Fernandes v. TW Telecom Holdings,, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22033 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2016):
Defendant TW Telecom Holdings, Inc. ("Defendant") seeks dismissal of Plaintiff Andrew Fernandes's ("Plaintiff's") Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6). Plaintiff's Complaint alleges the following causes of action: 1) violation of California Labor Code section 1050; 2) intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations; 3) fraud and negligent misrepresentation; and 4) promissory estoppel. (Pl.'s V. Compl. for Damages ("Compl.") Ex. A, ECF No. 1.) Defendant argues that the claims included in Plaintiff's Complaint are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Specifically, Defendant contends: "Plaintiff has already had his day in court against [Defendant] -- he is not entitled two -- and this Court should therefore put this controversy to rest by dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint without leave to amend." (Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss ("Mot") 1:16-18, ECF No. 10.) Alternatively, [*2] Defendant argues that "Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed because each cause of action fails to state a claim." (Id. 1:18-19.) For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff is precluded from alleging claims based upon Defendant's failure to re-hire Plaintiff; Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to the remainder of Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff is given LEAVE TO AMEND the deficiencies in his Complaint.
Exhibit G is an email from Plaintiff's counsel in the Prior [*8] Action. Defendant contends that "[p]rior courts have . . . taken judicial notice of emails, letters, and other forms of communication whose authenticity is not disputed." (Def.'s RJN 2:22-24.) Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b) permits a court to take judicial notice of matters that are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant's request for judicial notice of Exhibit G and therefore does not dispute the accuracy or relevancy of this email. Therefore, judicial notice is taken of Exhibit G. See Perkins v. Linkedin Corp., 53 F.Supp.3d 1222, 1242 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (taking judicial notice of an uncontested screenshot of an email).
Share this article: