Zayed v. Associated Bank, N.A.
ORDER denying request for permission to file a motion to reconsider re 52 Letter to Request Permission to File Motion to Reconsider filed by R.J. Zayed (Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 10/21/2013. (PJM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 13-232(DSD/JSM)
R.J. Zayed, in His Capacity
As Court-Appointed Receiver
For The Oxford Global Partners,
LLC, Universal Brokerage FX,
and Other Receiver Entities,
Associated Bank, N.A.,
This matter is before the court upon the request by the
Receiver1 to file a motion to reconsider the court’s September 30,
2013, order dismissing the complaint.
Specifically, the Receiver
requests that the court amend its order to reflect a dismissal
Motions to reconsider require the express permission of the
court and will be granted only upon a showing of “compelling
circumstances.” D. Minn. LR 7.1(j). A motion to reconsider should
not be employed to relitigate old issues but rather to “afford an
opportunity for relief in extraordinary circumstances.”
Selby Superette & Deli v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 838 F. Supp. 1346,
On December 11, 2009, Chief Judge Michael J. Davis appointed
R.J. Zayed as the Receiver for the Receivership Entities. On April
4, 2013, Zayed recused himself from this matter. ECF No. 34, at 1.
Chief Judge Davis authorized Tara Norgard, Brian Hayes and Russell
Rigby “to act on behalf of the Receiver and in his capacity as the
Receiver, with all powers appertaining thereto.” Id. at 3. The
court refers to these individuals collectively as the Receiver.
1348 (D. Minn. 1993).
The court has reviewed the request and the
September 30, 2013, order of the court and finds that no such
compelling circumstances are present. As a result, reconsideration
is not warranted.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
request for permission to file a motion to reconsider [ECF No. 52]
October 21, 2013
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?