Central States Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Transportation
Central States Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Lakeville Transportation, Inc.
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:18-cv-01863
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Central States Pension Fund v. Lakeville Transportation, Judge Menendez ordered a 60-day stay and settlement discussions while two lead defendants lacked counsel and faced discovery problems.
All parties were affected by the 60-day stay and settlement-related orders; the deadlines and formal discovery were suspended, while LME, Inc. and Wren Equipment, LLC were especially affected by their lack of counsel and receivership-related discovery difficulties.
What happened
In Central States Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Lakeville Transportation, the court addressed the withdrawal of counsel for LME, Inc. and Wren Equipment, LLC, and their assignment for creditors’ benefit to Alliance Management, LLC.
The court suspended the case’s deadlines and formal discovery because the two defendants lacked lawyers and could not readily provide needed discovery during the receivership. The stay does not prevent the other parties from conducting focused settlement discussions.
Judge Menendez ordered the case stayed for 60 days, required meaningful settlement discussions, and required counsel to send the court a confidential update by November 5, 2019.
The detailed version
- Central States Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Transportation · No. 0:18-cv-01863
- Katherine Menendez
- Sept. 12, 2019
Background
The order followed the withdrawal of counsel for LME, Inc. and Wren Equipment, LLC, and those defendants’ assignment for creditors’ benefit to Alliance Management, LLC. The court held a status conference and asked the parties whether the case should be stayed completely or partially.
Reason for the Stay
The court applied three factors: whether a stay would unfairly harm or disadvantage a party opposing it; whether a stay would simplify the issues and trial; and whether discovery was complete and a trial date had been set. The court found a stay appropriate for at least 60 days for two reasons. First, two lead defendants were unrepresented, and corporations may not represent themselves in federal court. The court stated that, unless they obtained counsel, they would be found in default, which would prevent a ruling on the merits. Second, the two defendants had significant discovery to provide, but the receivership made it difficult for them to provide that discovery, whether treated as defendants or third parties.
The court declined to decide whether the receivership required a stay by law because it found that a stay was appropriate regardless of whether it was legally required or within the court’s discretion.
Order
The court ordered the matter stayed for 60 days. It suspended the deadlines in the pretrial scheduling order and formal discovery. The court separately ordered the parties to engage in meaningful settlement discussions, including specific offers and demands and a sincere effort to resolve the litigation without further expense or court intervention. The court did not order LME, Inc. or Wren Equipment, LLC to participate directly in settlement discussions because they lacked counsel, although it encouraged plaintiffs’ counsel to communicate with the receiver about resolving claims involving those entities.
Counsel for each party had to email the court a confidential update about settlement negotiations by November 5, 2019. The court also planned a telephonic status conference for November 12, 2019, to discuss the next steps.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.