Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

ABSOLUTE ACTIVIST VALUE MASTER FUND LIMITED v. DEVINE, 2:16-cv-16-FtM-99CM. (2016)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20160127d51 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jan. 12, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 12, 2016
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court upon sua sponte review of the docket sheet. On December 11, 2015, Isabella Devine and Conrad Homm filed a miscellaneous case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, seeking a protective order and to quash two (2) subpoenas duces tecum served on Collins & Associates by the Plaintiffs in the underlying case Absolute Activist Value Mater Fun
More

ORDER1

This matter comes before the Court upon sua sponte review of the docket sheet. On December 11, 2015, Isabella Devine and Conrad Homm filed a miscellaneous case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, seeking a protective order and to quash two (2) subpoenas duces tecum served on Collins & Associates by the Plaintiffs in the underlying case Absolute Activist Value Mater Fund Limited et. al. v. Susan Devine, 2:15-cv-328-JES-MRM. On January 8, 2016, the case was transferred to this Court by the Northern District of California, however, the case was erroneously opened as a civil case by the Clerk's Office in this District. Therefore, the case is due to be closed and reopened as a miscellaneous case.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE the instant action and REOPEN it as a miscellaneous case.

DONE and ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
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