonite Cap. LLC v. Founders Bay Holdings, No. CV 22-1547-TBD, 2023 WL 4198863, at *2 (D. Del. June 27, 2023), and has considered the factors raised by the parties in their briefing (factors that are not mandatory to consider, but that can still be helpful in this inquiry). See Ohntrup v. Makina Ve Kimya Endustrisi Kurumu, 760 F.3d 290, 294-95 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Ohntrup v. Firearms Ctr., Inc., 802 F.2d 676, 679-80 (3d Cir. 1986)). Although Plaintiff had argued that it could be prejudiced by withdrawal were the Motion granted while it was in the midst of completing document discovery, including its lengthy efforts to obtain discovery from certain of Labs' servers, (D.I. 75 at 4-5), Plaintiff has since obtained that discovery and document discovery is now complete. In light of that, and in light of the fact that Defendants' counsel has not been paid for a substantial period of time, (D.I. 78 at 1), all parties agree that but for allowing a brief period of time prior to withdrawal to see whether the case against Labs can be resolved by way of a jointly-agreed-upon consent judgment, (D.I. 100 at 1), permitting withdrawal would be appropriate. Therefore, the Motion as to Labs is GRANTED effective as of February 1, 2024 (unless all parties, including Defendants' counsel, later seek an order to some different effect). This short period of delay before grant of the Motion takes effect will allow a brief time for the parties and their counsel to see whether the case as to Labs can be expeditiously resolved. If, absent further Court order to the contrary, as of January 31, 2024 the case is not resolved as to Labs, the Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Defendants' counsel's representation of Labs in this matter, effective February 1, 2024. As of the date of that termination, Labs will have 30 days in which to have new counsel enter an appearance on its behalf (since a corporation generally must be represented by counsel in federal court). See Leonite, 2023 WL 4198863, at *2. If new counsel does not appear by that deadline for Labs, then Plaintiff may file a motion for default as to Labs thereafter. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 1/22/2024. (dlb)
-
Minutes | Filed: January 22, 2024 | Entered: January 22, 2024 ProPhase Labs, Inc. v. Predictive Laboratories, Inc. et al
Contract: Other | Delaware
Motion Hearing
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Christopher J. Burke - The Court heard the parties' arguments regarding Defendants counsel's Motion to Withdraw. (D.I. 73) The Court took the matter under advisement. (Clerk: C. Blake, A. Herman) Appearances: M. Eckard for Plaintiff; R. Golden, S. Brauerman and C. McGuire for Defendants.. (Court Reporter Heather Troizzi) (dlb)
-
Misc | Filed: January 18, 2024 | Entered: January 18, 2024 ProPhase Labs, Inc. v. Predictive Laboratories, Inc. et al
Contract: Other | Delaware
Letter
Joint Letter to Honorable Christopher J. Burke from the Parties regarding Status of Servers Inspection. (Eckard, Mark)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login