From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bradshaw v. Harker

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
Feb 2, 2005
Case No. 2:03CV00714 PGC (D. Utah Feb. 2, 2005)

Opinion

Case No. 2:03CV00714 PGC.

February 2, 2005


ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION


Defendants Winston V. Beard and the law firm of Beard, St. Clair, Gaffney, McNamara Calder PA, have filed a motion for clarification of this court's order dated February 4, 2004. Plaintiffs have objected that the defendants motion is untimely, and not proper under Rule 60(b). The court finds that the motion is proper.

This court did not find any facts in its February 4, 2004 order for any purpose other than resolving the jurisdictional motion then before it. It is clear from the court's order that it was taking its facts from the complaint and in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. The facts were in no way resolved finally, once and for all, for purposes of this litigation. Both sides remained free, during later stages of the litigation, such as a motion for summary judgment, to dispute these facts. Defendants motion for clarification is therefore GRANTED (#29-1).

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Bradshaw v. Harker

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
Feb 2, 2005
Case No. 2:03CV00714 PGC (D. Utah Feb. 2, 2005)
Case details for

Bradshaw v. Harker

Case Details

Full title:DEAN BRADSHAW and CHRISTI BRADSHAW, Plaintiffs, v. LYNN HARKER, PAT…

Court:United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

Date published: Feb 2, 2005

Citations

Case No. 2:03CV00714 PGC (D. Utah Feb. 2, 2005)