Vitaworks IP LLC

General

Total Cases11

Active Cases2

Patents34

CourtsD. Delaware D. New Jersey

TypeNPE

Elite Ratings

--

--

--

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

L4

D

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
12/13/24	Vitaworks IP LLC v. Glanbia Nutritionals Na Inc 1:21-CV-00327 ( D. DE )	NOTICE requesting Clerk to remove Mark Consilvio as co-counsel.. (Wilson, Samantha) (Entered: 12/13/2024)
12/13/24	Vitaworks IP LLC v. Glanbia Nutritionals Na Inc 1:21-CV-00327 ( D. DE )	NOTICE requesting Clerk to remove Mark Consilvio as co-counsel.. (Wilson, Samantha) (Entered: 12/13/2024)
12/13/24	Vitaworks IP LLC v. Glanbia Nutritionals Na Inc 1:21-CV-00327 ( D. DE )	NOTICE requesting Clerk to remove Mark Consilvio as co-counsel.. (Wilson, Samantha) (Entered: 12/13/2024)
12/13/24	Vitaworks IP LLC v. Glanbia Nutritionals Na Inc 1:21-CV-00327 ( D. DE )	NOTICE requesting Clerk to remove Mark Consilvio as co-counsel.. (Wilson, Samantha) (Entered: 12/13/2024)
12/05/24	Vitaworks IP LLC v. Glanbia Nutritionals Na Inc 1:21-CV-00327 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Fox Rothschild LLP’s (“Fox Rothschild”) Amended Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (“Motion”), (D.I. [282] ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. [265] ; D.I. [268] ; D.I. [271] ; D.I. [282] ; D.I. [283] ), having held a videoconference hearing regarding the Motion on December 3, 2024, and having considered relevant factors applicable to such motions set out in cases like Rasquinha v. O’Boyle, Civil No. 19-19846 (KSH), 2023 WL 199005, at 3 (D.N.J. Jan. 17, 2023), appeal dismissed sub nom., 2023 WL 9688354 (3d Cir. Sept. 29, 2023) and Ohntrup v. Makina ve Kimya Endustrisi Kurumu, 760 F.3d 290, 294-95 (3d Cir. 2014), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART in the manner and for the reasons that follow: (1) To the extent that Plaintiffs wish to obtain new counsel in this matter, any new counsel shall enter their appearance by no later than January 3, 2025. This will provide Plaintiffs with nearly 60 days to have searched for and to have obtained counsel, dating from the point when Fox Rothschild’s initial motion to withdraw was filed in this case. (See D.I. [265] ) Under all of the circumstances here, and for the reasons the Court noted during the videoconference, this amount of time provides Plaintiffs with an appropriate span in which to attempt to find new counsel, while not unduly prejudicing Defendants, who understandably wish for a timely resolution to this long-running matter.; (2) As the Court advised during the videoconference, the case schedule is hereby STAYED until further order of the Court.; (3) If new counsel does not enter an appearance for Plaintiffs by January 3, 2025, then absent further order of the Court, by no later than January 10, 2025, Defendants shall file any motion for default that they wish to file in the case, since Plaintiffs could not proceed with litigating this matter in the absence of retained counsel. See Dettmering v. VBit Techs. Corp., Civil Action No. 22-1482-CFC-SRF, 2023 WL 3790717, at 2 (D. Del. June 2, 2023); Medicolegal & Literary Works LLC v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Del., C.A. No. 10-864-LPS, 2011 WL 4501041, at 2 (D. Del. Sept. 28, 2011) (citing cases). And in that circumstance, by no later than January 10, 2025, absent further order of the Court, Defendants shall also file any other motion relevant to the pendency of Plaintiffs’ affirmative claims.; (4) Fox Rothschild will remain as Plaintiffs’ counsel of record until further order of the Court. Among other things, this will permit Plaintiffs to communicate with the Court through counsel between now and January 3, 2025, if necessary. The Court anticipates ordering that Fox Rothschild will be permitted to withdraw as counsel to Plaintiffs as of January 10, 2025, in light of the reasons for withdraw set out in the Motion. See Fastxchange Inc. v. Inventure Inc., No. Civ.A. 03-782KAJ, 2004 WL 234659, at 1 (D. Del. Feb. 6, 2004) (permitting counsel’s withdrawal since the defendant "failed to cooperate in the preparation and presentation of its [case] and ha[d] ‘not expressed or demonstrated a willingness to satisfy its obligations’ to pay its legal fees and expenses”) (internal citation omitted); Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Nat’l Collegiate Master Student Tr., Civil Action No. 17-1323-SB, D.I. 79-80 (D. Del. 2019) (granting counsel’s motion to withdraw, which explained that counsel was owed substantial legal fees and the client was unable to pay them, and where the client was permitted sufficient notice to identify and retain replacement counsel).; and (5) In light of Defendants’ understandable concerns regarding the preservation of certain relevant case-related evidence during this time period, the Court has so ordered the parties’ related stipulation, (D.I. [289] ), which will remain in effect until further order of the Court. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/5/2024. (smg) (Entered: 12/05/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Fox Rothschild LLP’s (“Fox Rothschild”) Amended Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (“Motion”), (D.I. [282] ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. [265] ; D.I. [268] ; D.I. [271] ; D.I. [282] ; D.I. [283] ), having held a videoconference hearing regarding the Motion on December 3, 2024, and having considered relevant factors applicable to such motions set out in cases like Rasquinha v. O’Boyle, Civil No. 19-19846 (KSH), 2023 WL 199005, at 3 (D.N.J. Jan. 17, 2023), appeal dismissed sub nom., 2023 WL 9688354 (3d Cir. Sept. 29, 2023) and Ohntrup v. Makina ve Kimya Endustrisi Kurumu, 760 F.3d 290, 294-95 (3d Cir. 2014), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART in the manner and for the reasons that follow: (1) To the extent that Plaintiffs wish to obtain new counsel in this matter, any new counsel shall enter their appearance by no later than January 3, 2025. This will provide Plaintiffs with nearly 60 days to have searched for and to have obtained counsel, dating from the point when Fox Rothschild’s initial motion to withdraw was filed in this case. (See D.I. [265] ) Under all of the circumstances here, and for the reasons the Court noted during the videoconference, this amount of time provides Plaintiffs with an appropriate span in which to attempt to find new counsel, while not unduly prejudicing Defendants, who understandably wish for a timely resolution to this long-running matter.; (2) As the Court advised during the videoconference, the case schedule is hereby STAYED until further order of the Court.; (3) If new counsel does not enter an appearance for Plaintiffs by January 3, 2025, then absent further order of the Court, by no later than January 10, 2025, Defendants shall file any motion for default that they wish to file in the case, since Plaintiffs could not proceed with litigating this matter in the absence of retained counsel. See Dettmering v. VBit Techs. Corp., Civil Action No. 22-1482-CFC-SRF, 2023 WL 3790717, at 2 (D. Del. June 2, 2023); Medicolegal & Literary Works LLC v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Del., C.A. No. 10-864-LPS, 2011 WL 4501041, at 2 (D. Del. Sept. 28, 2011) (citing cases). And in that circumstance, by no later than January 10, 2025, absent further order of the Court, Defendants shall also file any other motion relevant to the pendency of Plaintiffs’ affirmative claims.; (4) Fox Rothschild will remain as Plaintiffs’ counsel of record until further order of the Court. Among other things, this will permit Plaintiffs to communicate with the Court through counsel between now and January 3, 2025, if necessary. The Court anticipates ordering that Fox Rothschild will be permitted to withdraw as counsel to Plaintiffs as of January 10, 2025, in light of the reasons for withdraw set out in the Motion. See Fastxchange Inc. v. Inventure Inc., No. Civ.A. 03-782KAJ, 2004 WL 234659, at 1 (D. Del. Feb. 6, 2004) (permitting counsel’s withdrawal since the defendant "failed to cooperate in the preparation and presentation of its [case] and ha[d] ‘not expressed or demonstrated a willingness to satisfy its obligations’ to pay its legal fees and expenses”) (internal citation omitted); Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Nat’l Collegiate Master Student Tr., Civil Action No. 17-1323-SB, D.I. 79-80 (D. Del. 2019) (granting counsel’s motion to withdraw, which explained that counsel was owed substantial legal fees and the client was unable to pay them, and where the client was permitted sufficient notice to identify and retain replacement counsel).; and (5) In light of Defendants’ understandable concerns regarding the preservation of certain relevant case-related evidence during this time period, the Court has so ordered the parties’ related stipulation, (D.I. [289] ), which will remain in effect until further order of the Court. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/5/2024. (smg) (Entered: 12/05/2024)
12/05/24	Vitaworks IP LLC v. Glanbia Nutritionals Na Inc 1:21-CV-00327 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Fox Rothschild LLP’s (“Fox Rothschild”) Amended Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (“Motion”), (D.I. [282] ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. [265] ; D.I. [268] ; D.I. [271] ; D.I. [282] ; D.I. [283] ), having held a videoconference hearing regarding the Motion on December 3, 2024, and having considered relevant factors applicable to such motions set out in cases like Rasquinha v. O’Boyle, Civil No. 19-19846 (KSH), 2023 WL 199005, at 3 (D.N.J. Jan. 17, 2023), appeal dismissed sub nom., 2023 WL 9688354 (3d Cir. Sept. 29, 2023) and Ohntrup v. Makina ve Kimya Endustrisi Kurumu, 760 F.3d 290, 294-95 (3d Cir. 2014), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART in the manner and for the reasons that follow: (1) To the extent that Plaintiffs wish to obtain new counsel in this matter, any new counsel shall enter their appearance by no later than January 3, 2025. This will provide Plaintiffs with nearly 60 days to have searched for and to have obtained counsel, dating from the point when Fox Rothschild’s initial motion to withdraw was filed in this case. (See D.I. [265] ) Under all of the circumstances here, and for the reasons the Court noted during the videoconference, this amount of time provides Plaintiffs with an appropriate span in which to attempt to find new counsel, while not unduly prejudicing Defendants, who understandably wish for a timely resolution to this long-running matter.; (2) As the Court advised during the videoconference, the case schedule is hereby STAYED until further order of the Court.; (3) If new counsel does not enter an appearance for Plaintiffs by January 3, 2025, then absent further order of the Court, by no later than January 10, 2025, Defendants shall file any motion for default that they wish to file in the case, since Plaintiffs could not proceed with litigating this matter in the absence of retained counsel. See Dettmering v. VBit Techs. Corp., Civil Action No. 22-1482-CFC-SRF, 2023 WL 3790717, at 2 (D. Del. June 2, 2023); Medicolegal & Literary Works LLC v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Del., C.A. No. 10-864-LPS, 2011 WL 4501041, at 2 (D. Del. Sept. 28, 2011) (citing cases). And in that circumstance, by no later than January 10, 2025, absent further order of the Court, Defendants shall also file any other motion relevant to the pendency of Plaintiffs’ affirmative claims.; (4) Fox Rothschild will remain as Plaintiffs’ counsel of record until further order of the Court. Among other things, this will permit Plaintiffs to communicate with the Court through counsel between now and January 3, 2025, if necessary. The Court anticipates ordering that Fox Rothschild will be permitted to withdraw as counsel to Plaintiffs as of January 10, 2025, in light of the reasons for withdraw set out in the Motion. See Fastxchange Inc. v. Inventure Inc., No. Civ.A. 03-782KAJ, 2004 WL 234659, at 1 (D. Del. Feb. 6, 2004) (permitting counsel’s withdrawal since the defendant "failed to cooperate in the preparation and presentation of its [case] and ha[d] ‘not expressed or demonstrated a willingness to satisfy its obligations’ to pay its legal fees and expenses”) (internal citation omitted); Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Nat’l Collegiate Master Student Tr., Civil Action No. 17-1323-SB, D.I. 79-80 (D. Del. 2019) (granting counsel’s motion to withdraw, which explained that counsel was owed substantial legal fees and the client was unable to pay them, and where the client was permitted sufficient notice to identify and retain replacement counsel).; and (5) In light of Defendants’ understandable concerns regarding the preservation of certain relevant case-related evidence during this time period, the Court has so ordered the parties’ related stipulation, (D.I. [289] ), which will remain in effect until further order of the Court. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/5/2024. (smg) (Entered: 12/05/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Fox Rothschild LLP’s (“Fox Rothschild”) Amended Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (“Motion”), (D.I. [282] ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. [265] ; D.I. [268] ; D.I. [271] ; D.I. [282] ; D.I. [283] ), having held a videoconference hearing regarding the Motion on December 3, 2024, and having considered relevant factors applicable to such motions set out in cases like Rasquinha v. O’Boyle, Civil No. 19-19846 (KSH), 2023 WL 199005, at 3 (D.N.J. Jan. 17, 2023), appeal dismissed sub nom., 2023 WL 9688354 (3d Cir. Sept. 29, 2023) and Ohntrup v. Makina ve Kimya Endustrisi Kurumu, 760 F.3d 290, 294-95 (3d Cir. 2014), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART in the manner and for the reasons that follow: (1) To the extent that Plaintiffs wish to obtain new counsel in this matter, any new counsel shall enter their appearance by no later than January 3, 2025. This will provide Plaintiffs with nearly 60 days to have searched for and to have obtained counsel, dating from the point when Fox Rothschild’s initial motion to withdraw was filed in this case. (See D.I. [265] ) Under all of the circumstances here, and for the reasons the Court noted during the videoconference, this amount of time provides Plaintiffs with an appropriate span in which to attempt to find new counsel, while not unduly prejudicing Defendants, who understandably wish for a timely resolution to this long-running matter.; (2) As the Court advised during the videoconference, the case schedule is hereby STAYED until further order of the Court.; (3) If new counsel does not enter an appearance for Plaintiffs by January 3, 2025, then absent further order of the Court, by no later than January 10, 2025, Defendants shall file any motion for default that they wish to file in the case, since Plaintiffs could not proceed with litigating this matter in the absence of retained counsel. See Dettmering v. VBit Techs. Corp., Civil Action No. 22-1482-CFC-SRF, 2023 WL 3790717, at 2 (D. Del. June 2, 2023); Medicolegal & Literary Works LLC v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Del., C.A. No. 10-864-LPS, 2011 WL 4501041, at 2 (D. Del. Sept. 28, 2011) (citing cases). And in that circumstance, by no later than January 10, 2025, absent further order of the Court, Defendants shall also file any other motion relevant to the pendency of Plaintiffs’ affirmative claims.; (4) Fox Rothschild will remain as Plaintiffs’ counsel of record until further order of the Court. Among other things, this will permit Plaintiffs to communicate with the Court through counsel between now and January 3, 2025, if necessary. The Court anticipates ordering that Fox Rothschild will be permitted to withdraw as counsel to Plaintiffs as of January 10, 2025, in light of the reasons for withdraw set out in the Motion. See Fastxchange Inc. v. Inventure Inc., No. Civ.A. 03-782KAJ, 2004 WL 234659, at 1 (D. Del. Feb. 6, 2004) (permitting counsel’s withdrawal since the defendant "failed to cooperate in the preparation and presentation of its [case] and ha[d] ‘not expressed or demonstrated a willingness to satisfy its obligations’ to pay its legal fees and expenses”) (internal citation omitted); Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Nat’l Collegiate Master Student Tr., Civil Action No. 17-1323-SB, D.I. 79-80 (D. Del. 2019) (granting counsel’s motion to withdraw, which explained that counsel was owed substantial legal fees and the client was unable to pay them, and where the client was permitted sufficient notice to identify and retain replacement counsel).; and (5) In light of Defendants’ understandable concerns regarding the preservation of certain relevant case-related evidence during this time period, the Court has so ordered the parties’ related stipulation, (D.I. [289] ), which will remain in effect until further order of the Court. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/5/2024. (smg) (Entered: 12/05/2024)
12/05/24	Vitaworks IP LLC v. Glanbia Nutritionals Na Inc 1:21-CV-00327 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Fox Rothschild LLP’s (“Fox Rothschild”) Amended Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (“Motion”), (D.I. [282] ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. [265] ; D.I. [268] ; D.I. [271] ; D.I. [282] ; D.I. [283] ), having held a videoconference hearing regarding the Motion on December 3, 2024, and having considered relevant factors applicable to such motions set out in cases like Rasquinha v. O’Boyle, Civil No. 19-19846 (KSH), 2023 WL 199005, at 3 (D.N.J. Jan. 17, 2023), appeal dismissed sub nom., 2023 WL 9688354 (3d Cir. Sept. 29, 2023) and Ohntrup v. Makina ve Kimya Endustrisi Kurumu, 760 F.3d 290, 294-95 (3d Cir. 2014), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART in the manner and for the reasons that follow: (1) To the extent that Plaintiffs wish to obtain new counsel in this matter, any new counsel shall enter their appearance by no later than January 3, 2025. This will provide Plaintiffs with nearly 60 days to have searched for and to have obtained counsel, dating from the point when Fox Rothschild’s initial motion to withdraw was filed in this case. (See D.I. [265] ) Under all of the circumstances here, and for the reasons the Court noted during the videoconference, this amount of time provides Plaintiffs with an appropriate span in which to attempt to find new counsel, while not unduly prejudicing Defendants, who understandably wish for a timely resolution to this long-running matter.; (2) As the Court advised during the videoconference, the case schedule is hereby STAYED until further order of the Court.; (3) If new counsel does not enter an appearance for Plaintiffs by January 3, 2025, then absent further order of the Court, by no later than January 10, 2025, Defendants shall file any motion for default that they wish to file in the case, since Plaintiffs could not proceed with litigating this matter in the absence of retained counsel. See Dettmering v. VBit Techs. Corp., Civil Action No. 22-1482-CFC-SRF, 2023 WL 3790717, at 2 (D. Del. June 2, 2023); Medicolegal & Literary Works LLC v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Del., C.A. No. 10-864-LPS, 2011 WL 4501041, at 2 (D. Del. Sept. 28, 2011) (citing cases). And in that circumstance, by no later than January 10, 2025, absent further order of the Court, Defendants shall also file any other motion relevant to the pendency of Plaintiffs’ affirmative claims.; (4) Fox Rothschild will remain as Plaintiffs’ counsel of record until further order of the Court. Among other things, this will permit Plaintiffs to communicate with the Court through counsel between now and January 3, 2025, if necessary. The Court anticipates ordering that Fox Rothschild will be permitted to withdraw as counsel to Plaintiffs as of January 10, 2025, in light of the reasons for withdraw set out in the Motion. See Fastxchange Inc. v. Inventure Inc., No. Civ.A. 03-782KAJ, 2004 WL 234659, at 1 (D. Del. Feb. 6, 2004) (permitting counsel’s withdrawal since the defendant "failed to cooperate in the preparation and presentation of its [case] and ha[d] ‘not expressed or demonstrated a willingness to satisfy its obligations’ to pay its legal fees and expenses”) (internal citation omitted); Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Nat’l Collegiate Master Student Tr., Civil Action No. 17-1323-SB, D.I. 79-80 (D. Del. 2019) (granting counsel’s motion to withdraw, which explained that counsel was owed substantial legal fees and the client was unable to pay them, and where the client was permitted sufficient notice to identify and retain replacement counsel).; and (5) In light of Defendants’ understandable concerns regarding the preservation of certain relevant case-related evidence during this time period, the Court has so ordered the parties’ related stipulation, (D.I. [289] ), which will remain in effect until further order of the Court. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/5/2024. (smg) (Entered: 12/05/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Fox Rothschild LLP’s (“Fox Rothschild”) Amended Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (“Motion”), (D.I. [282] ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. [265] ; D.I. [268] ; D.I. [271] ; D.I. [282] ; D.I. [283] ), having held a videoconference hearing regarding the Motion on December 3, 2024, and having considered relevant factors applicable to such motions set out in cases like Rasquinha v. O’Boyle, Civil No. 19-19846 (KSH), 2023 WL 199005, at 3 (D.N.J. Jan. 17, 2023), appeal dismissed sub nom., 2023 WL 9688354 (3d Cir. Sept. 29, 2023) and Ohntrup v. Makina ve Kimya Endustrisi Kurumu, 760 F.3d 290, 294-95 (3d Cir. 2014), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART in the manner and for the reasons that follow: (1) To the extent that Plaintiffs wish to obtain new counsel in this matter, any new counsel shall enter their appearance by no later than January 3, 2025. This will provide Plaintiffs with nearly 60 days to have searched for and to have obtained counsel, dating from the point when Fox Rothschild’s initial motion to withdraw was filed in this case. (See D.I. [265] ) Under all of the circumstances here, and for the reasons the Court noted during the videoconference, this amount of time provides Plaintiffs with an appropriate span in which to attempt to find new counsel, while not unduly prejudicing Defendants, who understandably wish for a timely resolution to this long-running matter.; (2) As the Court advised during the videoconference, the case schedule is hereby STAYED until further order of the Court.; (3) If new counsel does not enter an appearance for Plaintiffs by January 3, 2025, then absent further order of the Court, by no later than January 10, 2025, Defendants shall file any motion for default that they wish to file in the case, since Plaintiffs could not proceed with litigating this matter in the absence of retained counsel. See Dettmering v. VBit Techs. Corp., Civil Action No. 22-1482-CFC-SRF, 2023 WL 3790717, at 2 (D. Del. June 2, 2023); Medicolegal & Literary Works LLC v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Del., C.A. No. 10-864-LPS, 2011 WL 4501041, at 2 (D. Del. Sept. 28, 2011) (citing cases). And in that circumstance, by no later than January 10, 2025, absent further order of the Court, Defendants shall also file any other motion relevant to the pendency of Plaintiffs’ affirmative claims.; (4) Fox Rothschild will remain as Plaintiffs’ counsel of record until further order of the Court. Among other things, this will permit Plaintiffs to communicate with the Court through counsel between now and January 3, 2025, if necessary. The Court anticipates ordering that Fox Rothschild will be permitted to withdraw as counsel to Plaintiffs as of January 10, 2025, in light of the reasons for withdraw set out in the Motion. See Fastxchange Inc. v. Inventure Inc., No. Civ.A. 03-782KAJ, 2004 WL 234659, at 1 (D. Del. Feb. 6, 2004) (permitting counsel’s withdrawal since the defendant "failed to cooperate in the preparation and presentation of its [case] and ha[d] ‘not expressed or demonstrated a willingness to satisfy its obligations’ to pay its legal fees and expenses”) (internal citation omitted); Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Nat’l Collegiate Master Student Tr., Civil Action No. 17-1323-SB, D.I. 79-80 (D. Del. 2019) (granting counsel’s motion to withdraw, which explained that counsel was owed substantial legal fees and the client was unable to pay them, and where the client was permitted sufficient notice to identify and retain replacement counsel).; and (5) In light of Defendants’ understandable concerns regarding the preservation of certain relevant case-related evidence during this time period, the Court has so ordered the parties’ related stipulation, (D.I. [289] ), which will remain in effect until further order of the Court. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/5/2024. (smg) (Entered: 12/05/2024)
12/05/24	Vitaworks IP LLC v. Glanbia Nutritionals Na Inc 1:21-CV-00327 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Fox Rothschild LLP’s (“Fox Rothschild”) Amended Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (“Motion”), (D.I. [282] ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. [265] ; D.I. [268] ; D.I. [271] ; D.I. [282] ; D.I. [283] ), having held a videoconference hearing regarding the Motion on December 3, 2024, and having considered relevant factors applicable to such motions set out in cases like Rasquinha v. O’Boyle, Civil No. 19-19846 (KSH), 2023 WL 199005, at 3 (D.N.J. Jan. 17, 2023), appeal dismissed sub nom., 2023 WL 9688354 (3d Cir. Sept. 29, 2023) and Ohntrup v. Makina ve Kimya Endustrisi Kurumu, 760 F.3d 290, 294-95 (3d Cir. 2014), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART in the manner and for the reasons that follow: (1) To the extent that Plaintiffs wish to obtain new counsel in this matter, any new counsel shall enter their appearance by no later than January 3, 2025. This will provide Plaintiffs with nearly 60 days to have searched for and to have obtained counsel, dating from the point when Fox Rothschild’s initial motion to withdraw was filed in this case. (See D.I. [265] ) Under all of the circumstances here, and for the reasons the Court noted during the videoconference, this amount of time provides Plaintiffs with an appropriate span in which to attempt to find new counsel, while not unduly prejudicing Defendants, who understandably wish for a timely resolution to this long-running matter.; (2) As the Court advised during the videoconference, the case schedule is hereby STAYED until further order of the Court.; (3) If new counsel does not enter an appearance for Plaintiffs by January 3, 2025, then absent further order of the Court, by no later than January 10, 2025, Defendants shall file any motion for default that they wish to file in the case, since Plaintiffs could not proceed with litigating this matter in the absence of retained counsel. See Dettmering v. VBit Techs. Corp., Civil Action No. 22-1482-CFC-SRF, 2023 WL 3790717, at 2 (D. Del. June 2, 2023); Medicolegal & Literary Works LLC v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Del., C.A. No. 10-864-LPS, 2011 WL 4501041, at 2 (D. Del. Sept. 28, 2011) (citing cases). And in that circumstance, by no later than January 10, 2025, absent further order of the Court, Defendants shall also file any other motion relevant to the pendency of Plaintiffs’ affirmative claims.; (4) Fox Rothschild will remain as Plaintiffs’ counsel of record until further order of the Court. Among other things, this will permit Plaintiffs to communicate with the Court through counsel between now and January 3, 2025, if necessary. The Court anticipates ordering that Fox Rothschild will be permitted to withdraw as counsel to Plaintiffs as of January 10, 2025, in light of the reasons for withdraw set out in the Motion. See Fastxchange Inc. v. Inventure Inc., No. Civ.A. 03-782KAJ, 2004 WL 234659, at 1 (D. Del. Feb. 6, 2004) (permitting counsel’s withdrawal since the defendant "failed to cooperate in the preparation and presentation of its [case] and ha[d] ‘not expressed or demonstrated a willingness to satisfy its obligations’ to pay its legal fees and expenses”) (internal citation omitted); Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Nat’l Collegiate Master Student Tr., Civil Action No. 17-1323-SB, D.I. 79-80 (D. Del. 2019) (granting counsel’s motion to withdraw, which explained that counsel was owed substantial legal fees and the client was unable to pay them, and where the client was permitted sufficient notice to identify and retain replacement counsel).; and (5) In light of Defendants’ understandable concerns regarding the preservation of certain relevant case-related evidence during this time period, the Court has so ordered the parties’ related stipulation, (D.I. [289] ), which will remain in effect until further order of the Court. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/5/2024. (smg) (Entered: 12/05/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Fox Rothschild LLP’s (“Fox Rothschild”) Amended Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (“Motion”), (D.I. [282] ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. [265] ; D.I. [268] ; D.I. [271] ; D.I. [282] ; D.I. [283] ), having held a videoconference hearing regarding the Motion on December 3, 2024, and having considered relevant factors applicable to such motions set out in cases like Rasquinha v. O’Boyle, Civil No. 19-19846 (KSH), 2023 WL 199005, at 3 (D.N.J. Jan. 17, 2023), appeal dismissed sub nom., 2023 WL 9688354 (3d Cir. Sept. 29, 2023) and Ohntrup v. Makina ve Kimya Endustrisi Kurumu, 760 F.3d 290, 294-95 (3d Cir. 2014), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART in the manner and for the reasons that follow: (1) To the extent that Plaintiffs wish to obtain new counsel in this matter, any new counsel shall enter their appearance by no later than January 3, 2025. This will provide Plaintiffs with nearly 60 days to have searched for and to have obtained counsel, dating from the point when Fox Rothschild’s initial motion to withdraw was filed in this case. (See D.I. [265] ) Under all of the circumstances here, and for the reasons the Court noted during the videoconference, this amount of time provides Plaintiffs with an appropriate span in which to attempt to find new counsel, while not unduly prejudicing Defendants, who understandably wish for a timely resolution to this long-running matter.; (2) As the Court advised during the videoconference, the case schedule is hereby STAYED until further order of the Court.; (3) If new counsel does not enter an appearance for Plaintiffs by January 3, 2025, then absent further order of the Court, by no later than January 10, 2025, Defendants shall file any motion for default that they wish to file in the case, since Plaintiffs could not proceed with litigating this matter in the absence of retained counsel. See Dettmering v. VBit Techs. Corp., Civil Action No. 22-1482-CFC-SRF, 2023 WL 3790717, at 2 (D. Del. June 2, 2023); Medicolegal & Literary Works LLC v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Del., C.A. No. 10-864-LPS, 2011 WL 4501041, at 2 (D. Del. Sept. 28, 2011) (citing cases). And in that circumstance, by no later than January 10, 2025, absent further order of the Court, Defendants shall also file any other motion relevant to the pendency of Plaintiffs’ affirmative claims.; (4) Fox Rothschild will remain as Plaintiffs’ counsel of record until further order of the Court. Among other things, this will permit Plaintiffs to communicate with the Court through counsel between now and January 3, 2025, if necessary. The Court anticipates ordering that Fox Rothschild will be permitted to withdraw as counsel to Plaintiffs as of January 10, 2025, in light of the reasons for withdraw set out in the Motion. See Fastxchange Inc. v. Inventure Inc., No. Civ.A. 03-782KAJ, 2004 WL 234659, at 1 (D. Del. Feb. 6, 2004) (permitting counsel’s withdrawal since the defendant "failed to cooperate in the preparation and presentation of its [case] and ha[d] ‘not expressed or demonstrated a willingness to satisfy its obligations’ to pay its legal fees and expenses”) (internal citation omitted); Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Nat’l Collegiate Master Student Tr., Civil Action No. 17-1323-SB, D.I. 79-80 (D. Del. 2019) (granting counsel’s motion to withdraw, which explained that counsel was owed substantial legal fees and the client was unable to pay them, and where the client was permitted sufficient notice to identify and retain replacement counsel).; and (5) In light of Defendants’ understandable concerns regarding the preservation of certain relevant case-related evidence during this time period, the Court has so ordered the parties’ related stipulation, (D.I. [289] ), which will remain in effect until further order of the Court. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/5/2024. (smg) (Entered: 12/05/2024)
12/05/24	Vitaworks IP LLC v. Glanbia Nutritionals Na Inc 1:21-CV-00327 ( D. DE )	SO ORDERED, D.I. [289] Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Preservation of Evidence filed by Jiangyin Huachang Food Additive Co., Ltd., Glanbia Nutritionals (NA), Inc., Fuchi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. d/b/a Hubei Grand Life Science and Technology Co., Ltd. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/5/2024. (smg) (Entered: 12/05/2024)
12/05/24	Vitaworks IP LLC v. Glanbia Nutritionals Na Inc 1:21-CV-00327 ( D. DE )	SO ORDERED, D.I. [289] Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Preservation of Evidence filed by Jiangyin Huachang Food Additive Co., Ltd., Glanbia Nutritionals (NA), Inc., Fuchi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. d/b/a Hubei Grand Life Science and Technology Co., Ltd. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 12/5/2024. (smg) (Entered: 12/05/2024)