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

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

Case 2:10-cv-01895-DGC Document 37 Filed 12/29/10 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 -

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.

Case 2:10-cv-01895-DGC Document 37 Filed 12/29/10 Page 2 of 2