Frias v. Aetna Life Insurance Company

Filing 30

ORDER Granting 28 Request for Judicial Notice, filed by Aetna Life Insurance Company, Trinet Employee Benefit Insurance Plan. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 10/14/14. (tehlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2014)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 DEANNA FRIAS, Plaintiff, 5 6 7 8 v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 14-cv-03146-TEH ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Defendants. 9 10 On October 6, 2014, Defendants Aetna Life Insurance Company and TriNet United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Employee Benefit Insurance Plan requested (Docket No. 28) the Court to take judicial 12 notice of two facts: 13 1. The distance between the law office of Kantor & Kantor LLP, located at 19839 14 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, California 91324 and the District Court for the Northern 15 District of California located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102 16 is approximately 369 miles. The distance between the law office of Kantor & Kantor LLP, 17 located at the same address as above, and the District Court for the District of Arizona 18 located at 401 W. Washington St., Phoenix, Arizona 85003 is approximately 402 miles. 19 2. United States Courts, Table C-1, U.S. District Courts - Civil Cases Commenced, 20 Terminated, and Pending, During the 12-month Period Ending September 30, 2013, 21 indicates that the Northern District of California had 5,553 cases pending as of September 22 30, 2013, and the District of Arizona had 3,078 cases pending as of September 30, 2013. 23 Federal Rule of Evidence 201 provides the standard for judicial notice of 24 adjudicative facts. According to this Rule, a court may judicially notice “a fact that is not 25 subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court’s 26 territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose 27 accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The scope of noticeable 28 facts includes “court filings and other matters of public record.” Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC 1 v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006). “Moreover, a court may take 2 judicial notice of records and reports of administrative bodies.” Mack v. South Bay Beer 3 Distributors, Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). 4 Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding. Fed. R. Evid. 201(d). 5 The facts that Defendants request the Court to judicially notice are beyond dispute 6 because they can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy 7 cannot reasonably be questioned. The first fact, addressing the distance between Kantor & 8 Kantor LLP’s Northridge office and the District Courthouses of the Northern District of 9 California and the District of Arizona, can be verified through reference to any map. The second fact, addressing the pending caseloads of the Northern District of California and the 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 District of Arizona, can be verified through reference to the Statistical Tables of the United 12 States Courts, provided on the United States Courts’ website and attached to Defendants’ 13 motion. Both sources meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 201. 14 15 Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ request that the Court take judicial notice of the aforementioned facts. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 20 Dated: 10/14/14 _____________________________________ THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?