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

The Word “Include” May Be A Word of Limitation As Opposed to a Word of Enlargement, Depending on the Context

RICO — Pleading Conspiracy — Plaintiffs Must Plausibly Allege That the Defendants Knowingly Joined the RICO Conspiracy — Sparse Allegations of Knowledge of Fraud Due to Participation in a Commercial Transaction Insufficient to State RICO Conspiracy Claim Where Allegations Not Inconsistent with Ordinary Commercial Behavior — While Knowledge May Be Pled “Generally” under Rule 9(b), It Cannot Be Alleged Conclusorily and Must Satisfy the Twiqbal Plausibility Standard

Depositions: Improper to Object to Form to Straightforward Questions (Not Compound, Vague, Leading or Speculative) — Lack of Foundation Objection Improper in 30(b)(6) Deposition — Improper to “Educate” Witness During Breaks of 30(b)(6) Deposition Through Witness Calls to Knowledgeable Corporate Colleagues — Magistrate Judge May Impose Financial Sanctions

Spoliation/Sanctions: “A Party Does Not Spoliate Evidence When, Without Notice Of The Evidence’s Potential Relevance, It Destroys The Evidence According To Its Policy Or In The Normal Course Of Its Business” (Good Quote)

RICO: Fraud on Government Entities Causing Plaintiffs to Pay More for Inmate Calls Actionable on Bridge v. Phoenix Bond Analysis — Fact That Governments Had Separate Injuries As Part of the Scheme (from Reduced Commissions) Irrelevant — Plaintiffs’ Injuries Not Derivative of Governments’ — The Fraud on the Governments Was Not Too Distinct From Plaintiffs’ Injuries But Rather Necessary to Injure Plaintiffs — No Risk of Duplicative Recoveries and No Plaintiff Better Situated to Sue for Plaintiffs’ Injuries

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

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