Andrew et al v. Century Surety Company

Filing 119

ORDER that Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice Submitted in Support ofits Counter Motion for Summary Judgment 73 is GRANTED in part. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 9/27/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
9

Andrew et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11
12

ORDER GRANTING CENTURY
SURETY COMPANY’S REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE

v.
Century Surety Co.,
Defendant.

13
14

Case No. 2:12-cv-00978-APG-PAL

On May 13, 2013, Defendant Century Surety Company (“Defendant”) filed its Request

15

for Judicial Notice Submitted in Support of its Counter Motion for Summary Judgment.

16

(ECF#73-5).

17

Judicial Notice is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 201. “A judicially noticed fact

18

must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the

19

territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by

20

resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(1)-(2).

21

“[A] party requesting judicial notice bears the burden of persuading the trial judge that the fact is

22

a proper matter for judicial notice.” In re Tyrone F. Conner Corporation, 140 B.R. 771, 781

23

(Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1992). “To sustain its burden in persuading the trial judge that the adjudicative

24

fact sought to be noticed is in fact proper for notice under FRE 201, the party must (1) persuade

25

the court that the particular fact is not reasonably subject to dispute and is capable of immediate

26

and accurate determination by resort to a source ‘whose accuracy cannot reasonably be

27

questioned’....” Id. at 781. In other words, “the fact must be one that only an unreasonable person

28

1

would insist on disputing.” United States v. Jones, 29 F.3d 1549, 1553 (11th Cir.1994).

2

Documents that are part of the public record may be judicially noticed to show, for example, that

3

a judicial proceeding occurred or that a document was filed in another court case, but a court may

4

not take judicial notice of findings of facts from another case. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d

5

1108, 1114 & n. 5 (9th Cir.2003); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir.2001); Jones,

6

29 F.3d at 1553. Nor may the court take judicial notice of any matter that is in dispute. Lee, 250

7

F.3d at 689–90; Lozano v. Ashcroft, 258 F.3d 1160, 1165 (10th Cir.2001).

8

Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following documents:

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Exhibit 6 to the Compendium of Exhibits: State of Nevada
Traffic Accident Report (dated 1/12/09).
Exhibit 7 to the Compendium of Exhibits: City of Henderson
Police Incident Report (dated 2/2/09).
Exhibit 14 to the Compendium of Exhibits: Complaint in the
matter titled Lee Pretner, et al. v. Michael A. Vasquez, et al.,
District Court for Clark County, Nevada, Case No. A-11-632845C.
Exhibit 19 to the Compendium of Exhibits: Defaults filed
against Blue Streak and Michael Vasquez in the matter Lee
Pretner, et al. v. Michael A. Vasquez, et al., District Court for
Clark County, Nevada, Case No. A-11-632845-C (dated 6/27/11).
Exhibit 21 to the Compendium of Exhibits: Notice to Set Aside
Default Against Michael Vasquez filed in the matter Lee Pretner,
et al. v. Michael A. Vasquez, et al., District Court for Clark
County, Nevada, Case No. A-11-632845-C (dated 6/28/11).
Exhibit 25 to the Compendium of Exhibits: Application for
Entry of Default Judgment (without exhibits) in the matter Lee
Pretner, et al. v. Michael A. Vasquez, et al., District Court for
Clark County, Nevada, Case No. A-11-632845-C (dated 10/20/11).
Exhibit 26 to the Compendium of Exhibits: Notice of Prove-Up
Hearing in the matter Lee Pretner, et al. v. Michael A. Vasquez, et
al., District Court for Clark County, Nevada, Case No. A-11632845-C (filed on February 29, 2012).

25
26
27

Exhibit 27 to the Compendium of Exhibits: Court Minutes dated
April 11, 2012 in the matter titled Lee Pretner, et al. v. Michael A.

28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Vasquez, et al., District Court for Clark County, Nevada, Case No.
A-11-632845-C.
Exhibit 28 to the Compendium of Exhibits: Default Judgment
signed by the Court on April 11, 2012 in the matter titled Lee
Pretner, et al. v. Michael A. Vasquez, et al., District Court for
Clark County, Nevada, Case No. A-11-632845-C.
Exhibit 29 to the Compendium of Exhibits: Notice of Removal
and Complaint - Andrew v. Century Surety USDC Case No. 2:12cv-00978 (Court Document No. 1)
(ECF#73-5 at 2-3).
Plaintiffs have filed no opposition to Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice.

8
Accordingly, the Court will take notice of those documents, but only to the extent that they
9
demonstrate that the reports or judicial proceedings they represent occurred, and for no other
10
purpose. The Court does not take notice of the contents of those documents.
11
For good cause showing, Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice Submitted in Support of
12
its Counter Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF#73-5, is GRANTED IN PART.
13
14

DATED this 27th day of September, 2013.

15
16
17
ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3