Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01524/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01524-30/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Torts to Land

---

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

Kathy L. Jamieson, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

Lawrence B. Slater, et al.,

Defendants. _________________________________

Monica Jagelski,

Plaintiff,

v.

Kathy Marchant (a.k.a Jamieson),

Defendant.

James Bret Marchant, Oasis Pipeliner,

LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Kathy Jamieson, James Jamieson, and

Kassie Kientz,

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1524-PHX-SMM

No. CV 06-2261-PHX-SMM

No. CV 06-2631-PHX-SMM

(consolidated)

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants Lawrence B. Slater, Sandra G. Slater, and Slater &

Associates, P.C.’s (collectively, “Slater”) Motion for Clarification (Doc. 213). Plaintiff

Kathy Jamieson (“Jamieson”) filed a Response (Doc. 218).

Case 2:06-cv-01524-SMM Document 219 Filed 05/21/10 Page 1 of 3
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 -

On February 20, 2009, Defendants Slater filed a motion for partial summary judgment

(Doc. 133). The Court granted the motion on September 8, 2009, and dismissed Count One

for slander of title against Defendants Slater (Doc. 175). Subsequently, Defendant Monica

Jagelski (“Jagelski”) filed a motion for summary judgment on June 26, 2009 (Doc. 161).

Defendants Slater then filed a joinder to Jagelski’s motion (Doc. 165). On April 1, 2010, the

Court granted Jagelski’s motion and dismissed Counts One, Two, and Three against Jagelski

(Doc. 203). Based upon their joinder with Jagelski’s motion, Defendants Slater request

clarification as to whether the Court’s Order dismissing Counts One, Two, and Three against

Jagleski also dismissed those counts against Defendants Slater. 

Count One already was dismissed as to Defendants Slater when the Court granted

their partial summary judgment motion on September 8, 2009 (Doc. 175). Additionally, in

her response to Jagelski’s summary judgment motion, Jamieson stated that she was

abandoning her claim for abuse of process (Count Three). As a result, Count Three can be

dismissed against Defendants Slater. Therefore, the focus of Defendants Slater’s Motion for

Clarification is Count Two for tortious interference.

In her Response to Defendants Slater’s motion (Doc. 218), Jamieson concedes that

the Court’s past Orders have eliminated Jamieson’s claims against Defendants Slater in this

case. However, Jamieson states that Lawrence Slater will likely be an important witness at

any trial.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Defendants Lawrence B. Slater, Sandra

G. Slater, and Slater & Associates, P.C.’s (collectively, “Slater”) Motion for Clarification

(Doc. 213). Counts One, Two, and Three of Kathy Jamieson’s Amended Complaint (Doc.

12) are dismissed against Defendants Lawrence B. Slater, Sandra G. Slater, and Slater

&Associates, P.C.

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01524-SMM Document 219 Filed 05/21/10 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Lawrence B. Slater, Sandra G. Slater,

and Slater & Associates, P.C. are dismissed from this case. 

DATED this 21st day of May, 2010.

Case 2:06-cv-01524-SMM Document 219 Filed 05/21/10 Page 3 of 3