Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Kameli Law x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Securities/Commodities | New York Eastern
Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel
ORDER: The Court approves, as per the attached Order, the 832 motion of Michael I. Goldberg, the Liquidation Receiver to retain the services of Michael T. Carr and Akerman LLP as Counsel to the Liquidation Receiver ("Receiver's Counsel"). The Court finds that the retention of Michael T. Carr and Akerman LLP is consistent with Mr. Goldberg's authority and duties as the Liquidation Receiver, as set forth in the Court's 812 Order appointing him as such. (See Order Appointing Liquidation Receiver, Dkt. 812, ¶ 9(b) (authorizing the Receiver to retain legal counsel to advise on title issues, negotiate and document purchase agreements, manage the closing of title, and address any legal issues arising in connection with the sale of the Subject Properties).) Though Receiver's Counsel has filed a letter clarifying that, contrary to its earlier representation, (see Dkt. 832 at 1), the appointment request is not "unopposed," the Court infers that this means that neither Receiver nor Receiver's Counsel has solicited any party's view on the proposed appointment, not that any party opposes it. (See Dkt. 833.) The Court notes its concern about Receiver Counsel's high hourly rate and reiterates that, under the attached Order, this and all other hourly rates "remain[] subject to the Court's review and approval" and that "[n]othing in th[e] Order approves or allows any particular fee or expense." Moreover, "[w]ithin forty-five (45) days after the end of each calendar quarter, the Liquidation Receiver and Retained Personnel shall apply to the Court for compensation and expense reimbursement[.]" (Order Appointing Liquidation Receiver, Dkt. 812, ¶¶ 27–29.) Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 10/2/2026. (AB)
Other Immigration Actions | Florida Middle
Order
ENDORSED ORDER dismissing without prejudice 22 Amended Complaint and denying without prejudice 23 Motion for Leave, 24 Motion to Seal, and 25 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order for failure to strictly comply with the 10 Standing Order Requiring Disclosure of the Use of Artificial Intelligence and failing to comply with 9 Standing Order Requiring Disclosure of the Use of Artificial Intelligence. The 26 Certificate of Compliance is insufficient because rather than identifying the docket entries to which it pertains, it includes bracketed text: "[insert docket numbers]." After first complying with the Standing Orders, the Amended Complaint and the motions may be re-filed. Signed by Judge Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe on 10/2/2026.
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
Phone
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 UK may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.