Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Spitzer v. Aljoe

United States District Court, N.D. California

June 15, 2016

THOMAS A. SPITZER, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
TRISHA A. ALJOE, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER RE REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Re: Dkt. Nos. 171, 174-75, 177, 179-81

          MARIA-ELENA JAMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION

         Pending before the Court are several requests for judicial notice filed by Plaintiffs Thomas “Leroy” Spitzer and Craig J. Spitzer (“Plaintiffs”). See Dkt. Nos. 171, 174-75, 177, 179. Many of the requests relate to their Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended Complaint, which seeks to bring a previously dismissed named Defendant, J. Benjamin McGrew, back into this action. McGrew objected to Plaintiffs' requests for judicial notice as untimely and otherwise as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial to any disputed issue in this matter. Objs., Dkt. No. 181. Additionally, McGrew points out that Plaintiffs' requests seek to tender documents through the declaration of a person named Tom Jensen, who apparently works in some sort of assistive capacity for Plaintiffs' counsel, but Jensen fails to establish personal knowledge sufficient to adequately authenticate any of the documents attached to Plaintiffs' various requests; thus, McGrew objects to the requests and attached documents on that ground as well. Id. All requests relate to McGrew's alleged misconduct while acting as the receiver for Plaintiffs' property. The Court now considers whether to grant those requests.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b), “[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.” Documents in the public record may be judicially noticed to show, for example, that a judicial proceeding occurred or that a document was filed in another case, but a court may not take judicial notice of findings of facts from another case. Lee v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001). Nor may a court take judicial notice of any matter that is in dispute. Id. at 689-90; see also Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006) (courts “may take judicial notice of court filings and other matters of public record.”); see, e.g., White v. Martel, 601 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2010) (taking notice of docket sheet, proceedings in another habeas case, and state bar records showing disciplinary proceedings against former counsel in deciding if prisoner was entitled to equitable tolling of statute of limitations); but see Ruiz v. City of Santa Maria, 160 F.3d 543, 548 n.13 (9th Cir. 1998) (finding judicial notice is inappropriate where the facts to be noticed were not relevant to the disposition of the issues before the court).

         “[J]udicial notice can be taken at any stage of a proceeding.Metro. Bus. Mgmt., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2424291, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2009), aff’d, 448 F.App'x 677 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted); see Fed. R. Evid. 201(d) (“The court may take judicial notice at any stage of the proceeding.”).

         DISCUSSION

         A. Documents in Dkt. No. 171 and 175

         1. Documents from Eaton v. Parkway Gardens

         Plaintiffs ask the Court to take judicial notice of three filed documents from the case of Eaton v. Parkway Gardens, Case No. FCS041456, Solano County Superior Court: (1) an Order to Show Cause, issued to McGrew, filed December 10, 2015; (2) a Minute Order, dated December 21, 2015, continuing hearing on Order to Show Cause to allow McGrew to appear with his attorneys; and (3) a Minute Order dated January 25, 2016, continuing hearing on order to show cause because McGrew did not appear with his attorneys as ordered. Dkt. No. 171 at 2; Id., Ex. A (the three documents).

         2. Documents from People v. Mayle, et al.

         Plaintiffs ask the Court to take judicial notice of several filed documents from the case of People v. Mayle, et al, Case No. 08F02622, Sacramento County Superior Court:

• Letter dated October 25, 2012 from Judge Allen Summer to McGrew.
• Minute Order, dated May 7, 2013, titled “Order for Receiver Report.”
• Order to Show Cause Re Violation of Court Order (Civ. Proc. Code § 177.5) against McGrew, filed August 7, 2014.
• Minute Order, dated October 29, 2014, titled “Supplemental Report.”
• Minute Order, dated November 21, 2014, titled “Hearing on Final Report.”
• Order to Show Cause Re Violation of Court Order (Civ. Proc. Code § 177.5) against McGrew, filed Nov. 24, 2014.
• Minute Order, dated December 19, 2014, titled “Hearing on Receivership / Removing McGrew / ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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