Edwards v. Jonas et al

Filing 15

ORDER RE JUDICIAL NOTICE by Hon. William Alsup denying 13 Motion.(whalc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
15

MARK THOMAS EDWARDS,

16
17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiff,

No. C 13-04788 WHA

v.
PATRICIA JONAS,

ORDER RE JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant.
/
While this order is sympathetic to plaintiff’s current circumstances, plaintiff’s request for

22

judicial notice cannot be granted. First, plaintiff requests that “the mysterious check” allegedly

23

sent to him on October 28, 2013, be judicially noticed. The law on judicial notice, however,

24

only allows courts to judicially notice a fact that “is generally known within the trial court’s

25

territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose

26

accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” FRE 201. The accuracy of the mysterious check is

27

at best questionable given that plaintiff does not know who sent the check. Moreover, the check

28

is not relevant to plaintiff’s pending social security appeal. Second, plaintiff states that he left
“his residence to comply with the court order” (Br. at 2). Thus, plaintiff requests “the date of the

1

court issuing [that] order” to be judicially noticed. This Court never issued such an order.

2

Moreover, plaintiff did not specify any other court or court order that compelled him to leave his

3

residence. Therefore, plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is DENIED.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: December 5, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2