Court Opinion

ID: 9412678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 14:04:58.11803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:36.851805
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JOSEPH RIAD,                              )
                                          )
                                          )
                 Plaintiff,               )
                                          )
      v.                                  )   C.A. No: S21C-02-032 MHC
                                          )
BRANDYWINE VALLEY SPCA,                   )
Inc., A Delaware Corporation,             )
                                          )
                                          )
                                          )
                  Defendant.              )

                                      ORDER

                               Submitted: July 21, 2023
                               Decided: August 1, 2023

  Upon Consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Reply
                                  Memorandum,
                                    DENIED.

Joseph A. Riad, Pro Se Plaintiff.

Kevin J. Connors, Esquire, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Googin, P.C.,
Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendant.

CONNER, J.
         This 1st day of August 2023, before the Court is Joseph Riad’s (“Plaintiff”)

Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Reply Memorandum. The Court hereby

finds as follows:

      1. This Court issued an Order on July 20, 2023, denying Plaintiff’s Motion for

         Reargument or Alternatively, Partial Relief from Order. The next day the

         Court granted Plaintiff’s local counsel, Heather Long, and Plaintiff’s pro hac

         vice counsel, Richard Schimel’s Motions to Withdraw as counsel.

      2. That same day, July 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a pro se Motion for Leave to

         File Supplemental Reply Memorandum. Although filed pro se, this Motion

         was prepared by Plaintiff’s pro hac vice counsel, Richard Schimel and

         Mickala Rector.1 No Delaware counsel remains associated with the case. As

         such, any further filings prepared by out of state counsel and filed pro se will

         be sent to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for appropriate action.

      3. The purpose of the supplemental memorandum was to correct the Court’s

         Order from July 20, 2023, that supposedly contained an incomplete record.2

      4. The Court reviewed the Motion and attached memorandum. No new

         information was presented in the memorandum that would alter any of the

         Court’s previous decisions. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File

1
    Pl. Mot. for Leave to File Supplemental Reply Mem. ¶ 2.
2
    Id. ¶ 3.
                                                1
       Supplemental Reply Memorandum is DENIED and the Court’s Order, dated

       July 20, 2023, stands.

       IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                         /s/ Mark H. Conner
                                         Mark H. Conner, Judge

cc: Prothonotary

                                     2