Filed: Aug. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 20, 2015
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND JOSEPH CARGEL'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE ANSWER AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS [Dkt. No. 292] GONZALO P. CURIEL , District Judge . As the Court has noted in a previous Order filed in this case, (Dkt. No. 289), only the twelfth cause of action remains of the twelve causes of action alleged against the various Defendants in Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"), the current operative complaint (Dkt. No. 64). That cau
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND JOSEPH CARGEL'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE ANSWER AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS [Dkt. No. 292] GONZALO P. CURIEL , District Judge . As the Court has noted in a previous Order filed in this case, (Dkt. No. 289), only the twelfth cause of action remains of the twelve causes of action alleged against the various Defendants in Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"), the current operative complaint (Dkt. No. 64). That caus..
More
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND JOSEPH CARGEL'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE ANSWER AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
[Dkt. No. 292]
GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge.
As the Court has noted in a previous Order filed in this case, (Dkt. No. 289), only the twelfth cause of action remains of the twelve causes of action alleged against the various Defendants in Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"), the current operative complaint (Dkt. No. 64). That cause of action, as alleged against the County of San Diego and Joseph Cargel ("Defendants") was stayed pending resolution of Plaintiff's state criminal appeal proceeding pursuant to this Court's order. (See Dkt. No. 156.) The Court ordered the parties to notify it upon the conclusion of any underlying appeal and to seek leave via ex parte application before filing any further motions. (Dkt. No. 291.)
In their ex parte application, Defendants now advise the Court that on January 8, 2015, the California Court of Appeal affirmed Plaintiff's criminal conviction, and that on April 1, 2015, the California Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's petition for review and that the case was considered "complete" as of April 8, 2015. (Dkt. No. 292.)
In support of their ex parte application, Defendants request judicial notice of the following two documents (Dkt. No. 292-1):
• Exhibit A: Opinion of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District of California, Division One, Case No. D064053 (The People v. Paul Hupp) filed 1/8/15 (Dkt. No. 292-2);
• Exhibit B: Docket (Register of Actions) for Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District of California, Division One, Case No. D064053 (The People v. Paul Hupp) (Dkt. No. 292-3).
A court may take notice of undisputed "matters of public record" subject to judicial notice. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 201; MGIC Indem. Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 1986)). Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, a district court may take notice of facts not subject to reasonable dispute that are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); see also Lee, 250 F.3d at 689. Defendants' two requests for judicial notice are properly noticeable as the documents are matters of public record and are capable of accurate and ready determination. Finding the Opinion of the Court of Appeal and the Docket (Register of Actions) for the state appeal proceeding relevant, the Court takes judicial notice of both documents.
Since the state court criminal appeal has been completed, the Court hereby issues the following ORDER:
1. The stay of above-captioned matter is hereby LIFTED;
2. Defendants' ex parte application to file an Answer and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED and Defendants are instructed to file an Answer and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings within three (3) days of the electronic docketing of this Order; and
3. The Court takes judicial notice of the following documents:
a. Exhibit A: Opinion of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District of California, Division One, Case No. D064053 (The People v. Paul Hupp) filed 1/8/15; and
b. Exhibit B: Docket (Register of Actions) for Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District of California, Division One, Case No. D064053 (The People v. Paul Hupp).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
