Hupp v. San Diego County District Attorney et al

Filing 293

ORDER Granting 292 Defendants County of San Diego and Joseph Cargel's Ex Parte Application to File Answer and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The stay in this matter is lifted; Defendants are instructed to file an Answer and Motion fo r Judgment on the Pleadings within three (3) days of the electronic docketing of this Order; and The Court takes judicial notice of the following documents: Exhibit A: Opinion of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District of California, Divisio n One, Case No. D064053 (The People v. Paul Hupp) filed 1/8/15; and Exhibit B: Docket (Register of Actions) for Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District of California, Division One, Case No. D064053 (The People v. Paul Hupp). Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 8/20/15. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

PAUL HUPP,

13

CASE NO. 12-cv-0492-GPC-JLB
Plaintiff,

14

vs.

15
16

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, et al.

17

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO AND JOSEPH CARGEL’S
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO
FILE ANSWER AND MOTION
FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS
[Dkt. No. 292]

18
19

As the Court has noted in a previous Order filed in this case, (Dkt. No. 289),

20 only the twelfth cause of action remains of the twelve causes of action alleged
21 against the various Defendants in Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”),
22 the current operative complaint (Dkt. No. 64). That cause of action, as alleged
23 against the County of San Diego and Joseph Cargel (“Defendants”) was stayed
24 pending resolution of Plaintiff’s state criminal appeal proceeding pursuant to this
25 Court’s order. (See Dkt. No. 156.) The Court ordered the parties to notify it upon
26 the conclusion of any underlying appeal and to seek leave via ex parte application
27 before filing any further motions. (Dkt. No. 291.)
28 //
-1-

1

In their ex parte application, Defendants now advise the Court that on

2 January 8, 2015, the California Court of Appeal affirmed Plaintiff’s criminal
3 conviction, and that on April 1, 2015, the California Supreme Court denied
4 Plaintiff’s petition for review and that the case was considered “complete” as of
5 April 8, 2015. (Dkt. No. 292.)
6

In support of their ex parte application, Defendants request judicial notice of

7 the following two documents (Dkt. No. 292-1):
8

•

of California, Division One, Case No. D064053 (The People v. Paul

9

Hupp) filed 1/8/15 (Dkt. No. 292-2);

10
11

Exhibit A: Opinion of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District

•

Exhibit B: Docket (Register of Actions) for Court of Appeal, Fourth

12

Appellate District of California, Division One, Case No. D064053 (The

13

People v. Paul Hupp) (Dkt. No. 292-3).

14

A court may take notice of undisputed “matters of public record” subject to

15 judicial notice. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688–89 (9th Cir. 2001)
16 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 201; MGIC Indem. Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 504 (9th
17 Cir. 1986)). Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, a district court may take notice of
18 facts not subject to reasonable dispute that are capable of accurate and ready
19 determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
20 Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); see also Lee, 250 F.3d at 689. Defendants’ two requests for
21 judicial notice are properly noticeable as the documents are matters of public record
22 and are capable of accurate and ready determination. Finding the Opinion of the
23 Court of Appeal and the Docket (Register of Actions) for the state appeal
24 proceeding relevant, the Court takes judicial notice of both documents.
25 //
26 //
27 //
28 //
-2-

1

Since the state court criminal appeal has been completed, the Court hereby

2 issues the following ORDER:
3

1.

The stay of above-captioned matter is hereby LIFTED;

4

2.

Defendants’ ex parte application to file an Answer and Motion for

5

Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED and Defendants are

6

instructed to file an Answer and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

7

within three (3) days of the electronic docketing of this Order; and

8
9

3.

The Court takes judicial notice of the following documents:
a.

Exhibit A: Opinion of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate

10

District of California, Division One, Case No. D064053 (The

11

People v. Paul Hupp) filed 1/8/15; and

12

b.

Exhibit B: Docket (Register of Actions) for Court of Appeal,

13

Fourth Appellate District of California, Division One, Case No.

14

D064053 (The People v. Paul Hupp).

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17 DATED: August 20, 2015
18
19

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-