Writing a blog can be a bit like real journalism. More often it's a tedious exercise in easy jokes that amuse only the author, but, sometimes, there's a bit of sneaky sleuthing involved.
Such is the case in today's post, which is an update to our earlier post on an unusually contentious pro hac motion.
For those who don't click links, the pro hac at issue was for an attorney involved in several of the infamous Mavexar cases. Judge Connolly issued sua sponte orders setting a hearing on the pto hac motion and requiring the attorney in question to submit "a sworn declaration in which he (1) identifies all the cases he has participated in or is currently participating in as counsel of record in this District and (2) avers whether he has ever been found by a court or state bar disciplinary body to have violated a rule, order, code, or norm of professional conduct." WirelessWerx IP, LLC v. Tracki Inc., C.A. No. 25-799-CFC (D. Del. Oct. 17, 2025).
That hearing has now passed with, sadly, no transcript currently available on the docket. But fear not, the author has brought his immense powers of deduction to the task, cobbling together vague clues from the docket to give you, the reader an exclusive insight into how things are going.
TL;DR, not great.
Clue #1: The Declaration
As ordered, the attorney submitted the declaration last month. Along with the litany of recitals about various bar registrations being in good standing, it also noted that
In a case pending in California, Magistrate Judge Kang censured and held me in contempt on March 26, 2025. An appeal and motion for a stay of Magistrate Judge Kang’s sanction order was filed with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 12, 2025.
D.I. 22 at 2.
Reading through that order, which was attached to the opinion, it appears the issue was that the attorney filed and then voluntarily dismissed essentially the same claims three times in a row. Because Rule 41(a)(1)(b) makes the second voluntary dismissal an adjudication "on the merits," filing the same claims the third time was legally unsupportable. Additionally, the Court noted that the attornies had failed to file their pro hac applications with the Complaint as required under the relevant local rules. Ultimately that Court ordered the attorney to pay $45,264 in sanctions along with sundry other requirements, noting:
In this Court’s many decades of experience in the law (particularly patent litigation), the facts here are truly extraordinary, evincing a pattern of conduct spanning many cases, over many years, specific to this one law firm and its namesake attorney.
Koji IP, LLC v. Renesas Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 24-cv-03089-PHK, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56687, at *65 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2025).
So, things could have been going better going into the hearing.
Clue #2: An Inauspicious Order
Shortly after the hearing, counsel for the plaintiff filed a letter that mentioned "[d]uring the proceeding, the Court directed counsel to provide a list of cases filed by my firm in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in which Ramey LLP was also involved." D.I. 27.
Although many districts have a requirement along these lines for pro hacs (for instance, Delaware Superior Court requires pro hac applications to include "the civil action number or criminal identification number and presiding judge in every action in any court of record of Delaware in which the attorney has appeared in the preceding 12 months." Del. Super. Ct. R. 90.1), the District of Delaware normally has no such requirement.
It's tough to say exactly what it means here, but I struggle to see any context in which it might be good news.
Clue #3: A Potential Admission of Defeat
The real kicker though, last week when the Court issued the Order below:
WHEREAS Mr. Garibian stated at the November 20, 2025 hearing that he intended to withdraw the Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Mr. Ramey, and WHEREAS Mr. Garibian has not yet withdrawn that motion, NOW THEREFORE, it is HEREBY ORDERED that no later than Tuesday, December 9, 2025 Mr. Garibian shall either withdraw the motion or notify the Court that he is not withdrawing it and wishes the Court to rule on it
WirelessWerx IP, LLC v. Tracki Inc., C.A. No. 25-799-CFC (D. Del. Dec. 4, 2025) (Oral Order)
So maybe this didn't take soooooo much sleuthing after all.
But things still aren't done! Just yesterday, the plaintiff filed a letter seeking an extension of the deadline above, noting that they were "continuing to confer with Mr. Ramey regarding the issues raised at the November 20 hearing, and those discussions are still ongoing." D.I. 28.
As I type this, the Court has yet to rule on the requested extension—I'll throw in an update when it comes.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
