25 Jan 2010

Akanthos, Whitebox v. Compucredit: Noteholders v. Shareholders (Follow-Up)



Updating a previous post regarding a Holiday fire-drill thanks to plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and expedited discovery, the ”emergency” motion was denied by Judge Rosenbaum on 12/29.

Plaintiffs keep up the pressure with a motion for immediate discovery (not awaiting the Rule 26(f) scheduling conference).  One wonders if there might have been a means to cast the case as “non-diverse,” thus putting the case in Minnesota state court, possibly without means to remove to federal court.  (In Minnesota state court, there is no such bar to discovery at the outset of a case.)

Subscribe to Comments

One Response to “Akanthos, Whitebox v. Compucredit: Noteholders v. Shareholders (Follow-Up)”

  1. [...] were rebuffed and, at the end of last week, rebuffed [...]

     

    Minnesota Litigator | Blog Archive » Akanthos, Whitebox v. CompuCredit, Following up on Follow-Up: Plaintiffs’ Sense of Urgency Not Shared

    February 26th, 2010 at 2:22 pmpermalink

Leave a Comment

Message:

  • Browse

    or

  • Sponsored Links

    Shepherd Data Services. Bred for Technology.
    Ikon. Document Efficiency at work.

  • Categories

    • DISCLAIMER

    Posts on this website have been written and displayed for informational purposes only, and are not legal advice. Additionally, posts reflect the personal opinions of the author, and are not the views of any past or present employer or institution with which the author may be affiliated. This information is not intended to create an attorney-client or similar relationship. Please do not post or send any confidential information here. Whether you need legal services and which lawyer you select are important decisions that should not be based solely upon the information offered on this website.