Opinion
2:11-cv-02044-RCJ-RJJ
10-18-2012
LUCIAETTA IVEY, Plaintiff, v. JOHN SPILOTRO et al., Defendants
ORDER
This case arises from allegations of legal malpractice and civil conspiracy during the course of prior divorce proceedings. Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6). In the order, the Court rejected nearly all of Defendants' arguments and denied the motions to dismiss. The Court accepted a ripeness argument in part, noting that the measure of damages that Plaintiff could claim were ripe was limited. However, the Court included a line in the order indicating that it intended to grant the motions to dismiss based upon ripeness. Plaintiff has asked the Court to clarify its order. The Court grants the motion, as the inclusion of the challenged line was indeed in error.
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 38) is GRANTED. The order of July 9, 2012 (ECF No. 35) is hereby AMENDED to omit the sentence beginning with the word "Although" on line 10 of page 18 and ending with the word "adjudication" on line 11 of page 18.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge