CBB Response to Mtn for Addl Arg Time

Summary

Appellees Chain Bridge Bank, N.A., John J. Brough, and David M. Evinger (collectively, "Chain Bridge") file a response in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit opposing Blue Flame Medical LLC's motion for additional time for oral argument in the consolidated appeals Nos. 21-2218 (L) and 21-2219. Chain Bridge argues that under Local Rule 34(d) all three parties have the same amount of time: JPMC 10 minutes, Blue Flame 10 minutes, and Chain Bridge 20 minutes to address both appeals. A footnote states that Blue Flame's motion was not submitted "well in advance of the hearing date." If the Court allows additional time for Blue Flame, Chain Bridge requests an equivalent amount. The response is dated October 24, 2022.

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

No. 21-2218 (L), 21-2219
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.
(Caption continued on inside cover)
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia (No. 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD)
RESPONSE TO BLUE FLAME MEDICAL LLC’S MOTION FOR
ADDITIONAL TIME FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

Gary A. Orseck
Matthew M. Madden
KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
 & FRANKEL LLP
2000 K Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 775-4500
Facsimile: (202) 775-4510
gorseck@kramerlevin.com
Counsel for Appellees
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2218      Doc: 64            Filed: 10/24/2022      Pg: 1 of 7

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.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2218      Doc: 64            Filed: 10/24/2022      Pg: 2 of 7

1

Appellees Chain Bridge Bank, N.A., John J. Brough, and David M. Evinger
(collectively, “Chain Bridge”) oppose Appellant Blue Flame Medical LLC’s (“Blue
Flame”) Motion for Additional Time for Oral Argument, because additional time is
unwarranted.
ARGUMENT
Blue Flame asserts that application of Local Rule 34(d) in this appeal will
result in “fundamental unfairness” at oral argument later this week.  The premise of
its argument is that (1) both Defendant-Appellee Chain Bridge and Third-Party-
Appellant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JMPC”) share a common interest in the
failure of Plaintiff-Appellant Blue Flame’s appeal; and (2) under Local Rule 34(d),
Chain Bridge and JPMC are allotted a total of 30 minutes for argument, whereas
Blue Flame is allotted only 10 minutes.
The premise that the prescribed allocation disfavors Blue Flame is without
basis.  Under the Local Rule, all three parties will have the same amount of time to
address the issues raised in the two consolidated appeals.
As to JPMC’s appeal (which challenges the District Court’s ruling that JPMC
is liable to Chain Bridge for indemnification), JPMC will have 10 minutes to present
argument.  As to Blue Flame’s appeal (which challenges the District Court’s entry
of summary judgment disposing of Blue Flame’s claims), Blue Flame will have 10
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2218      Doc: 64            Filed: 10/24/2022      Pg: 3 of 7

2

minutes to present argument.  For its part, Chain Bridge will have 20 minutes to
address both appeals.  There is nothing unfair about that.
Nor is the mere fact that this oral argument covers separate appeals grounds
to enlarge the time for any party.  Local Rule 34(d) provides that “[e]ach side” (not
each party) “is normally allowed 20 minutes, even in consolidated cases.”  Local
Rule 34(d) (emphasis added); see, e.g., SourceAmerica v. Elisabeth Devos, Nos. 19-
1452(L), 19-1514 (4th Cir. 2019) (denying request for additional argument time in
case involving nine different parties, including two plaintiffs-appellees, six
defendants-appellees, and an intervenor-appellant).1

If the Court nevertheless allows additional time for Blue Flame’s argument,
Chain Bridge respectfully requests an equivalent amount of additional time.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Blue Flame’s motion for additional time for oral
argument should be denied.

1 What is more, Blue Flame’s motion was not submitted “well in advance of the
hearing date,” which is now three days away.  See Local Rule 34(d).

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2218      Doc: 64            Filed: 10/24/2022      Pg: 4 of 7

3

Dated: October 24, 2022
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Gary A. Orseck
Gary A. Orseck
Matthew M. Madden
KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
& FRANKEL LLP
2000 K Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 775-4500
Facsimile: (202) 775-4510
gorseck@kramerlevin.com
Counsel for Appellees
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2218      Doc: 64            Filed: 10/24/2022      Pg: 5 of 7

1

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 32(g)(1), this brief complies
with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P. 27(d)(2)(A).
1.
Exclusive of the portions of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f),
this brief contains 367 words.
2.
This brief has been prepared in proportionally spaced typeface using
Microsoft Word for Office 365 in 14-point Times New Roman font.  I have relied
upon the word count feature of this word processing system in preparing this
certificate.

Dated:  October 24, 2022
/s/ Gary A. Orseck

Gary A. Orseck

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2218      Doc: 64            Filed: 10/24/2022      Pg: 6 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 24, 2022, I will electronically file 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/ Gary A. Orseck

Gary A. Orseck

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2218      Doc: 64            Filed: 10/24/2022      Pg: 7 of 7

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.ca4.165138.64.0.pdf

Size

191,789 bytes

SHA-256

e30750a25dd656ed6df2ecad4f0b5c0de382d011605b7e2fa56749c288cc2079

Our copy

gov.uscourts.ca4.165138.64.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)