Amegy Bank National Association v. DB Private Wealth Mortgage, Ltd., et al

Filing 106

ORDER granting 91 Defendants' Motion Requesting Judicial Notice. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 1/23/2014. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
AMEGY BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:12-cv-243-FtM-38UAM

DB PRIVATE WEALTH
MORTGAGE, LTD. and DEUTSCHE
BANK ALEX.BROWN,
Defendants.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion Requesting Judicial
Notice (Doc. #91) filed on November 14, 2013. Defendants request that the Court take
judicial notice of amended motions for summary judgment filed in matters within the 164th
Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas “to establish the fact of the parallel litigation
by which Amegy seeks to recover damages in the amount of $9,798,174.59 plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorney’s fees against Host Hotels & Resorts,
L.P. and Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc.” (Doc. #90, Doc. #91-1, Doc. #91-2). Pursuant to
Local Rule 3.01(g), Defendants conferred with Plaintiff and Plaintiff indicated it opposes

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in
CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this court does not endorse,
recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web
sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court
accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink
ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

this motion. Although given the opportunity, Plaintiff did not file a response in opposition.
This matter is now ripe for review.
Rule 201(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence states a court “must take judicial
notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information.”
Further, the “court may take judicial notice of a document filed in another court ‘not for the
truth of the matters asserted in the other litigation, but rather to establish the fact of such
litigation and related filings.’” United States v. Jones, 29 F.3d 1549, 1553 (11th Cir. 1994)
(citing Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rotches Pork Packers, Inc., 969 F.2d 1384, 1388-89 (2d
Cir. 1992)). Therefore, judicial notices of related court cases can only be taken for two
limited purposes. Either to recognize the judicial act that the order represents or to
recognize the subject matter of the litigation. Allstate Insurance Company v. Estate of
Robert M. Levesque, No. 8:08-cv-2253-T-33EAJ, 2010 WL 2978037, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July
29, 2010) (citing Jones, 29 F.3d at 1553; In re Delta Res., Inc., 54 F.3d 722, 725-26 (11th
Cir. 1995); Johnson v. Clark, 2:03-CV-490-FtM-33DNF, 2006 WL 289107, at *2 (M.D. Fla.
Feb. 07, 2006)).
Here, there is no dispute that the two summary judgment motions were filed in
state court. (Doc. #91-1, Doc. #91-2). Defendants do not seek ruling from this Court that
the allegations contained within the motions are true but rather that Plaintiff is in the
process of seeking a judgment against two other corporations in a pending state court
matter. See F.D.I.C. v. Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, P.A., No. 8:11-cv2831-T-33MAP, 2013 WL 1912838, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 9, 2013). The Court takes judicial
notice of the subject matter of the state court litigation. The Court does not take judicial
notice of the accuracy of the factual allegations, arguments, or legal conclusions

2

contained within the state court motions. See e.g., Vongrabe v. Rice, No. 3:06-cv-152-J33HTS, 2006 WL 1805873, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 29, 2006). In addition, the Court’s
decision to take judicial notice of the state court motions does not constitute a
determination regarding the admissibility of such motions for the purposes of this
litigation.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Defendants' Motion Requesting Judicial Notice (Doc. #91) is GRANTED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 23rd day of January, 2014.

Copies: All Parties of Record

3