It has somehow been more than a year since we last discussed the Mavexar cases. But do not be fooled by the calm waters. The Mavexar crab lurks below, ever watchful, and the slightest ripple might rouse it from slumber.

Today's strand in the tale is an abject lesson in the way certain cases can follow you around for years after they've ostensibly died. It comes to us by way of a pro hac motion, of all things. Filed without fanfaire and totally unopposed, one would have expected it to be granted within a day or so.
Things went a little differently in WirelessWerx IP, LLC v. Tracki Inc., C.A. No. 25-799-CFC (D. Del. Oct. 17, 2025) where an unopposed pro hac motion sat dormant for a full 11 days until the Court issued this ominous Oral Order:
So that the Court may properly consider Plaintiff's application for the pro hac admission of William Ramey, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Ramey shall file with the Court no later than October 31, 2025 a sworn declaration in which he (1) identifies all the cases he has participated in or is currently participating in as counsel of record in this District and (2) avers whether he has ever been found by a court or state bar disciplinary body to have violated a rule, order, code, or norm of professional conduct. If Mr. Ramey has been found by a court or state bar disciplinary body to have violated a rule, order, code, or norm of professional conduct, he shall identify in the declaration the court or disciplinary body as the case may be and the date and nature of the finding and he shall submit with the declaration a copy of any order, opinion, or other document issued by the court or state bar disciplinary body in connection with that finding.
This is the first time I've seen an order like this. Me being a reporter (sorta), I looked to see what the lawyer's history was in the district. Unsurprisingly, an old Mavexar case popped up.
Counsel in question represented plaintiffs in a series of cases around the time of the Mavexar hearings, including Missed Call, LLC v. Freshworks Inc., C.A. No. 22-739-CFC. In that case, counsel failed to attend a scheduled in-person hearing. This led Judge Connolly to order a further hearing "to determine whether Mr. Ramey shall be held in contempt or otherwise sanctioned for his failure to comply with this Court's August 25, 2022 order."
You'll be shocked to hear that this hearing went pretty poorly for the counsel in question, as evidenced in the below:
Although you protest that it was not willful, I don't know how to read it any other way. It's undisputed,according to your own testimony, that you received theorder, that you read the order, that the order says you are required to attend in person, and you didn't have any communications with Mr. Chong until the afternoon of August 31st. Sound like you didn't get back to him until the morning of August 31st, and that's sanctionable for you then to just not appear.
Id., D.I. 34 at 28.
Ultimately the court held in abeyance the question of what sanctions to impose. The case was then stayed pending the outcome of the Nimitz appeal.
We are unlikely to know the extent to which the pro hac application and this earlier ruling are connected, but it's certainly a lesson to take to heart. Nothing is truly forgotten in a Court so small as ours. For good or ill, you are seen and you are remembered.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.