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 Taken on 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss without Converting It into a Summary Judgment Motion — Newspaper Website — Article Stating Date Official (a Defendant) Appointed to Office

Download PDF

Jones v. Chapman, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96964 (D. Md. July 24, 2015):

This case arises from allegations of police brutality in connection with the untimely death of Tyrone A. West, Sr. ("Mr. West" or the "Decedent") on July 18, 2013.1 Tawanda Jones, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Tyrone A. West, Sr. ("West Estate"); Nashay West; Tyrone West, Jr.; and T.W., a minor child, by Mary Agers, as Guardian and next of friend of T.W., plaintiffs, filed suit against various Baltimore City law enforcement officers, alleging, inter alia, the use of excessive force against the Decedent following a traffic stop that was allegedly unlawful. See ECF 2 ("Complaint").

1. The Decedent was 44 years old at the time of his death. Justin Fenton, "Tyrone West files show passenger's account of death in policy custody," THEBALTIMORESUN(Jan. 23, 2014), http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2014-01-23/news/bs-md-ci-tyrone-west-witness-20140122_1_ tyrone-west-jorge-bernardez-ruiz-kitmore-road.

Tawanda Jones is the sister of the Decedent. ECF 2 ¶ 4, Complaint. Nashay West, Tyrone West, Jr., and T.W. are children of the Decedent. Id. ¶¶ 5-7. They sued Baltimore City Police Officers Nicholas David Chapman; Jorge Omar Bernardez-Ruiz; Matthew Rea Cioffi; Eric Maurice Hinton; Alex Ryan Hashagen; Danielle Angela Lewis; Derrick Dewayne Beasley; and Latreese Nicole [*2]  Lee (collectively, "BPD Officer Defendants"). In addition, plaintiffs sued

Anthony W. Batts, who was Commissioner of the BPD from September 2012 to July 2015.4

4. Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake appointed Commissioner Batts, with the "advice and consent of the Baltimore City Council." ECF 2 ¶ 10, Complaint. Of relevance here, he was appointed in September 2012. Justin Fenton, "Contract approved for new city Police Commissioner Batts," THE BALTIMORESUN(Sept. 12, 2012), http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bs-md-ci-batts-contract-approved-20120912-story.html. But, he was not sworn into office until November 8, 2012. Justin Fenton, "Batts [*3]  formally sworn in as Baltimore police commissioner," THE BALTIMORESUN(Nov. 8, 2012), http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-11-08/news/bs-md-ci-batts-sworn-in-20121108_1_ anthony-w-batts-violent-crime-mayor-stephanie-rawlings-blake.

Mayor Rawlings-Blake fired Batts on July 8, 2015, in the aftermath of the riots that erupted in Baltimore following the death of Freddie Gray, and due to a wave of violence that has plagued the City. See Associated Press, "Baltimore mayor fires police chief in wake of Gray case, spike in violence," WASH. POST(July 8, 2015), http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/baltimore-mayor-fires-police-commissioner-amid-spike-in-violence/2015/07/08/5a419cbc-25ae-11e5-b72c-2b7d516e1e0e_story.html; Yvonne Wenger, "Baltimore Mayor Rawlings-Blake fires Police Commissioner Anthony W. Batts," THE BALTIMORESUN(Jul. 10, 2015), http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-batts-fired-20150708-story.html#page=1.

***

II.  Standard of Review

Batts's Motion is predicated on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A defendant may test the legal sufficiency of a complaint by way of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). McBurney v. Cuccinelli, 616 F.3d 393, 408 (4th Cir. 2010); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion constitutes an assertion by a defendant that, even if the facts alleged by a plaintiff are true, the complaint fails as a matter of law "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

***

Ordinarily, in resolving a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), a court "is not to consider matters outside the pleadings . . . ." Bosiger v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 510 F.3d 442, 450 (4th Cir. 2007); see Clatterbuck v. City of Charlottesville, 708 F.3d 549, 557 (4th Cir. 2013). If a court considers material outside of the pleadings, "the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56," in which case "[a]ll parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). Under certain limited exceptions, however, a court may consider documents beyond the complaint [*22]  without converting the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment. Goldfarb v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, No. 14-1825, 2015 WL 3973598, at *6 (4th Cir. July 1, 2015).

For instance, without converting a motion under Rule 12(d), "a court may properly take judicial notice of 'matters of public record' and other information that, under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, constitute 'adjudicative facts.'"20 Id.; see Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) (stating, that a "court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned"); see also Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007); Katyle v. Penn Nat'l Gaming, Inc., 637 F.3d 462, 466 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 132S. Ct. 115 (2011); Philips v. Pitt County Mem'l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, "[i]t is not uncommon for courts to take judicial notice of factual information found on the world wide web." O'Toole v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 499 F.3d 1218, 1225 (10th Cir. 2007); cf. Jeandron v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Maryland, 510 F. App'x 223, 227 (4th Cir. 2013) (noting that the court may take judicial notice of information on a website, "so long as the web site's authenticity is not in dispute"). However, "these facts [must be] construed in the light most favorable" to the non-movant. Clatterbuck, 708 F.3d at 557.

20" Adjudicative facts are simply the facts of the particular case." Fed. R. Evid. 201 advisory comm. nn.

In resolving the motion to dismiss, I have taken judicial notice of the fact that Batts was sworn into office on November 8, 2012. Justin Fenton, "Batts formally sworn in as Baltimore police commissioner," [*23]  THEBALTIMORESUN(Nov. 8, 2012), http://articles.baltimoresun.com/ 2012-11-08/news/bs-md-ci-batts-sworn-in-20121108_1_anthony-w-batts-violent-crime-mayor-stephanie-rawlings-blake.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Criminal Spoliation Can Be A Due Process Violation — Defendant Must Show That (1) The Evidence Had Exculpatory Value Before It Was Destroyed, (2) Defendant Is Unable to Obtain Comparable Evidence by Reasonable Means, and (3) Bad Faith Failure to Preserve

1) Rule 11 Sanctions: “No First Amendment Exception to a Rule 11 Violation” — “[T]he First Amendment Covers Novel, Nonfrivolous Arguments, But Many Frivolous Arguments Are Also Novel” (Good Quotes) — Frivolous To Continue To Make Rejected Novel Arguments; (2) FRAP 38 Sanctions: District Court In Best Position to Set Sanctions, Attorney’s Fees and Costs

3 Prerequisites for Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions in Second Circuit: (1) Bad Faith, (2) Conduct That Is Entirely Without Color [Thus, An Ill-Motivated Colorable Position Appears to Be Protected in the Second Circuit], and (3) Improper Purpose— “To Gain A Strategic Advantage” Is An Improper Purpose — Due Process Satisfied by Opponent’s Motion and Multiple Court Conferences, After Which Target Was Allowed to Submit Additional Letters

Inherent Power Sanctions — Untimeliness as Laches — Laches Properly Applied to Deny Sanctions Motion — Note Waived Defenses to Laches

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Substantial Justification or Harmless Error (Ninth Circuit Factors) — Erie: When State Supreme Court Has Not Squarely Addressed an Issue, Circuit Must Predict How It Would Rule, Using Intermediate Appellate Decisions, Decisions from Other Jurisdictions, Statutes, Treatises And Restatements for Guidance

(1) Appellate Review of Inherent Power Sanctions (7th Circuit): Factual Findings Reviewed for Clear Error, Choice of Sanction for Abuse of Discretion — 4-Element Test for Reversal; (2) Sanctions and Class Actions: Monetary Sanctions Properly Imposed on Defendants for Improper Communications with Class Members (Represented Parties) — “[I]f The Class And The Class Opponent Are Involved In An Ongoing Business Relationship, Communications From The Class Opponent To The Class May Be Coercive” (Good Quote); (3) Monetary Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger: If Same Fact-Gathering Would Have Been Conducted Absent The Misconduct, No But-For Causation — But Only “Rough Justice” Required, “Not Accountant-Like Precision” (Good Quote) — Once Misconduct Is Clear, Time Spent Ferreting It Out Compensable under Goodyear; (4) Goodyear Did Not Overrule Long-Standing Rule That Courts May Impose Modest Civil Monetary Sanctions to Curb Litigation Abuse; (5) Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Where Sanctioned Attorney Fails to File Notice of Appeal and Lawyer’s Intent to Appeal Not Apparent from Client’s Notice; (5) Rule 11 Improper Purpose — Party May Have Many Purposes for Pursuing Claim — As Long As Claim Is Supported by Good Faith Belief in the Merits, “A Parallel Reason Does Not Violate Rule 11” — To Deny A Motion for Sanctions, The District Court Need Not Address Every Argument: “Arguments Clearly Without Merit Can, And For The Sake Of Judicial Economy Should, Be Passed Over In Silence” (Good Quote); Non-Monetary Sanction on Counsel: Complete Twice The Required Amount Of Professional Responsibility Hours For Her Next Continuing Legal Education Cycle Imposed By The State Bar

(1) Spoliation: Sanctions Are Warranted Only If the Movant Establishes That A Reasonable Trier of Fact Could Find That The Destroyed Evidence Would Support A Claim Or Defense — § 1927 Sanctions: “Courts Often Refuse to Award Sanctions When Both Parties Contributed to the Waste of Judicial Resources” (Good Quote)

No Sanctions Imposed on Counsel Who Submitted A.I.-Generated Phony Cases Without Checking Them in Good Faith on The Mistaken Assumption They Had Been Provided by Highly Respected Co-Counsel Rather Than His Criminally-Convicted, Disbarred Client — No Sanctions on Client Who Had No Access to LEXIS or Westlaw to Check the Phony Cases and Submitted Them in Good Faith: “It Would Have Been Downright Irrational For Him To Provide Fake Cases For [His Lawyer] To Include In The Motion Knowing They Were Fake —

(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

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