Kelley v. Kanios
- Susan Nelson
- 0:18-cv-00823
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Kelley v. Kanios, Judge Nelson canceled the scheduled status conference because a rehearing petition was pending before the Eighth Circuit.
The plaintiff, Douglas A. Kelley in his capacity as PCI Liquidating Trustee for the PCI Liquidating Trust, and the defendants were affected by cancellation of the scheduled status conference. Plaintiff’s counsel was required to report the Eighth Circuit’s decision on the rehearing petition.
What happened
Kelley v. Kanios involved a scheduled status conference after the Eighth Circuit ruled on consolidated appeals in this matter and a related case. The plaintiff told the court that it had filed a petition asking the Eighth Circuit to rehear the matter en banc, meaning before all active judges who were eligible to participate.
Because that petition was pending, the court canceled the October 20, 2020 status conference. The court did not decide the petition or address the underlying dispute in this order.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson issued the order on October 15, 2020. She directed the plaintiff’s counsel to inform the court of the Eighth Circuit’s decision on the petition.
The detailed version
- Kelley v. Kanios · No. 0:18-cv-00823
- Susan Nelson
- Oct. 15, 2020
Background
The court had scheduled a status conference for October 20, 2020, after the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling on consolidated appeals in this matter and a related matter. Plaintiff’s counsel informed the court that, on October 9, 2020, the plaintiff had filed a petition for rehearing en banc in the Eighth Circuit. A rehearing en banc is a request for review by all eligible active judges of the appellate court.
Ruling
Because the rehearing petition was pending, the court canceled the October 20 status conference. The court ordered plaintiff’s counsel to advise it of the Eighth Circuit’s decision on the petition. This order did not decide the rehearing petition or the underlying dispute.
Effect
The order changed the scheduled case-management event and required a later update from plaintiff’s counsel. It did not state a final resolution of the claims or defenses.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.