Takefman v. Corliss et al
| Earl Takefman |
| Robert J. Corliss, Sr., Corliss Moore & Associates, LLC, Mark Guest, Jeffrey R. Waxman, Carl N. Kunz, III, Morris James LLP, A.J. Martinez, Ghost Tree Partners, LP, Mark Fox, MJM Tech Limited, Paul Sloyan and Arran Stewart |
| 1:2025cv01505 |
| December 15, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware |
| Christopher J Burke |
| Colm F Connolly |
| Other Fraud |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Fraud |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 8, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| CORRECTING ENTRY: D.I. #111 Renewed Motion has been placed under seal as the filing contained sensitive private information for certain individuals referenced therein. (sam) |
| Filing 111 [SEALED] Renewed MOTION for Leave to Effect Alternative Service - filed by Earl Takefman. Motions referred to Christopher J. Burke.(Takefman, Earl) Modified on 6/8/2026 (sam). Modified on 6/8/2026 (sam). |
Filing 110
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Effect Alternative Service (Motion), (D.I. #8 ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) With the Motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to effect alternative service of process upon five of the Defendants identified in the Complaint: Corliss Moore & Associates, LLC, Robert J. Corliss, Sr., Mark Guest, Serengeti Asset Management L.P. (Serengeti), and Paul Sloyan. (D.I. #8 at 1, 3-4, 8; see also D.I. #1 at 11-13, 17, 22); (2) As to Serengeti, the Motion is DENIED as MOOT because, after filing this Motion, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims against that entity. (D.I. #91 ); (3) The Court next addresses Mr. Sloyan, the Chief Executive Officer of Defendant MJM Technology Ltd. (MJM). (D.I. #8 at 8) Plaintiff seeks leave to serve Mr. Sloyan by e-mail sent to Mr. Sloyan directly, by e-mail sent to his legal counsel, and by e-mail sent to the other officer of MJM that is named in this lawsuit. (Id. at 8-10) According to Plaintiff, Mr. Sloyan resides in Monaco. (Id. at 8) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) governs the service of an individual in a foreign country, allowing service in certain listed ways and also by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). The Court is not aware of any international agreements to which Monaco is a signatory that prohibit service via e-mail, so it appears that such e-mail service could be permissible under Rule 4(f)(3). However, any court-ordered method of service must also be reasonable and comport with constitutional notions of due process, in that it must be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise [the defendant] of the pendency of the action and afford [it] an opportunity to present [its] objections. Aircraft Engine Lease Fin., Inc. v. Plus Ultra Lineas Aereas, S.A., 21 Civ. 1758, 2021 WL 6621578, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2021) (citing Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). This Court has granted similar motions for alternative service where a plaintiff has, inter alia: (a) documented its failed efforts to locate and serve the individual foreign defendants in question by more traditional means, and also (b) confirmed via documentary evidence (there, by pointing to sworn testimony of the defendant), that the e-mail address via which plaintiff intended to serve the defendant was an active e-mail address that was actually used recently by that defendant. See Galderma Labys, L.P. v. Medinter US LLC, Civil Action No. 18-cv-1892-JDW-CJB, D.I. 384 (D. Del. Jan. 24, 2023). Here, Plaintiff has not provided the same level of evidentiary detail regarding his efforts to locate Mr. Sloyan as it did regarding the other Defendants implicated by this Motion. (Compare D.I. #8 at 3-4 (citing exs. A-E), with id. at 8-10) But more importantly, Plaintiff has also failed to include sufficiently specific evidence that would help assure the Court that whatever e-mail addresses he is referring to (i.e., those that he states that he has used to communicate with Mr. Sloyan himself, Mr. Sloyans counsel, or the other MJM officer) are in fact reasonably calculated to provide Mr. Sloyan with notice of this action. (In the absence of testimony from Mr. Sloyan in this regard, Plaintiff might provide exhibits that demonstrate recent e-mail correspondence involving those people, in which they use the relevant e-mail addresses, or a sworn affidavit identifying the e-mail addresses at issue and explaining that they have been used successfully in the past.). In the absence of such evidence, Plaintiff has not met his burden here. However, because the assertions made by Plaintiff suggest that he may well be able to provide more specific information in that regard, (e.g., D.I. #8 at 9 (asserting that Mr. Sloyan has [e]ngaged in numerous email and telephonic communications with Plaintiff concerning the very matters at issue in this litigation)), the Court DENIES this portion of the Motion without prejudice to renew it.; (4) Next, the Court will address the Motion as it relates to Mr. Corliss and Mr. Guest, both of whom are individuals that Plaintiff believes reside within the United States. (D.I. #8 at 3-4) Plaintiff is seeking the ability to serve these two people (as well as the remaining Defendant at issue, Corliss Moore & Associates, LLC) by: (a) serving their counsel in a related bankruptcy proceeding, via certified mail and by e-mail, and (b) serving these Defendants by e-mail at their last known business e-mail address. (D.I. #8 at 4, 10) As to Mr. Corliss and Mr. Guest, in the Motion, Plaintiff described his failed efforts to serve the two men at their last known home addresses; Plaintiff also provided robust documentary evidence in support of those statements. (Id. at 3-4 & exs. A-B, E); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2). In addition to attempting service via these routes pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2), under Rule 4(e)(1) plaintiffs are also permitted to serve an individual... in a judicial district of the United States by... following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made[.] Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). However, Plaintiff has not identified any legal authority from Delaware (or any other relevant state) that authorizes service of process on a defendant via e-mail (either sent directly to said defendant or via an individual who has served as their counsel in a different legal matter). Instead, Plaintiff relies on a case where a court allowed service by e-mail for an international defendant, pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3). (D.I. #8 at 5 (citing Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Intl Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2002))) But Rule 4(e) does not offer the same flexibility for service of domestic defendants as Rule 4(f)(3) does for alternative service of international defendants. See Tyson v. Coinbase Glob., Inc., Civil No. 23-22066 (KMW/EAP), 2024 WL 5126766, at *4 (D.N.J. Dec. 16, 2024). Because Plaintiff did not identify any applicable state law permitting service by e-mail or service via a defendants attorney in another matterand because additionally, Plaintiff has not provided the Court with sufficient evidence to demonstrate what e-mail addresses he plans to use and why it is reasonably likely that they will ensure that notice will actually be providedthe Court DENIES this portion of the Motion. It does so again without prejudice to renew.; and (5) Lastly (and relatedly), because the rules for service of process upon domestic corporate entities are similar to those for individuals within the United States, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h), the Motion is also DENIED without prejudice to renew as to Plaintiffs request to serve Defendant Corliss Moore & Associates LLC (a U.S. corporate entity) by e-mail to its last-known business e-mail address and via e-mail and certified mail to its bankruptcy counsel. (D.I. #8 at 3, 6) Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 06/05/2026. **Copy mailed to Pro Se Defendant** (sam)
|
|
Filing 109
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs Second Motion for Scheduling Order (Plaintiffs Motion), (D.I. #81 ), and Defendants Motion for Stay of Discovery (Defendants Motion), (D.I. #82 ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) Plaintiffs Motionvia which Plaintiff asks the Court to (a) schedule a status conference, (b) provide guidance regarding certain pending motions in the case, and (c) enter a scheduling order in the case, (D.I. #81 )is DENIED. As an initial matter, the Court is aware of all motions pending in this case and will resolve them in due course. Further, for the reasons discussed in the Courts March 30, 2026 Order, (see D.I. 68), and because of the threshold legal issues addressed in certain Defendants pending motions to dismiss, (see D.I. #82 at 2-3), the Court sees no need to enter a scheduling order (or to schedule a status conference to address any matters related thereto) at this time.; and (2) Relatedly, and for the reasons set out in Defendants Motion, (D.I. #82 ), the Court GRANTS Defendants Motion staying all discovery in this case until the pending motions to dismiss, (D.I. #22 ; D.I. #74 ), have been resolved. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 06/02/2026. (sam)
|
| Remark: Courtesy copies of D.I. #106 received and placed in file jacket. (slk) |
| Filing 108 Letter to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke from William E. Chipman, Jr. regarding Courtesy Copies - re #107 Answering Brief in Opposition,. (Chipman, William) |
| Remark: Courtesy copies of #99 and #103 were received and placed in file jacket. (jfm) |
| Filing 107 ANSWERING BRIEF in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply to D.I. 90 and D.I. 92 filed by Mark Fox, Ghost Tree Partners, LP, Serengeti Asset Management L.P..Reply Brief due date per Local Rules is 5/29/2026. (Chipman, William) |
| Filing 106 Second SUR-REPLY BRIEF re #95 MOTION for Leave to File a Sur-Reply Brief filed by Earl Takefman. (Takefman, Earl) |
| Filing 105 Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Loren R. Barron, Esquire regarding Courtesy Copies - re #104 Answering Brief in Opposition,. (Barron, Loren) |
| Filing 104 ANSWERING BRIEF in Opposition re #95 MOTION for Leave to File a Sur-Reply Brief Defendants Morris James LLP, Carl Kunz, III and Jeffrey R. Waxmans Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply to D.I. 90 and 92 filed by Carl N. Kunz, III, Morris James LLP, Jeffrey R. Waxman.Reply Brief due date per Local Rules is 5/29/2026. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Text of Proposed Order, #3 Certificate of Service)(Barron, Loren) |
| Remark: Courtesy copies of D.I. #91 , #95 , and #96 were received and placed in the case jacket. (mpb) |
| Filing 103 REPLY BRIEF re #101 MOTION to Set Aside Default filed by Earl Takefman. (Takefman, Earl) |
| Filing 102 DECLARATION of Arran Stewart re #101 MOTION to Set Aside Default - by Arran Stewart. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(scs) |
| Filing 101 MOTION to Set Aside Default (D.I. #84 ) - filed by Arran Stewart. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order, #2 Envelope) Motions referred to Christopher J. Burke. (scs) Modified on 5/18/2026 (mws). |
| Filing 100 ANSWERING BRIEF in Opposition re #86 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Arran Stewart and MJM Tech Limited - filed by Arran Stewart. Reply Brief due date per Local Rules is 5/22/2026. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(scs) |
| Filing 99 Letter to Judges Burke and Connolly from Plaintiff regarding Oral Argument Request by Defendants - re #98 Letter,. (Takefman, Earl) |
| Filing 98 Letter to The Honorable Colm F. Connolly and The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Loren R. Barron, Esquire regarding Request for Oral Argument re: Defendants Morris James, Jeffrey Waxman, and Carl Kunz; and Defendants A.J. Martinez, Ghost Tree Partners, LP, Mark Fox, and Mark Guest Motions to Dismiss - re #92 Reply Brief, #90 Reply Brief,. (Barron, Loren) |
| CORRECTING ENTRY: D.I. 95 has been recoded and the docket text amended to reflect the filing is a motion for leave to file a sur-reply brief and not a brief. Upon review it was determined an incorrect filing code was used in the first instance. The NEF for D.I. #95 has been regenerated. (nms) |
| CORRECTING ENTRY: Upon further review of the courtesy copy of D.I. #86 received on 5/11/2026, an additional page was discovered (see page 63 of the pdf for reference). Therefore, the remark originally entered on 5/11/2026, has been modified to reflect the courtesy copy received with the additional page, and has been assigned docket item number #97 . (mpb) Modified on 5/14/2026 (nms). |
| Filing 96 REPLY BRIEF re #86 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Earl Takefman filed by Earl Takefman. (Takefman, Earl) |
| Filing 95 MOTION for Leave to File a Sur-Rely Brief to D.I. #90 and D.I. #92 - filed by Earl Takefman. Motions referred to Christopher J. Burke. (Takefman, Earl) Modified on 5/15/2026 (nms). Modified on 5/18/2026 (mws). |
| Filing 97 Courtesy copy of D.I. #86 MOTION for Default Judgment with additional page (see page 63 of the PDF) was received. (mpb) Modified on 5/14/2026 (nms). |
| Filing 94 Letter to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke from William E. Chipman, Jr. regarding Courtesy Copies - re #90 Reply Brief,. (Chipman, William) |
| Filing 93 Letter to The Honorable Colm F. Connolly and The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Loren R. Barron, Esquire regarding Courtesy Copies - re #92 Reply Brief. (Barron, Loren) |
| Filing 92 REPLY BRIEF re #74 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter filed by Carl N. Kunz, III, Morris James LLP, Jeffrey R. Waxman. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service)(Barron, Loren) |
| Filing 91 STIPULATION of Dismissal Voluntary Dismissal Serengeti Asset by Earl Takefman. (Takefman, Earl) |
| Filing 90 REPLY BRIEF re #22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter and Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can be Granted filed by A.J. Martinez, Mark Fox, Ghost Tree Partners, LP, Serengeti Asset Management L.P.. (Chipman, William) |
| Filing 89 Letter to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke from William E. Chipman, Jr. regarding Courtesy Copies - re #88 Joinder,. (Chipman, William) |
| Filing 88 JOINDER by A.J. Martinez, Mark Fox, Ghost Tree Partners, LP, Serengeti Asset Management L.P., joining in #82 Motion to Stay, // Purchaser Defendants' Joinder in Defendants' Motion for Stay of Discovery. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service)(Chipman, William) |
| Filing 87 Letter to The Honorable Christophe J. Burke from Loren R. Barron, Esquire regarding Courtesy Copies - re #82 MOTION to Stay. (Barron, Loren) |
| Filing 86 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Arran Stewart and MJM Tech Limited - filed by Earl Takefman. Motions referred to Christopher J. Burke.(Takefman, Earl) Modified on 5/4/2026 (sam). |
| Filing 85 Clerk's ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to MJM Tech Limited. ***Copy sent via U.S. Mail to pro se defendant*** (sam) |
| Filing 84 Clerk's ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to Arran Stewart. ***Copy sent via U.S. Mail to pro se defendant*** (sam) |
|
Filing 83
ORAL ORDER: The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs New Request for Clerks Entry of Default Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) (Motion), (D.I. #60 ), in which Plaintiff requests that the Clerk of Court enter default against Defendants Arran Stewart (Stewart) and MJM Tech Limited (MJM), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. #60 ; D.I. #63 ; D.I. #64 ). The Court hereby ORDERS that the Motion be GRANTED and that the Clerk enter default against these two Defendants. Plaintiff has facially asserted that both Defendants were timely served in the case, (D.I. #12 ; D.I. #13 ; D.I. #56 ), and has also asserted via declaration that neither Defendant has yet filed an Answer or has otherwise defended against the action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a); (D.I. #60 ). Thus, entry of default, at this stage, is proper. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). To the extent that these Defendants believe that they were served improperly, (D.I. #64 at 1), an appropriate way to contest that issue would be for Defendant Stewart and Defendant MJM (via counsel who will have entered an appearance for Defendant MJM) to file a motion to dismiss premised on insufficient service of process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), and to provide evidence and argument in support of such a position. That (or anything approximating it) has not happened in this case. These Defendants may also move to set aside the entry of default in the future, if circumstances warrant (i.e., in light of any meritorious challenge to service, or otherwise). Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 05/01/2026. ***Copy sent via U.S. Mail to pro se defendant*** (sam)
|
| Filing 82 RESPONSIVE BRIEF to D.I. #81 Plaintiff's Motion for Scheduling Order and Defendants' MOTON for Stay of Discovery by Carl N. Kunz, III, Morris James LLP, Jeffrey R. Waxman . (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Scheduling Order and Granting The Morris James Defendants Motion to Stay Discovery, #2 Certificate of Service)(Barron, Loren) Modified on 4/28/2026 (sam). |
| CORRECTING ENTRY: Docket text of D.I. #82 has been modified to reflect title of the document filed with the Court. (sam) |
| Set Briefing Deadlines re D.I. #81 Second MOTION for Scheduling Order - filed by Earl Takefman. Reply Brief due date per Local Rules is 5/5/2026. and ; D.I. #82 RESPONSIVE BRIEF to D.I. 81 Plaintiff's Motion for Scheduling Order and Defendants' MOTION for Stay of Discovery by Carl N. Kunz, III, Morris James LLP, Jeffrey R. Waxman. Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 5/12/2026. (sam) |
| Remark: Courtesy copies of D.I. #8 , #60 , #63 , #69 , #79 , #80 , and #81 were received and placed in the case jacket. (mpb) |
| Set Answering Brief Deadline re #81 Second MOTION for Scheduling Order. Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 4/28/2026. (mws) |
| Filing 81 Second MOTION for Scheduling Order - filed by Earl Takefman. Motions referred to Christopher J. Burke.(Takefman, Earl) |
| Filing 80 First RESPONSE to Motion re #22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter and Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can be Granted filed by Earl Takefman. (Takefman, Earl) |
| Filing 79 First RESPONSE to Motion re #74 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter filed by Earl Takefman. (Takefman, Earl) |
| Filing 78 Letter to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke from William E. Chipman, Jr. regarding Courtesy Copies of Motion to Dismiss, Supporting Declarations of Joseph A. Lansa, III and Adam D. Cole, and Corrected Opening Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss - re #72 Opening Brief in Support, #25 Declaration,, #22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter and Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can be Granted, #24 Declaration,. (Chipman, William) |
| Filing 77 Letter to Judge Burke from Ann M. Kashishian regarding Courtesy copies of Defendants, Morris James, Jeffrey Waxman and Carl Kunz Motion to Dismiss and Opening Brief in Support of their Motion to Dismiss. (Kashishian, Ann) |
| Remark: The parties should follow the Court's Standing Order Regarding Courtesy Copies, a copy of which is found on Judge Burke's portion of the District Court's webpage: #https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/CJBCC2022.pdf (sam) |
| Filing 76 Letter to Judge Connolly from Ann M. Kashishian regarding Courtesy copies of Defendants, Morris James, Jeffrey Waxman and Carl Kunz Motion to Dismiss and Opening Brief in Support of their Motion to Dismiss. (Kashishian, Ann) |
| Set Briefing Schedule: D.I. #22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter and Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can be Granted and D.I. #74 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter . Answering Brief due 4/27/2026. Reply Brief due 5/11/2026. Per D.I. 67 Oral Order. ***Copy sent via U.S. Mail to pro se defendant*** (sam) |
| Filing 75 OPENING BRIEF in Support re #74 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter , #20 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter filed by Carl N. Kunz, III, Morris James LLP, Jeffrey R. Waxman.Answering Brief/Response due date per Order is 4/27/2026. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Certificate of Service)(Kashishian, Ann) Modified on 4/7/2026 (sam). |
| Filing 74 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter - filed by Carl N. Kunz, III, Morris James LLP, Jeffrey R. Waxman. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kashishian, Ann) Motions referred to Judge Christopher J. Burke. Modified on 4/6/2026 (mws). |
| Filing 73 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Purchaser Defendants Corrected Opening Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss by A.J. Martinez, Mark Fox, Ghost Tree Partners, LP, Serengeti Asset Management L.P. re #72 Opening Brief in Support, (Chipman, William) |
| Filing 72 OPENING BRIEF in Support re #22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter and Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can be Granted [CORRECTED] filed by A.J. Martinez, Mark Fox, Ghost Tree Partners, LP, Serengeti Asset Management L.P..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 4/20/2026. (Chipman, William) |
| MOTION REFERRED: #74 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter Motion referred to Christopher J. Burke.(mws) |
|
Filing 71
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the Purchaser Defendants April 1, 2026 letter, (D.I. #70 ), hereby clarifies its prior order, (D.I. 67 ), by ORDERING that, when the Purchaser Defendants re-file the opening brief in connection with their motion to dismiss, it should comply with the requirements laid out in the Courts Local Rule 7.1.3(a) (i.e., at least 12-point font and no more than 20 double-spaced pages). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 04/02/2026. ***Copy sent via U.S. Mail to pro se defendant*** (sam)
|
| Filing 70 Letter to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke from William E. Chipman, Jr. regarding Oral Order, dated March 30, 2026 - re 67 Oral Order. (Chipman, William) Modified on 4/1/2026 (sam). |
| Filing 69 Letter to Judge Burke from Plaintiff regarding Outstanding Motions. (Takefman, Earl) |
|
Filing 68
ORAL ORDER: The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs Motion For Narrow Expedited Discovery (Plaintiffs Motion for Expedited Discovery), (D.I. #6 ), the Morris James Defendants opposition thereto, (D.I. #21 ), Plaintiffs Motion to Expedite Consideration of Plaintiffs Motion for Narrow Expedited Discovery (Plaintiffs Motion to Expedite, and with Plaintiffs Motion for Expedited Discovery, the Motions), (D.I. #29 ), the Morris James Defendants opposition thereto, (D.I. #50 ), and the parties February 18, 2026 letter (February 18 letter), (D.I. #65 ). It has also considered the legal standards for a motion for expedited discovery filed prior to a Rule 26(f) conference, including the three factors that courts typically consider in assessing whether there is good cause to grant such a motion. See Williams v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Civil Action No. 14-1096-LPS-CJB, 2015 WL 184024, at *1-2 (D. Del. Jan. 13, 2015); Kone Corp. v. ThyssenKrupp USA, Inc., Civ. Action No. 11-465-LPS-CJB, 2011 WL 4478477, at *46 (D. Del. Sept. 26, 2011). Having done so, the Court hereby DENIES both Motions for the following reasons: (1) As to the first factor (i.e., the timing and context of the discovery requests), it does not appear that there is any need for exigency with regard to Plaintiffs discovery request. See Williams, 2015 WL 184024, at *2 (noting that this factor favors the moving party in situations where the urgent need for action is clear). For example, it is not as if there is a preliminary injunction motion pending that requires discovery in order to establish an early factual record as to certain issues. See Kone Corp., 2011 WL 4478477, at *7 ([C]ourts have regularly noted that expedited discovery is more likely to be an efficient use of the parties resources when it relates to a pending preliminary injunction hearing[.]); see also Williams, 2015 WL 184024, at *2 (same). Nor is the discovery relevant to the Courts ability to be able to address and resolve the Defendants pending motions to dismiss (which if granted, could otherwise dispose of Plaintiffs entire case against them). (D.I. #50 at 9-10); Park Lawn Corp. v. PlotBox, Inc., Civ. No. 20-1484-RGA, 2021 WL 3490020, at *2 (D. Del. Aug. 9, 2021) (finding the fact that the parties are in the middle of completing briefing on [a motion to dismiss], which, if granted, would dispose of the entire case cuts against granting expedited discovery). Instead, Plaintiffs arguments about why the request should be granted seem to be that the documents he seeks (relating to the transfer of a certain allegedly high-value intellectual property asset) are important or central to the merits of his claimsi.e., that [t]he existenceor non-existenceof [the requested documents] is case-dispositive[.] (D.I. #6 at 2) But in every case, there will be a core set of key documents that are central to the claims; nevertheless, the norm is that discovery does not begin until a Rule 26(f) conference is held and a schedule is in place, neither of which had occurred when the Motions were filed. See Williams, 2015 WL 184024, at *2 (finding that the plaintiffs request for certain discovery, which was premised on the idea that they would like to know more about the facts that were central to their claims, was insufficient to justify discovery under the first factor) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Indeed, neither side appears to be explicitly requesting that the Court set a case schedule at this time, (D.I. #65 at 2), and so the Court will not do so. Moreover, it is not as if Plaintiff needs the documents at issue in order to have a good faith basis to file his Complaint; Plaintiff was already required to have such a basis when he initiated this litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. For all of these reasons, the first factor militates against permitting expedited discovery.; (2) As to the second factor (i.e., the scope and purpose of the requests), what started out as a request for production of only two documents, (D.I. #6 at 1, 4-5), later changed to a request for any executed agreement or instrument transferring the asset referenced in the Corliss Declarationone that might apply to a host of potentially relevant documents, (D.I. #29 at 6). Therefore, because the scope of Plaintiffs requested discovery is unclear, and because it is possible that it might include more than just a few documents, this factor is neutral at best for Plaintiff.; (3) As to the third factor (i.e., the nature of the burden to the respondent), the potential burden is difficult to ascertain at this time, because the scope of relevant documents implicated by Plaintiffs request is not clear. Although Plaintiff believes the documents are readily available[,] (D.I. #6 at 1), or could be produced immediately[,] (id. at 4), as discussed above, the lack of clarity on the likely scope of the request makes it difficult for the Court to determine the reasonableness of the burden on Defendants. See Park Lawn Corp., 2021 WL 3490020 at *2 (finding that being unable to evaluate the scope of the requested expedited discovery means the court was unable to assess the reasonableness of the burden on the responding party).; (4) Finally, as Defendants note, in his briefing, Plaintiff failed to cite any legal authority supporting his request. (D.I. #50 at 6) Only upon submission of the parties February 18 letter did Plaintiff cite to a case in support of his arguments. (D.I. #65 at 2-3) And the key case that Plaintiff cited therein does not appear to exist; at least, the Court could not readily locate it. (See id. at 2-3 (Plaintiff repeatedly citing to Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 2012 WL 5986475, at *2 (D. Del. Nov. 29, 2012))). This might simply be due to a mistake or inadvertent oversight (though parties in federal court should be aware that repeated citation to illegitimate caselaw can amount to a violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, which can subject a party to future sanctions). See McCaster v. United States, No. 24-cv-2027, 2025 WL 2992380, at *4 n.9 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 23, 2025). But in any event, the point is that the Court has been provided with little to no precedent supporting Plaintiffs request.; and (5) With certain of the factors suggesting that denial of the Motions is appropriate, and with no factors supporting the request, the Motions are denied. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 03/30/2026. ***Copy sent via U.S. Mail to pro se defendant*** (sam)
|
|
Filing 67
ORAL ORDER: The Court having reviewed Defendants Morris James LLP, Carl N. Kunz, III, and Jeffrey R. Waxmans (the Morris James Defendants) Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit (Motion for Leave), (D.I. #19 ), the Morris James Defendants Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (the Morris James MTD), (D.I. #20 ), Defendants Serengeti Asset Management, LP, A.J. Martinez, Ghost Tree Partners, LP and Mark Foxs (the Purchaser Defendants) Motion to Dismiss (the Purchaser Defendants MTD) and the opening brief in support thereof, (D.I. #22 ; D.I. #23 ), Plaintiffs Motion for Brief Extension of Time to Respond to Morris James and Purchaser Defendants Pleadings and Motions to Dismiss (Plaintiffs Motion), (D.I. #30 ), and the Morris James Defendants opposition thereto, (D.I. #39 ), hereby notes the following and ORDERS as follows: (1) The Morris James MTD appears to violate our Local Rules, particularly LR 7.1.2 and 7.1.3, in lots of ways (e.g., failing to include many of the requirements of LR 7.1.3(c)(1), and not filing the opening brief separate and apart from the Motion). When the Morris James Defendants comply with this order, they shall ensure that their filings are in accord with all of the Courts Local Rules.; (2) The Motion for Leave is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. While the nature of the Complaint and the number of counts therein may warrant some relief from the 20-page limit on opening briefs as to the Morris James Defendants, the Motion for Leaves request for up to 50 pages of briefing is excessive. By no later than April 6, 2026, the Morris James Defendants shall file a revised opening brief (along with a separately-filed motion to dismiss) that is no more than 30 double-spaced pages.; (3) By no later than April 6, 2026, the Purchaser Defendants shall re-file their motion to dismiss and their opening brief (ensuring that their opening brief is no longer than 20 double-spaced pages).; (4) Plaintiffs Motion is DENIED-IN-PART as MOOT and otherwise DENIED. By no later than April 27, 2026, Plaintiff shall file an answering brief of not more than 30 pages as to the Morris James MTD and a separate answering brief of not more than 20 pages as to the Purchaser Defendants MTD. To the extent Plaintiff requested a different filing regime than this, (D.I. #30 at 2; D.I. #65 at 3), his request is denied, as the Court determines it would not promote efficient use of judicial resources.; and (5) By no later than May 11, 2026, the Morris James Defendants shall file their reply brief, which will not be more than 15 double-spaced pages, and the Purchaser Defendants shall file their reply brief, which will not be more than 10 double-spaced pages. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 03/30/2026. ***Copy sent via U.S. Mail to pro se defendant*** (sam)
|
|
Filing 66
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs motion to conduct all hearings by remote means (Motion), (D.I. #7 ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. #7 ; D.I. #18 ; D.I. #40 ), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is DENIED. With the Motion, Plaintiff moves the Court to now order that any hearing in this matter (other than any trial) be conducted remotely (i.e., either by videoconference or teleconference), unless the Court determines that an in-person hearing is necessary. (D.I. #7 at 1) In other words, the Motion asks that the default rule be that any hearing be remote. There is no reason for the Court to deviate from its typical practice of determining, on a hearing-by-hearing basis, whether any particular court event (such as oral argument on a motion, or a hearing of some other type) should be in person, via videoconference or via teleconference. The Court typically does so based on a consideration of various factors, including the importance of the particular motion at issue, the facts of the case and the parties views on the subject. (D.I. #65 at 4) That said, typically where argument is appropriate on an entirely case-dispositive motion, that argument occurs in person, unless both sides request otherwise. And if an evidentiary hearing of any kind is required where testimony will be taken, then this hearing will almost certainly occur in person, absent some exceptional circumstances. See In re Byjus Alpha, Inc., Case No. 24-10140 (JTD), 2024 WL 3487793, at *5 (D. Del. July 18, 2024); (D.I. #18 at 8-9). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 03/19/2026. ***Copy sent via U.S. Mail to pro se defendant*** (sam)
|
| Filing 65 Joint RESPONSE to D.I. 52 Oral Order filed by Earl Takefman. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Scheduling Order)(Takefman, Earl) Modified on 2/20/2026 (sam). |
| Filing 64 RESPONSE to Motion re #54 CORRECTED REQUEST for Default as to MJM Tech Limited, Arran Stewart - filed by Arran Stewart. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(scs) |
| Filing 63 REPLY to Response to Motion re #60 REQUEST for Default as to Earl Takefman filed by Earl Takefman. (Takefman, Earl) |
| CORRECTING ENTRY: D.I. #63 deleted due to incorrect code used. Plaintiff is advised to refile using the correcting code. (scs) |
|
Filing 62
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff's January 23, 2026 letter, (D.I. #53 ), hereby ORDERS that, to the extent this letter contains a request for the Court to resolve, it is DENIED. At this time, the Court declines to resolve any motions in advance of the parties' meet and confer efforts (apart from those it has already resolved up to this point). That said, the parties are instructed to comply with the Court's January 23, 2026 order meaning that, at a minimum, the parties who have appeared in the case thus far are required meet and confer to address as many of the issues identified therein as possible and then file the required materials by the deadline set by the Court. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 02/05/2026. ***Copy sent via U.S. Mail to pro se defendant*** (sam)
|
|
Filing 61
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff's New Request for Clerk's Entry of Default as to MJM Tech Limited and Arran Stewart ("New Request"), (D.I. #60 ), hereby ORDERS that the previous Corrected Request for Default as to MJM Tech Limited and Arran Stewart ("Corrected Request"), (D.I. #54 ), is DENIED as MOOT. Because the New Request is almost identical to the prior Corrected Request, the Court will not change the deadline for defendants MJM Tech Limited and Arran Stewart to respond. And, if they choose to respond, the Court directs them to file a response to Plaintiff's New Request. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 02/04/2026. ***Copy sent via U.S. Mail to pro se defendant***(sam)
|
| Filing 60 REQUEST for Default as to Earl Takefman - filed by Earl Takefman. Motions referred to Christopher J. Burke.(Takefman, Earl) |
|
Filing 59
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the Corrected Request for Default as to MJM Tech Limited and Arran Stewart and the accompanying declaration, (D.I. #54 ; D.I. #55 ), and identifying that Mr. Stewart has entered his appearance, (see D.I. #42 ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) By no later than February 10, 2026, MJM Tech Limited and Arran Stewart may file a response to the Corrected Request for Default indicating why the Clerk should not issue Default pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).; and (2) If a response is filed, Plaintiff shall had seven (7) days from the filing to further reply. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 02/02/2026. ***Copy sent via U.S. Mail to pro se defendant*** (sam)
|
|
Filing 58
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the Corrected Request for Default as to MJM Tech Limited and Arran Stewart, (D.I. #54 ), hereby ORDERS that the previous Request for Clerk's Entry of Default as to MJM Tech Limited and Arran Stewart, (D.I. #31 ), is DENIED as MOOT. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 02/02/2026. ***Copy sent via U.S. Mail to pro se defendant*** (sam)
|
| Filing 57 Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: No Parents or Affiliates Listed filed by A.J. Martinez, Mark Fox, Ghost Tree Partners, LP, Serengeti Asset Management L.P.. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service)(Chipman, William) |
| CORRECTING ENTRY: The Disclosure Statement filed previously at D.I. 57 has been removed from the docket. Counsel is to refile using the "Disclosure Statement - Rule 7.1" code and add the other affiliates as referenced which will thereby allow any parent company to be appropriately cataloged with CM/ECF. Additionally, pursuant to Local Rule 5.2(b)(1), Counsel shall indicate how service was made on the parties without access to CM/ECF. (sam) |
| Filing 56 CORRECTED Proof of Service for Arran Stewart re #12 Summons Returned Executed - filed by Earl Takefman. (mpb) |
| Filing 55 DECLARATION of Earl Takefman re #54 REQUEST for Default as to MJM Tech Limited, Arran Stewart by Earl Takefman. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(mpb) |
| Filing 54 CORRECTED REQUEST for Default as to MJM Tech Limited, Arran Stewart (re D.I. #14 ) - filed by Earl Takefman. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)Motions referred to Christopher J. Burke.(mpb) |
| Filing 53 Letter MOTION for Scheduling Order - filed by Earl Takefman. Motions referred to Christopher J. Burke.(Takefman, Earl) |
|
Filing 52
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs Motion for Status Conference (Motion), (D.I. #47 ), hereby DENIES that Motion as MOOT in light of this Order, and hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) The parties shall meet and confer regarding the content of a proposed Scheduling Order, and shall submit such a proposed Scheduling Order to the Court no later than 30 days from the date of this Order. The proposed Scheduling Order shall be consistent with Judge Burkes form Rule 16 Scheduling Order Non Patent up through and including paragraph number 10 (i.e., regarding the portions of the case schedule up to but not including the case dispositive motion stage of the case) and consistent with paragraphs 10-19 of Chief Judge Connollys Rule 16 Scheduling Order for Non-Patent Cases (i.e., regarding the portions of the case schedule from the case dispositive motion stage through trial). Both Scheduling Orders can be found on Judge Burkes/Chief Judge Connollys portions of the District Courts website. To the extent that the parties disagree as to portions of the proposed Scheduling Order, they may highlight those disagreements in bolded text in the Order and explain their respective positions in a joint letter, which shall not exceed four (4) single-spaced pages, and shall be filed along with the proposed Scheduling Order. If any party believes that the Court should address the pending motions to dismiss first, before any schedule is set, they may state as such in the letter (and explain their reasons). But even if one or all sides take that view, the parties should still submit the proposed Scheduling Order for the Court to consider, in the event the Court nevertheless decides to enter a schedule.; (2) Entirely too many motions have been filed on this docket already. During their meet and confer efforts, the parties shall discuss each pending motion, and attempt to resolve the disputes set out therein, such that if they succeed, the motion(s) can be denied as moot. That should include attempting to come up with a jointly-agreed upon briefing schedule for the pending motions to dismiss. The parties should report on the outcome of these efforts in their letter.; and (3) After the Court receives these materials, it will schedule a Case Management Conference/Rule 16 Scheduling Conference to be held with Judge Burke to address any and all outstanding issues with respect to the case/case schedule, and other issues identified by the parties during their meet and confer efforts. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 01/23/2026. ***Copy of NEF mailed to Pro Se Defendant*** (sam)
|
| Filing 51 NOTICE of Appearance by Ann Marie Kashishian on behalf of Carl N. Kunz, III, Morris James LLP, Jeffrey R. Waxman (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service)(Kashishian, Ann) |
| Filing 50 ANSWERING BRIEF to D.I. #29 MOTION to Expedite MOTION for Hearing re D.I. #6 MOTION for Discovery < by Carl N. Kunz, III, Morris James LLP, Jeffrey R. Waxman (Attachments: #1 Certification of Word Count, #2 Text of Proposed Order, #3 Certificate of Service)(Barron, Loren) Modified on 1/20/2026 to reflect filing as an answering brief (sam). |
| Filing 49 Plaintiff's Notice Regarding Diversity Jurisdiction and Willingness to Dismiss Serengeti to Preserve Diversity, re #30 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response - filed by Earl Takefman. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(scs) |
|
Filing 48
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff's Motion for Permission to File Documents Electronically ("Motion"), (D.I. #3 ), and finding that the Motion complies with the Court's requirements for extending e-filing privileges to pro se litigants set forth on the Court's website, hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) The Motion is GRANTED for this action only.; and (2) Plaintiff is directed to contact the Clerk's Office Help Desk at (302)573-6170 to set up e-filing access. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 01/20/2026. (sam)
|
| Filing 47 MOTION for Status Conference - filed by Earl Takefman. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) Motions referred to Christopher J. Burke.(scs) |
| Filing 46 Plaintiff's Certification of Diversity Jurisdiction - by Earl Takefman (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(scs) |
| Remark: Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) of Oral Order, (D.I. 48), mailed to pro se parties, Earl Takefman and Arran Stewart. (sam) |
| Remark: D.I. #50 Objections has been recoded as an answering brief to D.I. #29 MOTION to Expedite MOTION for Hearing re D.I. #6 MOTION for Discovery. (Reply Brief due date per Local Rules is 1/27/2026.) (sam) |
| MOTIONS REFERRED: Pending motions at D.I. #3 , #6 , #7 , #8 , #19 , #20 , #22 , #29 , #30 , and #31 referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke per D.I. #43 .(mws) |
| Filing 45 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of (1) Purchaser Defendants Joinder in Arguments Presented in Morris James LLPs Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Narrow Expedited Discovery (Case-Dispositive Document) [Dkt. No. 37]; (2) Purchaser Defendants Joinder in Arguments Presented in Objection of Morris James Defendants to Plaintiffs Motion to Conduct All Hearings by Remote Means [Dkt. No. 40]; (3) Corporate Disclosure Statement Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 [Dkt. No. 41]; and (4) Purchaser Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Brief Extension of Time to Respond to Morris James and Purchaser Defendants Pleadings and Motions to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 44] by A.J. Martinez, Mark Fox, Ghost Tree Partners, LP, Serengeti Asset Management L.P. re #40 Joinder, #41 Disclosure Statement, #37 Joinder, #44 Response to Motion, (Chipman, William) |
| Filing 44 RESPONSE to Motion re #30 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter and Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can be Granted, #20 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdicti filed by A.J. Martinez, Mark Fox, Ghost Tree Partners, LP, Serengeti Asset Management L.P.. (Attachments: #1 Certification of Word Count)(Chipman, William) |
|
Filing 43
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke: It is HEREBY ORDERED that this case is referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke to hear and resolve all pre-trial matters up to and including expert discovery matters (but not including summary judgment motions, Daubert motions, pre-trial motions in limine or the pre-trial conference), subject to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and any further Order of the Court. Signed by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 1/16/2026. ***Copy mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff, Pro Se Defendant*** (kmd) Modified on 1/20/2026 (mws).
|
| Filing 42 NOTICE of of Special Appearance and Reservation of Rights - filed by Arran Stewart. (mpb) |
| Filing 41 Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: No Parents or Affiliates Listed filed by A.J. Martinez, Mark Fox, Ghost Tree Partners, LP, Serengeti Asset Management L.P.. (Chipman, William) |
| Filing 40 JOINDER by A.J. Martinez, Mark Fox, Ghost Tree Partners, LP, Serengeti Asset Management L.P., joining in #18 Objections /Arguments Presented in Objection of Morris James Defendants to Plaintiffs Motion to Conduct All Hearings by Remote Means. (Chipman, William) |
| Filing 39 OBJECTIONS by Carl N. Kunz, III, Morris James LLP, Jeffrey R. Waxman to #30 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter and Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can be Granted, #20 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdicti . (Attachments: #1 Certification of Word Count, #2 Certificate of Service)(Barron, Loren) |
| Filing 38 Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: No Parents or Affiliates Listed filed by Carl N. Kunz, III, Morris James LLP, Jeffrey R. Waxman. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service)(Barron, Loren) |
| Filing 37 JOINDER by A.J. Martinez, Mark Fox, Ghost Tree Partners, LP, Serengeti Asset Management L.P., joining in #21 Response to Motion, Defendant Morris James LLPs Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Narrow Expedited Discovery (Case-Dispositive Document). (Chipman, William) |
| Filing 36 JOINDER by A.J. Martinez, Mark Fox, Ghost Tree Partners, LP, Serengeti Asset Management L.P., joining in #20 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Subject Jurisdiction, . (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service)(Chipman, William) |
| Filing 35 RESPONSE to Motion re #31 REQUEST for Default as to MJM Tech Limited, Arran Stewart filed by A.J. Martinez, Mark Fox, Ghost Tree Partners, LP, Serengeti Asset Management L.P.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - January 12, 2026 Email, #2 Exhibit 2 - January 13, 2026 Email, #3 Text of Proposed Order, #4 Certificate of Service)(Chipman, William) |
| DEFICIENCY NOTICE issued by the Court to Morris James LLP, Serengeti Asset Management L.P., and Ghost Tree Partners, LP: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 (b)(1), A party must: (1) file the disclosure statement with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court. Counsel is requested to supplement the docket with an appropriate Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement(s). (mws) |
| Filing 34 RESPONSE to Motion re #31 REQUEST for Default as to MJM Tech Limited, Arran Stewart Morris James Defendants filed by Carl N. Kunz, III, Morris James LLP, Jeffrey R. Waxman. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order Order Denying Request for Default Judgment)(Barron, Loren) |
| Filing 33 OPENING BRIEF in Support re #22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter and Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can be Granted [CORRECTED] filed by A.J. Martinez, Mark Fox, Ghost Tree Partners, LP, Serengeti Asset Management L.P..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 1/28/2026. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service)(Chipman, William) |
| Filing 32 DECLARATION of Earl Takefman in Support of #31 REQUEST for Clerk's Entry of Default as to MJM Tech Limited, Arran Stewart - filed by Earl Takefman. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(jfm) |
| Filing 31 REQUEST for Clerk's Entry of Default as to MJM Tech Limited, Arran Stewart - filed by Earl Takefman. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(jfm) Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke. |
| Filing 30 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter and Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can be Granted, #20 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter - filed by Earl Takefman. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(jfm) Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke. |
| Filing 29 MOTION to Expedite Consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Narrow Expedited Discovery (D.I. #6 ) and, In the Alternative, for a Status Conference - filed by Earl Takefman. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(jfm) Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke. |
| Filing 28 Letter to The Honorable Colm F. Connolly from Loren R. Barron, Esquire regarding Courtesy Copies - re #19 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages , #21 Response to Motion, #18 Objections, #20 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter . (Barron, Loren) |
| Filing 27 JOINDER by Carl N. Kunz, III, Morris James LLP, Jeffrey R. Waxman, joining in #23 Opening Brief in Support, #20 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Subject Jurisdiction, . (Barron, Loren) |
| Filing 26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of (i) Motion of Defendants Serengeti Asset Management, LP, A.J. Martinez, Ghost Tree Partners, LP and Mark Fox to Dismiss; (ii) Memorandum of Law of Purchaser Defendants in Support of Motion to Dismiss; (iii) Declaration of Adam D. Cole, Esq. in Support of Motion to Dismiss; and (iv) Declaration of Joseph A. Lanasa III in Support of Motion to Dismiss by A.J. Martinez, Mark Fox, Ghost Tree Partners, LP, Serengeti Asset Management L.P. re #23 Opening Brief in Support, #25 Declaration,, #22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter and Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can be Granted, #24 Declaration, (Chipman, William) |
| Filing 25 DECLARATION of Adam D. Cole re #22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter and Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can be Granted by A.J. Martinez, Mark Fox, Ghost Tree Partners, LP, Serengeti Asset Management L.P.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - Sale Order, #2 Exhibit 2 - Affidavit of Service, #3 Exhibit 3 - Affidavit of Service, #4 Exhibit 4 - September 12, 2025 Transcript, #5 Exhibit 5 - September 29, 2025 Transcript, #6 Exhibit 6 - November 25, 2025 Transcript, #7 Exhibit 7 - Order Cancelling Hearing)(Chipman, William) |
| Filing 24 DECLARATION of Joseph A. Lanasa III re #22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter and Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can be Granted by A.J. Martinez, Mark Fox, Ghost Tree Partners, LP, Serengeti Asset Management L.P.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - Annual Report)(Chipman, William) |
| Filing 23 OPENING BRIEF in Support re #22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter and Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can be Granted filed by A.J. Martinez, Mark Fox, Ghost Tree Partners, LP, Serengeti Asset Management L.P..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 1/26/2026. (Chipman, William) |
| Filing 22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter and Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can be Granted - filed by A.J. Martinez, Mark Fox, Ghost Tree Partners, LP, Serengeti Asset Management L.P.. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Chipman, William) Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke. |
| Filing 21 RESPONSE to Motion re #6 MOTION for Discovery Morris James LLP's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Narrow Expedited Discovery (Case-Dispositive Document) filed by Carl N. Kunz, III, Morris James LLP, Jeffrey R. Waxman. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Barron, Loren) (Main Document 21 replaced on 1/12/2026) (slk). (Attachment 2 replaced on 1/12/2026) (slk). |
| Filing 20 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter - filed by Carl N. Kunz, III, Morris James LLP, Jeffrey R. Waxman. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Text of Proposed Order, #8 Certificate of Service)(Barron, Loren) Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke. |
| Filing 19 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages - filed by Carl N. Kunz, III, Morris James LLP, Jeffrey R. Waxman. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order, #2 Certificate of Service)(Barron, Loren) Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke. |
| Filing 18 OBJECTIONS by Carl N. Kunz, III, Morris James LLP, Jeffrey R. Waxman to #7 MOTION to Conduct all Hearings by Remote Means . (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Text of Proposed Order, #3 Certificate of Service)(Barron, Loren) |
| CORRECTING ENTRY: PDF's at D.I. #21 replaced per counsel request. (slk) |
| Filing 17 Summons Issued as to A.J. Martinez on 12/30/2025. (oam) |
| Filing 15 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT of Rule 4 packet. Acknowledgment filed by Earl Takefman. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (slk) |
| Filing 14 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Earl Takefman.Ghost Tree Partners, LP served on 12/23/2025, answer due 1/13/2026. (Attachments: #1 Cover Letter, #2 Envelope)(oam) |
| Filing 16 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Earl Takefman. Mark Fox served on 12/23/2025, answer due 1/13/2026. (Attachments: #1 Cover Letter, #2 Envelope)(oam) |
| Filing 13 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Earl Takefman. MJM Tech Limited served on 12/20/2025, answer due 1/12/2026.#1 Cover Letter, #2 Envelope) (oam). |
| Filing 12 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Earl Takefman. Arran Stewart served on 12/20/2025, answer due 1/12/2026. #1 Cover Letter, #2 Envelope) (oam). |
| Filing 11 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Earl Takefman. Carl N. Kunz, III served on 12/22/2025, answer due 1/12/2026. (Attachments: #1 Cover Letter, #2 Envelope)(oam) |
| Filing 10 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Earl Takefman.Jeffrey R. Waxman served on 12/22/2025, answer due 1/12/2026. (Attachments: #1 Cover Letter, #2 Envelope)(oam) |
| Filing 9 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Earl Takefman.Morris James LLP served on 12/22/2025, answer due 1/12/2026. (Attachments: #1 Cover Letter, #2 Envelope)(oam) |
| Filing 8 MOTION for Leave to Effect Alternative Service Pursuant to Fed.R.CIV.P.4(e),4(h), AND 4(f)(3) - filed by Earl Takefman. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-E, #2 Envelope)(oam) Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke. |
| Filing 7 MOTION to Conduct all Hearings by Remote Means - filed by Earl Takefman. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(oam) Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke. |
| Filing 6 MOTION For Narrow Expedited Discovery (Case-Dispositive Document) - filed by Earl Takefman. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-B, #2 Envelope)(oam) Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke. |
| Case Assigned to Judge Colm F. Connolly. Please include the initials of the Judge (CFC) after the case number on all documents filed. (alb) |
| Filing 5 DEFICIENCY NOTICE by the Court issued to Earl Takefman regarding Summons form submitted for Defendant A.J. Martinez. (scs) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Robert J. Corliss, Sr on 12/16/2025; Corliss Moore & Associates, LLC on 12/16/2025; Mark Fox on 12/16/2025; Ghost Tree Partners, LP on 12/16/2025; Mark Guest on 12/16/2025; Carl N. Kunz, III on 12/16/2025; MJM Tech Limited on 12/16/2025; Morris James LLP on 12/16/2025; Serengeti Asset Management L.P. on 12/16/2025; Paul Sloyan on 12/16/2025; Arran Stewart on 12/16/2025; Jeffrey R. Waxman on 12/16/2025. (Attachments: #1 Summons Issued, #2 Summons Issued, #3 Summons Issued, #4 Summons Issued, #5 Summons Issued, #6 Summons Issued, #7 Summons Issued, #8 Summons Issued, #9 Summons Issued, #10 Summons Issued, #11 Summons Issued)(scs) |
| Remark: Rule 4 Packet with Acknowledgment of Receipt, MAG Packet with Acknowledgment of Receipt, Pro-Se Privacy Notice and Blank Summons mailed to the plaintiff. (scs) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Permission to File Documents Electronically (CM/ECF) - filed by Earl Takefman. (scs) |
| Filing 2 Notice, Consent and Referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (scs) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed Pro Se with Jury Demand against A.J. Martinez, Robert J. Corliss, Sr, Corliss Moore & Associates, LLC, Mark Fox, Ghost Tree Partners, LP, Mark Guest, Carl N. Kunz, III, MJM Tech Limited, Morris James LLP, Serengeti Asset Management L.P., Paul Sloyan, Arran Stewart, Jeffrey R. Waxman (Filing fee $ 405, receipt number 4913) - filed by Earl Takefman. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H, #9 Exhibit I, #10 Exhibit J, #11 Civil Cover Sheet, #12 Envelope)(scs) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Delaware District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
