Filed: May 07, 2013
Latest Update: May 07, 2013
Summary: 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 transferr
Summary: 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 transferri..
More
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.
