Ivey v Spilotro, et al

Filing 39

ORDER Granting 38 Motion for Clarification of 35 Order. The order of July 9, 2012 35 is hereby AMENDED to omit the sentence beginning with the word Although on line 10 of page 18 and ending with the word adjudication on line 11 of page 18. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 10/18/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

______________________________________
)
)
LUCIAETTA IVEY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JOHN SPILOTRO et al.,
)
)
Defendants
)
)

2:11-cv-02044-RCJ-RJJ
ORDER

12
This case arises from allegations of legal malpractice and civil conspiracy during the

13
14

course of prior divorce proceedings. Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

15

9(b), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6). In the order, the Court rejected nearly all of Defendants’ arguments

16

and denied the motions to dismiss. The Court accepted a ripeness argument in part, noting that

17

the measure of damages that Plaintiff could claim were ripe was limited. However, the Court

18

included a line in the order indicating that it intended to grant the motions to dismiss based upon

19

ripeness. Plaintiff has asked the Court to clarify its order. The Court grants the motion, as the

20

inclusion of the challenged line was indeed in error.

21

//

22

///

23

///

24
25

1 of 2

1
2

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 38) is

3

GRANTED. The order of July 9, 2012 (ECF No. 35) is hereby AMENDED to omit the sentence

4

beginning with the word “Although” on line 10 of page 18 and ending with the word

5

“adjudication” on line 11 of page 18.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

DATED: 18th 10th dayOctober, 2012.
This day of of October, 2012.

8
9
10

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

11

________________________________

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

2 of 2