Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Trusteeship Created By Lnr Iv, Ltd

United States District Court, Eighth Circuit

May 7, 2013

In the Matter of the Trusteeship Created by LNR IV, Ltd, and LNR CDO IV, Corporation, Relating to the Issuance of Notes In the Original Aggregate Principal Amount of $1, 279, 038, 000

Andrew M. Luger and Erin Sindberg Porter, Greene Espel PLLP, Brian S. Fraser, Daniel L. Stein, and Grace C. Wen, Richards Kibbe & Orbe LLP, Counsel for Morgan Stanley & Co, LLC.

Adrienne C. Baranowicz, Gary F. Eisenberg, and Keith W. Miller, Perkins Coie LLP, Malika Kanodia and Terrence J. Fleming, Lindquist & Vennum PLLP, Todd C. Pearson, Pearson Law Office, Counsel for LNR CDO IV, LLC (f/k/a LNR CDO IV Corporation), LNR Partners, LLC (f/k/a LNR Partners, Inc.), LNR Securities Holdings, LLC, LNR Securities Preferred, LLC, and Diesel Ltd.

ORDER

MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on LNR CDO IV, LLC (f/k/a LNR CDO IV Corporation), LNR Partners, LLC (f/k/a LNR Partners, Inc.), LNR Securities Holdings, LLC, LNR Securities Preferred, LLC, and Diesel Ltd.'s ("the LNR Parties") request to file a motion for reconsideration of this Court's Order dated April 4, 2013 denying the LNR Parties' motion to remand, granting Party In Interest Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC's motion to transfer venue, and transferring the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Local Rules for the District of Minnesota provide that a motion to reconsider can only be filed with the Court's express permission, and then, only "upon a showing of compelling circumstances." L.R. 7.1(j). The district court's decision on a motion for reconsideration rests within its discretion. Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp. , 839 F.2d 407, 413 (8th Cir. 1988).

Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.... Nor should a motion for reconsideration serve as the occasion to tender new legal theories for the first time.

Id. at 414 (citation omitted).

The Court has thoroughly reviewed the parties' submissions and its April 4 Order and concludes that the April 4 Order contains no manifest errors of law or fact.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the LNR Parties' request to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.