CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Just Mortgage, Inc.

Filing 202

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions of defendant Just Mortgage, Inc. for judicial notice (Docs. 156 176 200 ) are denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 05/11/2012; (DJO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUST MORTGAGE, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:09 CV 1909 DDN

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This action is before the court upon the motions of defendant Just
Mortgage, Inc. (Docs. 156, 176, 200) for judicial notice.

In its

motions, Just Mortgage seeks to have the court take judicial notice of
the following two items:
(a)

testimony given on April 7, 2010, by Richard Bowen, Former Senior
Vice President and Business Chief Underwriter of CitiMortgage, Inc.,
before

the

Congressional

Financial

Crisis

Inquiry

Commission.

Bowen’s testimony concerned the frequency of foreclosures across the
nation and CitiMortgage’s knowledge of defective loans.
(b)

information contained in the Stipulation and Order of Settlement and
Dismissal in United States ex rel. Sherry A. Hunt v. Citigroup,
Inc., et al.,1 concerning CitiMortgage’s national loan practices and
related matters.
Federal Rule of Evidence 201, which governs judicial notice of

adjudicative facts, states that the 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.

Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2).

But, “[c]ourts are not required

to take judicial notice of irrelevant materials.”

Hargis v. Access

Capital Funding, LLC, 674 F.3d 783, 793 (8th Cir. 2012).
As discussed in the court’s March 29, 2012 Memorandum and Order, the
information of which Just Mortgage requests judicial notice is not

1

11 CV 5473 (VM), Doc. 13 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2012).

relevant to the claims or defenses presently before the court in this
action.

See Doc. 187 at 25 (“CitiMortgage’s knowledge concerning market

conditions and the efficacy of its guidelines does not implicate whether
it exercised its discretion to demand cure or repurchase of the Group 1
Loans in good faith.”); see also id. at 5 n.3 (“To the extent Myers
opines regarding the national economy and national mortgage practices,
his opinion is not relevant to this breach of contract action and is thus
excluded.”).
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions of defendant Just Mortgage,
Inc. for judicial notice (Docs. 156, 176, 200) are denied.

/S/
David D. Noce
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Signed on May 11, 2012.

- 2 -