1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA) 

INC., AND ZTE (TX), INC. 

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-487-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-488-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-489-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-490-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-491-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-492-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-493-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-494-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-495-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-496-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-497-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY 

OPPOSING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER

WSOU filed a one-page motion for leave to file a sur-reply, merely asking for leave to file 

a short response addressing new arguments raised for the first time in Defendants’ reply. 

Defendants filed a five-page brief that consists primarily of sur-sur-reply arguments and 

unwarranted accusations that WSOU’s sur-reply arguments are “vexatious” and sanctionable. 

Defendants strenuously argue that their original § 1404 motions were mooted by WSOU’s 

Amended Complaint. If Defendants’ original § 1404 motions are not moot, WSOU’s motion for 

leave should be granted because WSOU seeks only five pages to address arguments raised for the 

first time Defendants’ reply. In the first paragraph of their response (“Response”), Defendants 

argue WSOU’s motion for leave should be denied because it is allegedly a “waste of judicial 

resources, with unnecessary briefing on a mooted motion to dismiss/transfer.” Resp. at 1. WSOU’s 

proposed sur-reply does not contain any briefing on the merits of a mooted motion to dismiss. 

Rather, it (1) explains why Defendants’ § 1404 motions were not mooted by WSOU’s amended 

complaint and (2) briefly responds to new § 1404 arguments raised for the first time in Defendants’ 

Case 6:20-cv-00491-ADA Document 46 Filed 12/11/20 Page 1 of 3
2

reply. Most of Defendants’ Response does not address WSOU’s motion for leave and instead 

amounts to a sur-sur-reply filed without leave. Given that Defendants took the liberty of filing a 

sur-sur-reply, there can be little reason now to deny WSOU’s motion for leave to file its sur-reply. 

Defendants’ Response accuses WSOU of improper conduct, claiming WSOU’s sur-reply 

is “vexatious” and possibly sanctionable under 18 U.S.C. § 1927. Defendants’ Response also

rudely accuses WSOU of “flip-flopping,” “sloppy briefing,” and taking “bizarre” positions. 

Defendants have made a habit of including these types of ad hominem attacks in their briefs.1

Given that the accusations in Defendants’ Response are directed at the merits of WSOU’s surreply, they are themselves improper. Defendants did not seek or obtain leave to file a sur-sur-reply 

addressing the merits of WSOU’s sur-reply. Defendants Response, which is really a sur-sur-reply 

filled with irrelevant, hyperbolic, and false accusations against WSOU, should be disregarded or 

struck. And while Defendants’ new motions filed after the deadline, now stricken, might be 

considered vexatious, there is nothing vexatious about WSOU’s proposed sur-reply.

Therefore, based on the arguments above, WSOU respectfully requests that its motion for 

leave be granted.

1

In Defendants’ statement supporting their proposed scheduling order, for example, Defendants 

claimed the parties agreed to extend the deadline for all motions to transfer to December 4, 2020 

and accused WSOU of “frankly outrageous” “gamesmanship” for arguing otherwise. -487 Dkt. 44 

at 6. WSOU did not agree to extend the § 1404 deadline. See Exhibit A (being filed only in the -487 

case for efficiency); -487 Dkt. 41 ¶ 6 (motion to extend filed by Defendants admitting WSOU did 

not agree to extend the § 1404 deadline). 

Case 6:20-cv-00491-ADA Document 46 Filed 12/11/20 Page 2 of 3
3

Dated: December 11, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Ryan Loveless

James L. Etheridge

Texas State Bar No. 24059147

Ryan S. Loveless

Texas State Bar No. 24036997

Brett A. Mangrum

Texas State Bar No. 24065671

Travis Lee Richins

Texas State Bar No. 24061296

ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, PLLC

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324

Southlake, Texas 76092

Telephone: (817) 470-7249

Facsimile: (817) 887-5950

Jim@EtheridgeLaw.com

Ryan@EtheridgeLaw.com

Brett@EtheridgeLaw.com

Travis@EtheridgeLaw.com

Mark D. Siegmund

State Bar No. 24117055

mark@waltfairpllc.com

Law Firm of Walt, Fair PLLC.

1508 North Valley Mills Drive

Waco, Texas 76710

Telephone: (254) 772-6400

Facsimile: (254) 772-6432

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on December 11, 2020 a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was 

served upon all counsel of record via the Court’s electronic delivery system under this Court’s 

Local Rules.

/s/ Travis Richins

Travis Richins

Case 6:20-cv-00491-ADA Document 46 Filed 12/11/20 Page 3 of 3