Case Name: Hugh DOWNS, in his individual capacity and in his capacity as representative of the estate of Joanne Downs, and The Estate of Joanne Downs, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Ruth WESTPHAL and Michael R. Gulmetti, as trustee of Trust #45, jointly and individually, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1996-06-20
Citations: 87 F.3d 202
Docket Number: Nos. 95-2289, 95-2547
Parties: Hugh DOWNS, in his individual capacity and in his capacity as representative of the estate of Joanne Downs, and The Estate of Joanne Downs, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Ruth WESTPHAL and Michael R. Gulmetti, as trustee of Trust #45, jointly and individually, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before MANION, ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER and TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 87
Pages: 202–203

Head Matter:
Hugh DOWNS, in his individual capacity and in his capacity as representative of the estate of Joanne Downs, and The Estate of Joanne Downs, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Ruth WESTPHAL and Michael R. Gulmetti, as trustee of Trust #45, jointly and individually, Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 95-2289, 95-2547.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
June 20, 1996.
Before MANION, ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER and TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Our opinion in this case noted that "Joanne and Hugh Downs sued Ruth Westphal for defamation . over ten years ago in Arizona state court." Downs v. Westphal, 78 F.3d 1252, 1254 (7th Cir.1996). We also emphasized several times that the Arizona judgment was entered only against Ms. Westphal. Nevertheless, at one point we said, "Ruth Westphal and Michael Gulmetti claim that the default judgment entered against them by the Arizona court is invalid." (Emphasis added.) Id. at 1256. The "against them" phrase was erroneous, and we strike it from the opinion. We also deny the petition for rehearing which claims that this mistake, as it pertains to the discussion of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, is the "first and foremost reason" why our opinion is "clearly erroneous." Lastly, no judge in regular service has called for a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc, so that request is denied as well.