Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Allstate Insurance Co. v. Osuna

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

December 6, 2013

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
ANTONIO OSUNA; CLAUDIA OSUNA; and MARLA

ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; AND (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO LIFT STAY (ECF No. 7).

JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, District Judge.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Allstate Insurance Company's ("Plaintiff") Motion to Lift Stay. (ECF No. 7.) Also before the Court is Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice ("RJN"). (ECF No. 7-2.) Defendants Antonio Osuna, Claudia Osuna, and Marla "Roe" (collectively, "Defendants") did not respond to the Motion. Having reviewed the Motion and the law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's RJN and GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay.

I. Request for Judicial Notice

Federal Rule of Evidence 201 provides that "[t]he court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." "Judicially noticed facts often consist of matters of public record." Botelho v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 692 F.Supp.2d 1174, 1178 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citations omitted); see also W. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Heflin Corp., 797 F.Supp. 790, 792 (N.D. Cal. 1992). While "a court may take judicial notice of the existence of matters of public record, such as a prior order or decision, " it should not take notice of "the truth of the facts cited therein." Marsh v. Cnty. of San Diego, 432 F.Supp.2d 1035, 1043 (S.D. Cal. 2006).

Plaintiff asks the Court to judicially notice the following three documents: (1) the Judgment in Roe v. Osuna, et al., San Diego Superior Court case no. 37-2012-00091030-CU-PO-CTL (RJN Ex. A, ECF No. 7-3); (2) the Order on Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay in In re Claudia Osuna, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California case no. 12-10304-LT7 ("the Bankruptcy Action") ( Id. Ex. B); and (3) the Order Granting Allstate Insurance Company's Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay in the Bankruptcy Action ( Id. Ex. C). All of these documents are available to the public and are certified and maintained by an official office. Their accuracy cannot therefore be reasonably disputed. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's RJN as to all three documents.

II. Motion to Lift Stay

Defendants failed to file an opposition to the Motion within the time specified by Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2). Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants consent to the Motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c).

Further, the Order Granting Allstate Insurance Company's Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay in the Bankruptcy Action states:

Pursuant to Section 362 of Title 11 of the United States Code, the Court confirms that the automatic stay is inapplicable to Allstate's declaratory relief action against debtor Claudia Osuna, captioned Allstate Ins. Co. V. Osuna, et al., United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:12-cv-01248-JLS-BLM, and that Allstate may immediately resume prosecution of that matter.

(RJN Ex. C, ECF No. 7-3.) Accordingly, the Court finds that the stay in this matter is no longer in effect, and the Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion.

III. Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice and GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.