New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Noticing Other Court’s Records on 12(b)(6) Motion Doesn’t Convert It to Motion for Summary Judgment — Res Judicata Affirmative Defense Testable on 12(b)(6)

Download PDF

Busby v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44223 (S.D. Ohio April 3, 2015):

Plaintiff alleges that she is the record owner of a residential property at 251 Trumpet Drive, West Carrollton, Ohio, which is her primary home. Id. at PageID 2, ¶¶ 4-5. The Complaint contains a lengthy section labeled Factual Allegations which largely concern a foreclosure action filed by the Reimer Law Firm on behalf of Defendant Bank of America's predecessor in interest and captioned BAC Home Loan Serving L.P. v. Jimmy Busby, et al, on the docket of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas as Case No. 2009 CV 10420 (the "Foreclosure Action"). Id. at PageID 4-16, ¶¶ 17-81.

To flesh out the facts surrounding the Foreclosure Action, the Bank of America Defendants cite public records of the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court in the Foreclosure Action. Public records and government documents, including those available from reliable sources [*4]  on the Internet, are subject to judicial notice. United States ex rel Dingle v. BioPort Corp., 270 F. Supp. 2d 968, 972 (W.D. Mich. 2003). A federal district court is permitted to take judicial notice of another court's website. Graham v. Smith, 292 F. Supp. 2d 153, 155, n.2 (D. Me. 2003); Ward v. Wolfenbarger, 323 F. Supp. 2d 818, 821 (E.D. Mich. 2004).

The Bank of America Defendants bring their Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The purpose of that rule is usually to test the formal sufficiency of a complaint, but it can also be used to raise and litigate an affirmative defense, such as qualified immunity, Levin v. Childers, 101 F.3d 44, 48 (6thCir. 1996), or the statute of limitations, Pierce v. County of Oakland, 652 F.2d 671 (6thCir. 1981); Lundblad v. Celeste, 874 F.2d 1097 (6thCir. 1989). Provided that a res judicata defense is based on the pleadings or matters outside of the pleadings which do not require treating the motion as one for summary judgment, there is no good reason why a res judicata defense cannot be considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. A court may consider public records, matters of which a court may take judicial notice, and letter decisions of governmental agencies without converting the motion into a summary judgment motion. Winget v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 537 F.3d 565, 576 (6thCir. 2008); Wyser-Pratte Mgmt. Co. v. Telxon Corp., 413 F.3d 553, 560 (6thCir. 2005); Jackson v. City of Columbus, 194 F.3d 737 (6th Cir. 1999). Indeed, the defense of res judicata may be raised sua sponte by a court even though it is usually an affirmative defense. Holloway Construction Co. v. Dept. of Labor, 891 F.2d 1211 (6th Cir. 1989), cited favorably in Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995).

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Sanctions Enforcement and Appealability: Failure to Pay Rule 37 Sanctions and Otherwise Comply with Discovery Orders Leads to Dismissal under Rule 41(b) — Second Circuit Factors for Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute or Comply with Court Orders — Belated, Partial Compliance with Orders Does Not Deprive District Court of Discretion to Dismiss Based on Continuing Non-Compliance with Other Aspects of Orders — “Hopelessly Belated Compliance” with Court Orders Not Accorded Great Weight — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal under Rule 41(b) And Are Unreviewable

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice