Opinion ID: 221459
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Attorney Dilk

Text: In response to Dilk's motion to dismiss, the Crawfords clarified which nine claims implicated their erstwhile attorney. The district court evaluated each claim in detail and correctly noted that it did not need to accept as true the Crawfords' conclusory allegations that constituted mere threadbare recitals of the elements of their myriad claims. See Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. It discussed each claim in detail and ultimately concluded that [e]ach and every one of the nine claims the Crawfords now clarify they assert against Dilk is . . . nothing more than captious and meritless. Crawford, 2010 WL 597942, at . On appeal, the Crawfords again do not address the district court's reasoning on any individual claim. Rather, they argue that their complaint set forth a claim against their former attorney for breaching a contract of which they were the intended beneficiaries (though they do not identify the contract at issue). Dilk's abortive representation of them in the state foreclosure action, they allege, led to the default judgment of foreclosure and to the litany of harms that followed. They therefore argue that Dilk was on notice that his alleged failures contributed to the civil rights violations suffered by the Crawfords. (Appellants' Br. at 16.) Because these statements neither address nor undermine the district court's analysis, we see no indication of error in its granting Dilk's motion to dismiss. [8]