Opposed Motion for Five Additional Minutes of Oral Argument Time — Blue Flame Medical LLC (No. 21-2218)

Summary

Opposed motion in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 21-2218 (L) and No. 21-2219 (USCA4 Appeal: 21-2218 Doc: 62 Filed: 10/24/2022), in which Plaintiff-Appellant Blue Flame Medical LLC asks for five additional minutes of oral argument time. It states that Appellant JPMorgan Chase Bank (JPMC) and Appellee Chain Bridge Bank oppose the motion, and that allocating ten minutes to Blue Flame and ten minutes to JPMC leaves Blue Flame with ten minutes while parties opposing Blue Flame on the merits have thirty minutes. It states that Blue Flame proposed to enlarge its argument time by only five minutes, for a total of fifteen minutes, and that both other parties declined.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Blue Flame Medical LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Chain Bridge Bank, N.A.,
Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee,
John J. Brough; David M. Evinger,
Defendants-Appellees,
v.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
Third-Party Defendant.

No. 21-2218 (L)
(1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD)

Blue Flame Medical LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Chain Bridge Bank, N.A.,
Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee,
John J. Brough; David M. Evinger,
Defendants,
v.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-2219
(1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD)

OPPOSED MOTION FOR FIVE ADDITIONAL MINUTES OF ORAL
ARGUMENT TIME FOR APPELLANT BLUE FLAME MEDICAL LLC
Responding to the Court’s October 19, 2022 Notice, Dkt. 61, and pursuant to
Local Rule 34(d), Plaintiff-Appellant Blue Flame Medical LLC respectfully moves
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2218      Doc: 62            Filed: 10/24/2022      Pg: 1 of 6

2

this Court for five additional minutes of argument time.  Both Appellant JPMorgan
Chase Bank (JPMC) and Appellee Chain Bridge Bank oppose this motion.
The interests of the two appellants in this matter are squarely opposed with
respect to plaintiff-appellant Blue Flame’s appeal, but not with respect to appellant
JPMC’s.  That is because it is important to JPMC that Blue Flame lose on its merits
arguments in its case against Chain Bridge Bank (for which JPMC currently owes,
and faces an ongoing risk of owing, indemnity), while Blue Flame has essentially no
interest in whether JPMC or Chain Bridge Bank ultimately prevails in their fight
apportioning liability as between them.  As a result, dividing argument time among
the appellants here by allocating ten minutes to Blue Flame and ten minutes to JPMC
leads to a fundamental unfairness:  Blue Flame has ten minutes to present its argu-
ments, and parties opposing Blue Flame on the merits have thirty minutes to present
theirs.
In order to better balance the allotted time, Blue Flame proposed to enlarge its
argument time by only five minutes—for a total of fifteen minutes—and also invited
both other parties to offer additional proposals.  Both parties declined, and JPMC
insisted that it would not agree to any proposal other than to give appellants each ten
minutes with no enlargements whatsoever.
Granting the additional time would not only result in a fairer allocation among
the parties but would also assist the Court in its resolution of the complex legal issues
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2218      Doc: 62            Filed: 10/24/2022      Pg: 2 of 6

3

underlying this case.  Appellant Blue Flame filed a full opening and reply brief to
address its claims and contentions, which represent the core merits issues in this
complex case.  Among those issues are questions of first impression in the U.S.
Courts of Appeals regarding the proper interpretation of Regulation J, which estab-
lishes critical, nationwide rules regarding wire transfers.  Accordingly, appellees’
response brief was devoted disproportionately to addressing Blue Flame’s claims
rather than JPMC’s arguments respecting indemnity.  Providing only ten minutes of
time to Blue Flame is thus likely to leave insufficient opportunity for it to address
the Court’s questions and appellees’ positions on all the matters raised in its appeal.
And that is particularly so because Blue Flame must reserve adequate time on rebut-
tal to address as much of the other opposing parties’ thirty minutes as they choose
to devote to the issues presented by Blue Flame’s central appeal on the merits, as
opposed to the side issue presented by JPMC.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2218      Doc: 62            Filed: 10/24/2022      Pg: 3 of 6

4

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Blue Flame Medical LLC respectfully requests that
the Court grant its motion for five additional minutes of oral argument time.

October 24, 2022
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Eric F. Citron

Eric F. Citron
Kathleen Foley
GOLDSTEIN & RUSSELL, P.C.
7475 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 850
Bethesda, MD 20814
(202) 362-0636
Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant
Blue Flame Medical LLC

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2218      Doc: 62            Filed: 10/24/2022      Pg: 4 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
In accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32(g)(1), the undersigned certifies that this
motion complies with the type-volume limit of Fed. R. App. P. 27(d)(2) because this
motion contains 475 words, excluding the parts of the motion exempted by Fed.
R. App. P. 32(f).
This motion complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App.
P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P 32(a)(6) because this
document has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft
Word 2016, Times New Roman, 14-pt font.

/s/ Eric F. Citron

October 24, 2022

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2218      Doc: 62            Filed: 10/24/2022      Pg: 5 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the
Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit by using the
appellate CM/ECF system on October 24, 2022.  All participants in the case are
registered CM/ECF users and service will be accomplished by the appellate
CM/ECF system.

/s/ Eric F. Citron

October 24, 2022

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2218      Doc: 62            Filed: 10/24/2022      Pg: 6 of 6

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.ca4.165138.62.0.pdf

Size

138,346 bytes

SHA-256

7ac67f89316c638a50252ff9398546ff122314744491baa7cd46c1b96279d0b8

Our copy

gov.uscourts.ca4.165138.62.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)