de Mol et al v. Grand Canyon Title Agency Incorporated et al

Filing 37

ORDER that Plaintiffs' 36 motion for reconsideration or clarification is granted in part and denied in part as set forth in this order. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/29/10. (ESL)

de Mol et al v. Grand Canyon Title Agency Incorporated et al

Doc. 37

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

M. Theresa de Mol; and Robert G. Turrill II, Plaintiffs, vs. Grand Canyon Title Agency Inc; Phoenix Settlement Services LLC; Empire West Title Agency; Biltmore Bank of Arizona; Lawyers Title of Arizona; and Coppercrest Leveraged Mortgage Fund LLC, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV-10-1895-PHX-DGC ORDER

On December 9, 2010, the Court issued an order (Doc. 23) denying Plaintiffs' motion to correct "falsified docket description and falsified notice of filing" (Doc. 8). Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration or clarification. Doc. 36. The Court will grant the motion to the extent Plaintiffs seek further explanation as to why their motion to correct was denied. The motion will be denied with respect to the request for reconsideration. Plaintiffs asserted in their motion to correct that under the "Nature of Suit" heading, the docket falsely describes this case as "Real Property: Foreclosure," that information listed under the "Cause" and "Jurisdiction" headings is incorrect, and that the notice of filing they received in the mail contains typos and other errors. Doc. 8. As the Court previously explained (Doc. 23 at 1-2), the issues to be litigated in this matter are those raised in the pleadings and other documents properly made part of the record. The purported erroneous

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

docket descriptions and information provided in the notice of filing are therefore immaterial. There is no need to correct or otherwise change docket information in this matter. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration or clarification (Doc. 36) is granted in part and denied in part as set forth in this order. DATED this 29th day of December, 2010.

-2-