Currier v. First Magnus Financial Corporation

3:11-cv-00132 | D. Nev. | Oct 7, 2011

Case 3:11-cv-00132-RCJ-VPC Document 32 Filed 10/07/11 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA DAVID CURRIER et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) 3:11-cv-00132-RCJ-VPC vs. ) ) FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL CORP. et al., ) ORDER ) Defendants. ) ) This is a standard foreclosure case involving one property. The Complaint is a MERS- conspiracy type complaint listing nine causes of action. The case is not part of Case No. 2:09- md-02119-JAT in the District of Arizona. The Court denied a motion to remand and granted two motions to dismiss, because default was not in dispute and the foreclosure was statutorily proper based upon the public records adduced. Dated this 7th day of October, 2011.

Defendant Aurora Loan Services, LLC (“Aurora”) has moved for the Court to reconsider. Specifically, Aurora argues that the dismissal order contained a clear error. The error appears in the conclusion paragraph of the order, which incorrectly states that certain claims in the case remain with Judge Teilborg in District of Arizona Case No. 2:09-md-02119-JAT. The present case is not a part of that multidistrict litigation case, and the inclusion of this statement was a clerical error. The Clerk entered judgment and closed the case, as the Court ordered. The Court will therefore grant the present motion as a motion to correct clerical error under Rule 60(a).

Case 3:11-cv-00132-RCJ-VPC Document 32 Filed 10/07/11 Page 2 of 2

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 30) is GRANTED. The sentence beginning with the word “Because” on line 7 of page 4 of the Court’s order of August 23, 2011 (ECF No. 28), and ending on line 11 of the same page, is hereby STRICKEN form the order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 27th day of September, 2011. _____________________________________

ROBERT C. JONES

United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2