Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01895/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01895-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to correct “falsified docket description and falsified

notice of filing” (Doc. 8) and a motion to change venue to the District Court in San Diego

(Doc. 11). The motions will be denied.

Plaintiffs assert that they sued the Maricopa County Clerk of Court Office and the

docket erroneously lists “Maricopa County Superior Court” as a defendant. Doc. 8 at 2.

This issue is moot given that the amended complaint names neither one as a defendant.

Doc. 15. Plaintiffs complain that under the “Nature of Suit” heading, the docket falsely

states “Real Property: Foreclosure.” Doc. 8. at 6. They further complain that information

listed under the “Cause” and “Jurisdiction” headings is incorrect. Id. Finally, Plaintiffs

assert that the notice of filing they received in the mail contains typos and other errors. Id.

at 11-13. The issues to be litigated in this matter are controlled not by any docket description

Case 2:10-cv-01895-DGC Document 23 Filed 12/09/10 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 -

or information provided in the notice of filing, but by the issues raised in the pleadings and

other documents properly made part of the record. Plaintiffs’ motion to correct the docket

and notice of filing (Doc. 8) will be denied.

Plaintiffs seek to have this case transferred to the District Court in San Diego on the

ground that “they do not believe that they can obtain a fair trial in the District Court in

Phoenix or in any other District Court in the state of Arizona.” Doc. 11 at 2. Plaintiffs

present no argument or legal authority in support of the request for a change of venue. If

they do not believe they can obtain a fair trial in this District, they may voluntarily dismiss

this action without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion for change of venue (Doc. 11) will be denied.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to correct falsified docket description and falsified notice of

filing (Doc. 8) is denied.

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to change the venue (Doc. 11) is denied.

DATED this 9th day of December, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01895-DGC Document 23 Filed 12/09/10 Page 2 of 2