Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Blue Flame Medical Llc’S Motion For

Blue Flame Medical Llc’S Motion For

Date
2022-10-19

Full text

1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

BLUE FLAME MEDICAL LLC,

       Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHAIN BRIDGE BANK, N.A.,

    Defendant-Appellee.

   No. 21-2218 (L)

   No. 21-2219

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

       Third-Party Defendant-Appellant,
v.
CHAIN BRIDGE BANK, N.A.,

            Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.’S OPPOSITION TO
BLUE FLAME MEDICAL LLC’S MOTION FOR
ADDITIONAL ORAL ARGUMENT TIME
Third-Party Defendant-Appellant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMC”)
opposes Blue Flame Medical LLC’s motion for additional oral argument time.  On
October 19, 2022, the Court advised that, “[a]s attorneys for appellants,” JPMC’s
counsel and Blue Flame’s counsel “are generally expected to split 20 minutes of
argument time.”  JPMC proposed to Blue Flame that the 20 minutes of argument
time be split evenly, such that each appellant would have 10 minutes.  Blue Flame
rejected JPMC’s proposal and has filed a motion for additional argument time.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2218      Doc: 63            Filed: 10/24/2022      Pg: 1 of 5

2

Blue Flame’s motion should be denied.  Blue Flame’s appeal and JPMC’s
appeal each present a separate set of distinct legal issues, and those issues have
been extensively briefed.  (Blue Flame’s and JPMC’s separate opening and reply
briefs collectively totaled 36,337 words.)  Blue Flame argues that, absent
additional time, the Court will hear a disproportionate amount of advocacy against
Blue Flame.  That argument is misplaced.  JPMC’s appeal concerns the issue of
indemnification as between JPMC and Chain Bridge—not Blue Flame.  To be
sure, the appellants’ ultimate interests in this case are not aligned, but that should
have no bearing on the matter here.  The arguments presented by JPMC on appeal
concern any indemnification obligation vis-à-vis Chain Bridge alone.  Chain
Bridge, as appellee against JPMC, has the same focus:  any obligations as between
JPMC and Chain Bridge—not Blue Flame.  There is no imbalance or unfairness to
Blue Flame if each appellant is granted the same 10 minutes of argument time, as
JPMC proposed to Blue Flame.
The Court should deny Blue Flame’s motion for additional argument time
and order that Blue Flame and JPMC split evenly the 20 minutes of argument time
afforded to appellants.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2218      Doc: 63            Filed: 10/24/2022      Pg: 2 of 5

3

Dated:  October 24, 2022
Respectfully submitted,
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
     HALE AND DORR LLP

/s/ Alan E. Schoenfeld

Alan E. Schoenfeld
Marissa W. Medine
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY  10007
Tel.: (212) 230-8800
Fax: (212) 230-8888
alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com

Albinas J. Prizgintas
1875 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC  20006
Tel.: (202) 663-6981
Fax: (202) 663-6363
albinas.prizgintas@wilmerhale.com

Margarita Botero
1225 17th Street, Suite 2600
Denver, CO 80202
Tel.: (720) 274-3135
Fax: (720) 274-3133
margarita.botero@wilmerhale.com

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2218      Doc: 63            Filed: 10/24/2022      Pg: 3 of 5

4

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this motion complies with the word limit of Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 27(d)(2)(A) because it contains 278 words.  This motion also
complies with the typeface and type-style requirements of Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure 27(d)(1)(E) and 32(a)(5)-(6) because it was prepared using
Microsoft Word for Office 365 in 14-point Times New Roman font, a
proportionally-spaced typeface.  As permitted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(g)(1), the
undersigned has relied upon the word count feature of this word processing system
in preparing this certificate.
Dated:  October 24, 2022
/s/ Alan E. Schoenfeld

Alan E. Schoenfeld

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2218      Doc: 63            Filed: 10/24/2022      Pg: 4 of 5

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 24th day of October, 2022, I electronically filed
the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit using the appellate CM/ECF system.  Counsel for all parties
to the case are registered CM/ECF users and will be served by the appellate
CM/ECF system.
Dated:  October 24, 2022
/s/ Alan E. Schoenfeld

Alan E. Schoenfeld

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2218      Doc: 63            Filed: 10/24/2022      Pg: 5 of 5

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.ca4.165138.63.0.pdf
Size
128,722 bytes
SHA-256
d81a2046d13f3a93cc4f7d1701ead51d763d434139615f8bc7077f7944740ca6
Our copy
gov.uscourts.ca4.165138.63.0.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top