Thomas et al v. Waste Pro USA, Inc. et al

Filing 306

ORDERED: Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Notice 222 is GRANTED. The Court will judicially notice the documents cited herein to the extent of recognizing the judicial acts and the subject matter of the litigation in other cases, and to recognize what is stated in the corporate documents, but not to establish the truth of such facts contained in court papers and corporate documents. Signed by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 8/15/2019. (LJB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ALFRED W. THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:17-cv-2254-T-36CPT

WASTE PRO USA, INC. and WASTE PRO
OF FLORIDA, INC.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Judicial Notice (Doc. 222),
and Defendants’ response thereto (Doc. 223). In the motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court
judicially notice thirty-three documents which include papers filed in other cases, orders entered
in other cases, testimony, evidence, a verdict form, a final judgment, a satisfaction of judgment,
and corporate filings. Doc. 222 at 1-7. Plaintiff further requests that the Court judicially notice
“adjudicative facts,” including the date the complaint was filed in Andreu v. Waste Pro of Florida,
Inc., et al., No:0:17-cv-60926 (S.D. Fla.) (Andreu), the date the trial began in Andreu, testimony
that occurred during the Andreu trial, statements made during closing arguments in Andreu, the
jury verdict in Andreu, the final judgment in Andreu, arguments made by Defendant Waste Pro of
Florida, Inc. (“WP Florida”) in Andreu, and the answer filed by Defendant Waste Pro USA, Inc.
(“WP USA”) in Michael Riddle v. Waste Pro of USA, Inc., No. 6:11-cv-01593 (M.D. Fla) (Riddle).
Doc. 222 at 7-13. Plaintiff contends that judicial notice is proper pursuant to Federal Rule of
Evidence 201(b) because they are matters of public record and capable of accurate and ready
determination by resort to sources whose accuracy could not reasonably be questioned. Id. at 13.
Defendants respond that judicial notice is not proper because Plaintiff requests the Court to notice

the substance and conclusions of the documents, not just the fact that these documents were filed
or proceedings occurred, which Defendants contend falls outside the bounds of Rule 201. The
Court, having considered the motion and being fully advised in the premises, will grant the Motion
for Judicial Notice only to the extent that it will recognize that the documents were filed, the dates
that the events occurred, and the subject matter of litigation. The Court will not take judicial notice
of the documents for the purpose of establishing the truth of the matter asserted in such documents.
I.

BACKGROUND
This is a collective action filed pursuant to § 216(b) of the FLSA by Plaintiff Alfred W.

Thomas (“Thomas” or “Plaintiff”) pertaining to the pay of certain “Helpers” employed by
Defendants WP USA and WP Florida (collectively, “Defendants”), which alleges willful
violations of the FLSA. Doc. 111 ¶¶ 1, 64, 72. Prior to this action, Roger Andreu filed an action
against, among others, WP Florida, which also alleged violation of the FLSA. Doc. 197-5. That
case proceeded to trial and the jury entered a verdict in favor of Andreu. Doc. 197-8. Final
judgment was entered against WP Florida. Doc. 197-9. Also prior to this action, Michael Riddle
filed an action against WP USA in which WP USA answered with an admission that Riddle was
employed by WP USA as a truck driver. Doc. 197-37 ¶ 4. Plaintiff asks the Court to use various
documents and evidence from these cases in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment, which
are included as exhibits to his Motion for Summary Judgment.
II.

DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b)(2) states 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.” “[C]ourts may take judicial notice of
documents from a prior proceeding because they are matters of public record and ‘capable of

2

accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy could not reasonably be
questioned.’ ” Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. S.-Owners Ins. Co., 314 F. Supp. 3d 1284, 1300 (M.D. Fla.
2018) (quoting Horne v. Potter, 392 F. App’x 800, 802 (11th Cir. 2010). However, although a
court may take judicial notice of documents filed in other courts, the court may not do so for the
truth of the matters asserted in the other litigation, and may only take judicial notice to establish
the fact of such litigation and related filings. Id. (citing United States v. Jones, 29 F.3d 1549, 1553
(11th Cir. 1994)). “As such, ‘a court may take judicial notice of another court’s order only for the
limited purpose of recognizing the ‘judicial act’ that the other order represents or the subject matter
of the litigation.’ ” Id. (quoting Jones, 29 F.3d at 1553). Likewise, the court may take judicial
notice of the documents filed in a proceeding, but not the facts contained in the documents. Kruse,
Inc. v. Aqua Sun Invs., Inc., No. 6:07-cv-1367-Orl-19UAM, 2008 WL 276030, at *3 n.2 (M.D.
Fla. Jan. 31, 2008).
Similarly, the Court may take judicial notice of publicly filed corporate documents.
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Estate of Robert M. Levesque, No. 8:08-cv-2253-T-EAJ, 2010 WL 2978037, at
*1 (M.D. Fla. July 19, 2010). However, the Court may do so “only to the extent of what the
documents state[], not to prove the truth of their contents.” Id. (citing Bryant v. Avado Brands,
Inc., 187 F.3d 1271, 1279 (11th Cir. 1999)).
Based on the above, the Court will take judicial notice of the documents listed in Plaintiff’s
Motion for Judicial Notice (Doc. 222), but, with respect to the matters filed in other cases, the
Court will do so only to the extent of recognizing the litigation and the filing of the documents or
occurrence of testimony, but will not take judicial notice of the facts contained in those documents.
Those events, which appear on the public dockets for their respective cases, include:
•

The Andreu complaint (Doc. 197-5)

3

•

Portions of the Andreu trial testimony (Docs. 197-9, 197-17, 197-19, 197-20, 19749)

•

The Andreu docket sheet (Doc. 197-7)

•

The signed Andreu verdict form (Doc. 197-8)

•

The Andreu final judgment (Doc. 197-9)

•

The Andreu answer and affirmative defenses (Doc. 197-45)

•

The Andreu witness list for WP Florida (Doc. 197-46)

•

WP Florida’s exhibit 3 from the Andreu trial (Doc. 197-47)

•

WP Florida’s motion for judgment as a matter of law in Andreu (Doc. 197-50)

•

The order denying WP Florida’s motion for judgment as a matter of law in Andreu
(Doc. 197-51)

•

The satisfaction of judgment in Andreu (Doc. 197-52)

•

Andreu’s exhibit 3 from the Andreu trial (Doc. 197-21)

•

Testimony of Shane Munoz, Esq. from the Andreu trial (Doc. 197-17)

•

Testimony of Regina Lombardo from the Andreu trial (Doc. 197-19)

•

Testimony of Andreu from the Andreu trial (Doc. 197-20)

•

Testimony of Russell Mackie from the Andreu trial (Doc. 197-19)

•

The order denying WP Florida’s motion for summary judgment in Andreu (Doc.
207-1)

•

WP Florida’s motion for summary judgment in Andreu (Doc. 207-2)

•

WP Florida’s reply in support of its motion for summary judgment in Andreu (Doc.
207-3)

•

The Riddle answer (Doc. 197-37)

Additionally, the Court will judicially notice the Florida and Foreign Profit Corporation Annual
Reports for WP USA, Waste Pro of Alabama, Inc., WP Florida, Waste Pro of Georgia, Inc., Waste
Pro of Louisiana, Inc., Waste Pro of Mississippi, Inc., Waste Pro of North Carolina, Inc., and
4

Waste Pro of South Carolina, Inc. (Doc. 197-25), which were filed with the Florida Secretary of
State and are publicly available with the Florida Department of State Division of Corporations.
However, the Court will do so only to recognize what is stated in the documents, and not to
establish the truth of such facts. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Notice (Doc. 222) is GRANTED. The Court will

judicially notice the documents cited herein to the extent of recognizing the judicial acts and the
subject matter of the litigation in other cases, and to recognize what is stated in the corporate
documents, but not to establish the truth of such facts contained in court papers and corporate
documents.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on August 15, 2019.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record and Unrepresented Parties, if any

5