Wilson v. Cnty. of Contra Costa, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108246 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2015):
As to the Due Process Claims, Defendants challenge these claims on the merits but also ask the Court, as an alternative to dismissal of these claims, to stay proceedings under the Colorado River doctrine pending the resolution of state court proceedings in Contra Costa Superior Court, Case No. F 14-01120 ("the State Court Proceedings"). Motion at 18-22. Those proceedings, Defendants contend, address the child support obligations that are at the heart of Plaintiff's Due Process Claims in this action. Id.; see also Request for Judicial Notice [*5] "RJN"), Docket No. 39; Baker Decl., Exs. A-D (documents filed in State Court Proceedings); Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice ("Supp. RJN"), Docket No. 42; Baker Supp. Decl., Ex. A (July 9, 2015 Order in State Court Proceedings continuing remainder of July 8, 2015 hearing to November 12, 2015).6
6 Defendants' requests for judicial notice are granted as to the Baker Decl., Exs. A-D and the Baker Supp. Decl., Ex A on the basis that all of these documents are part of the public record in the State Court Proceedings. "Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the Court may take judicial notice of papers filed in other courts." Hott v. City of San Jose, 92 F. Supp. 2d 996, 998 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (citing Burbank--Glendale--Pasadena Airport Auth. v. City of Burbank, 136 F.3d 1360, 1364 (9th Cir.1998)). The Court need not reach the question of whether judicial notice may be taken of the August 7, 2014 email from Linda Linnell to Plaintiff. See RJN ¶ 5 (requesting judicial notice be taken of Linnell Decl., Ex. A). That document is cited in connection with Defendants' assertion that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to the Due Process Claims. See [*6] Motion at 16. As the Court does not reach this issue, it also does not decide whether the August 7, 2014 email is subject to judicial notice.
Share this article: