In the matter of the Trusteeship Created by LNR CDO IV, Ltd, and LNR CDO IV Corporation, Relating to the Issuance of Notes in the Original Aggregate Principal Amount of $1,279,038,000

Filing 67

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the LNR Parties' request to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED 65 . (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 5/7/13. (GRR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
_____________________________________________________________________
In the Matter of the Trusteeship
Created by LNR IV, Ltd, and
LNR CDO IV, Corporation,
Relating to the Issuance of Notes
In the Original Aggregate Principal
Amount of $1,279,038,000

ORDER
Civil File No. 12-2789(MJD/JSM)
_______________________________________________________________________
Andrew M. Luger and Erin Sindberg Porter, Greene Espel PLLP, Brian S. Fraser,
Daniel L. Stein, and Grace C. Wen, Richards Kibbe & Orbe LLP, Counsel for
Morgan Stanley & Co, LLC.
Adrienne C. Baranowicz, Gary F. Eisenberg, and Keith W. Miller, Perkins Coie
LLP, Malika Kanodia and Terrence J. Fleming, Lindquist & Vennum PLLP, Todd
C. Pearson, Pearson Law Office, Counsel for 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.
_______________________________________________________________________
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

1

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.

Dated: May 7, 2013

s/ Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
Chief Judge
United States District Court
2