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 — Federal Court May Take Judicial Notice of State Court Dockets and Pleadings Available on the Internet

Download PDF

Hall v. CSP-Los Angeles, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72931 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2017):

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable R. Gary Klausner, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 18, 2016, Roderick D. Hall ("Plaintiff"), a prisoner at California State Prison, Los Angeles County ("CSP -- Los Angeles") in Lancaster, California, filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Timothy Lundgren (Psychiatric Technician), J. Rodriquez (Supervisor Psychiatric Technician), and P. Shank (Chief Executive Officer Health Care). (Dkt. 1.) In accordance with the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, the Court screened the complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend. (Dkt. 5.)

On September 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") against Defendant Timothy Lundgren [*2]  in his individual capacity. (Dkt. 6.) On December 5, 2015, Defendant Lundgren filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC (Dkt. 14) and a Notice of Related Case informing the Court that Plaintiff had filed a medical negligence action against Defendant Lundgren in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, arising from the same facts and circumstances that gave rise to his civil rights complaint (the "State Lawsuit") (Dkt. 16). Defendant also filed a Request for Judicial Notice ("RJN") of certain records from the State Lawsuit and Plaintiff's administrative claim proceedings. (Dkt. 15.)1 Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on December 21, 2016. (Dkt. 18.) Plaintiff then filed a notice informing the Court that he had requested the voluntary dismissal of the State Lawsuit, and it was dismissed without prejudice on December 22, 2016. (Dkt. 19 at 2.) Defendant filed a Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition on January 13, 2017. (Dkt. 20.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court now recommends that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED and the entire action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

1   Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201, Defendant asks the Court take judicial notice of the following three records identified as RJN Exhibits A-C: (1) Certification and documents from the Victim Compensation and Government claims Board for Claimant Roderick Hall; (2) Complaint filed by Roderick Hall against Timothy Lundgren, et al., on July 5, 2016 in the State Lawsuit; and (3) [Defendant's] Notice of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed on December 2, 2016 in the State Lawsuit. (Dkt. 15.) Plaintiff does not oppose the RJN. This Court may take judicial notice of records filed in the State Lawsuit. Porter v. Ollison, 620 F.3d 952, 954-55 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that it is proper to take judicial notice of "any state court dockets or pleadings that have been located (including on the Internet)"). The Court, therefore, takes judicial notice of RJN Exhibits A-C as establishing (1) the existence of the State Lawsuit, and (2) the nature of Plaintiff's allegations against Defendant therein. The Court also takes judicial notice of the fact that Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the State Lawsuit in December 2016. (Dkt. 19 at 4.)

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) Electronic Spoliation — Rule 37(e)(2) Dismissal Sanction — Temporal Proximity of Spoliation to Production Due Date = Circumstantial Evidence of Intent; (2) While Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Abuse Of Discretion, Findings Of Fact Related To Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Clear Error; (3) Dismissal under Rule 37(e)(2) Plus Attorney’s Fees under Inherent Power Appropriately Combined [But see 2015 Advisory Committee Note: “New Rule 37(e) … authorizes and specifies measures a court may employ if information that should have been preserved is lost, and specifies the findings necessary to justify these measures. forecloses reliance on inherent authority or state law to determine when certain measures should be used.”]; (4) Compensatory Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger Appropriately Include Fees and Costs Resulting from Attempts to Settle Spoliation Motion

(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)

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