It has somehow been more than a year since we last discussed the Mavexar cases. But do not be fooled by the calm waters. The Mavexar crab lurks below, ever watchful, and the slightest ripple might rouse it from slumber.
Today's strand in the tale is an abject lesson in the way certain cases can follow you around for years after they've ostensibly died. It comes to us by way of a pro hac motion, of all things. Filed without fanfare and totally unopposed, one would have expected it to be granted within a day or so.
Things went a little differently in WirelessWerx IP, LLC v. Tracki Inc., C.A. No. 25-799-CFC (D. Del. Oct. 17, 2025) where an unopposed pro hac motion sat dormant for a full 11 days until the Court issued this ominous Oral Order:
So that the Court may properly consider Plaintiff's application for the pro hac admission of William Ramey, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Ramey shall file with the Court no later than October 31, 2025 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. If Mr. Ramey has been found by a court or state bar disciplinary body to have violated a rule, order, code, or norm of professional conduct, he shall identify in the declaration the court or disciplinary body as the case may be and the date and nature of the finding and he shall submit with the declaration a copy of any order, opinion, or other document issued by the court or state bar disciplinary body in connection with that finding.
This is the first time I've seen an order like this. Me being a reporter (sorta), I looked to see what the lawyer's history was in the district. Unsurprisingly, an old Mavexar case popped up.
Counsel in question represented plaintiffs in a series of cases around the time of the Mavexar hearings, including Missed Call, LLC v. Freshworks Inc., C.A. No. 22-739-CFC. In that case, counsel failed to attend a scheduled in-person hearing. This led Chief Judge Connolly to order ...
