Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Centennial Bank v. Wood, 3:17-cv-226-DPM. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas Number: infdco20171205660 Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 04, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 04, 2017
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . 1. Centennial's motion to transfer funds, N o. 43, is denied without prejudice. The structure created by the Tennessee Chancery Court seems solid, N o. 43 at 18-19. Centennial has made no contrary showing. This Court confirms and orders that no disbursement shall be made by Wood from Bank of America account No. xxxx-5307 without approval of this Court. Wood must provide a copy of this Order to Bank of America, and file notice of hav
More

ORDER

1. Centennial's motion to transfer funds, No. 43, is denied without prejudice. The structure created by the Tennessee Chancery Court seems solid, No. 43 at 18-19. Centennial has made no contrary showing. This Court confirms and orders that no disbursement shall be made by Wood from Bank of America account No. xxxx-5307 without approval of this Court. Wood must provide a copy of this Order to Bank of America, and file notice of having done so, by 15 December 2017.

2. Centennial's amended motion to compel, No. 48, is granted with directions. First, completing the refinancing was Wood's priority. The Court notes that the temporary/limited-purpose trusteeship to accomplish that goal expired in early November. No. 26 at 2. Wood must file a status report by 15 December 2017. The Court appreciates the parties' continued cooperation on those issues. Second, Centennial Bank is entitled to the supplemental information outlined in counsel's 6 November 2017 letter. No. 48 at 42-45. Wood must provide all these supplements by 18 January 2018. This is a hard deadline, though it is sufficiently distant to get past the holidays and overcome the move-related challenges in gathering records.

3. The Court has not issued an Initial Scheduling Order or received a responding Rule 26(f) report. But the circumstances presented eliminate the need for both; the parties are deep in discovery, and there's no good reason to stop the forward momentum. A Final Scheduling Order will issue.

So Ordered.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer