Northwest Direct Teleservices, Inc. v. TouchStar Software Corporation et al

Filing 36

ORDER. The court ACCEPTS for filing the Receivers Statement with Respect To Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Limited Entry for Purpose of Contesting Jurisdiction 32 , filed 08/18/2009. The plaintiff S HALL FILE a reply to the Receivers Statement with Respect To Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion fro Preliminary Injunction and Limited Entry for Purpose of Contesting Jurisdiction on or before 1:00 PM on 08/20/2009. The Scheduling Order 29 is AMENDED to the limited extent necessary to facilitate and implement these orders. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 08/19/2009. (sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Action No. 09-cv-01750-REB-BNB NORTHWEST DIRECT TELESERVICES, INC., Plaintiffs, v. TOUCHSTAR SOFTWARE CORPORATION, KAYNE ANDERSON INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, INC., ADAM MICHELIN, Defendants. ORDER REQUIRING REPLY BY PLAINTIFFS Blackburn, J. This matter is before me on the Receiver's Statement with Respect To Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Limited Entry for Purpose of Contesting Jurisdiction [#32]1 filed August 18, 2009. The receiver avers that he was appointed by the District Court, Arapahoe County, Colorado, as the receiver for defendant Touchstar Software Corporation. The receiver has not been named or joined as a party in this case. I approve the filing of the receiver's statement [#32] as a filing by an interested party, and I construe the receiver's statement as a response to the plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order and for preliminary injunction [#21]. Although I cannot require the receiver, a non-party, to appear at the hearing on the plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order and for preliminary injunction, which hearing is set for August 20, 2009, at 3:00 p.m. (MDT), I will accept at that hearing any presentation the receiver may wish to make concerning the receivership and
"[#32]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.
1

the relief sought by the plaintiffs. In my Scheduling Order [#29] entered August 13, 2009, I ordered the plaintiff to file on or before 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, August 19, 2009, a reply to any response to the plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order and for preliminary injunction [#21]. I am uncertain whether or not the plaintiff has construed the receiver's filing as a response. Therefore, I extend the deadline for the plaintiff's filing of a reply to the receiver's response to 1:00 p.m., Thursday, August 20, 2009. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. That the court ACCEPTS for filing the Receiver's Statement with Respect To Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Limited Entry for Purpose of Contesting Jurisdiction [#32], filed August 18, 2009, and construes that filing as a response to the plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order and for preliminary injunction [#21] filed August 13, 2009; 2. That the plaintiff SHALL FILE a reply to the Receiver's Statement with Respect To Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion fro Preliminary Injunction and Limited Entry for Purpose of Contesting Jurisdiction [#32], filed August 18, 2009, on or before 1:00 p.m., Thursday, August 20, 2009; and 3. That my Scheduling Order [#29] entered August 13, 2009, IS AMENDED to the limited extent necessary to facilitate and implement these orders. Dated August 19, 2009, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT:

-2-