Adonai Communications, LTD. v. Awstin Investments, LLC et al
Filing
50
Memorandum Opinion and Order re: 25 Plaintiff Adonai Communications, Ltd.'s Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Facts. Plaintiff's motion to take judicial notice of facts is DENIED. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez on 10/7/2011) (mcrd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ADONAI COMMUNICATIONS, LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.
AWSTIN INVESTMENTS, LLC, et. al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-2642-L
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pursuant to the order of reference dated June 3, 2011, before the Court for determination is
Plaintiff Adonai Communications, Ltd.’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Facts, filed May 5,
2011(doc. 25). Based on the relevant filings, evidence, and applicable law, the motion is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
On December 28, 2010, Adonai Communications, Ltd. (Plaintiff) filed this lawsuit against
Michael Bernstein; Awstin Investments, L.L.C.; Premium Acquisitions, Inc., formerly known as
MidCoast Acquisitions Corp.; Premium Investors, Inc., formerly known as MidCoast Investments,
Inc.; MDC Credit Corp. formerly known as MidCoast Credit Corp.; Shorewood Associates, Inc.;
and Shorewood Holdings Corp. It asserted claims for breach of contract, common law fraud,
statutory fraud, fraud by non-disclosure, and negligent misrepresentation, and sought
indemnification and a judicial declaration of its rights and duties under the agreement. On April 6,
2011, Bernstein, Premium Acquisition, Premium Investors, Shorewood Associates, and Sherwood
Holdings filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On May 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed
its response to the motion. The following day Plaintiff filed this motion seeking the court to take
judicial notice of facts pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201. The motion is now ripe for determination.
II. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff seeks the court to take judicial notice of the existence and status of the other
lawsuits and proceedings against one or more of the defendants in this case or one or more of their
affiliated entities. It also requests the court to take notice of the orders and holdings issued by other
courts and tribunals not for the facts or the legal basis of such holdings, but for the effect of their
rulings on the status or disposition of the case, claims, or parties.
A court has authority to take judicial notice of adjudicative facts. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(a).
Judicial notice may be taken of any fact “not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1)
generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and
ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”
CleanCOALition v. TXU Power, 536 F.3d 469, 471 n.2 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)).
Even if Plaintiff could meet these requirements, it has not identified the specific facts, documents,
filings, motions, pleadings, or orders it wishes the court to take judicial notice of, or the specific
purpose for doing so. The court therefore declines to take judicial notice as requested.
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motion to take judicial notice of facts is DENIED.
SO ORDERED on this 7th day of October, 2011.
___________________________________
IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?