Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 14, 2025

Compeer Financial, ACA v. Corporate America Lending, Inc.

Judge
Jerry Blackwell
Docket
0:24-cv-01896
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Compeer Financial v. Corporate America Lending, Judge Blackwell granted reappointment and gave Scott Avila 10 days to comply with the receiver-filing statute.

Who this affects

Receiver Scott Avila and his team were reappointed under the existing appointment terms and given a new 10-day period to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 754. The plaintiffs and Defendant consented to the reappointment, and the court found that neither would be prejudiced.

What happened

In Compeer Financial, ACA v. Corporate America Lending, Inc., Receiver Scott Avila asked to be reappointed so the 10-day filing period under federal law could be reset. The motion was unopposed, and both sides consented to reappointment.

The court found good cause and concluded that reappointment was consistent with the purpose of the filing requirement. It also found that neither side would be harmed because both had attended the earlier hearing where the receiver was appointed.

Judge Jerry W. Blackwell granted the motion, reappointed Scott Avila under the same terms as the March 27, 2025 appointment order, and gave the receiver 10 days from April 14, 2025, to comply with the filing requirement.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Compeer Financial, ACA v. Corporate America Lending, Inc. · No. 0:24-cv-01896
Judge
Jerry W. Blackwell
Date
Apr. 14, 2025

Background

Receiver Scott Avila filed an unopposed motion for reappointment to reset the 10-day period under 28 U.S.C. § 754. The opinion states that the receiver had failed to file within the initial 10-day period. Plaintiffs and Defendant consented to reappointment.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Avila had shown good cause for reappointment. It explained that reappointing a receiver after a missed filing deadline was consistent with the purpose of § 754, citing decisions allowing a receiver to be reappointed and given a new 10-day period when the rights of others had not been prejudiced. The court found no prejudice to either side because both had been present at the hearing where the initial appointment was granted.

The court also reminded Avila and his team that the receiver had been appointed as an officer of the court and was expected to comply with all terms of the appointment order.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the Motion to Reappoint Receiver. It REAPPOINTED Scott Avila as receiver under the same terms as the March 27, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver and ordered that he have 10 days from April 14, 2025, to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 754.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.