Coleman v. Twilight Haven, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SHIRLEY COLEMAN, Case No. 1:21-cv-01713-DAD-EPG 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 13 TWILIGHT HAVEN, INC., et al., (ECF No. 3) 14 Defendants. 15 16 Defendant Twilight Haven, Inc. (Twilight) removed this action on December 3, 2021, 17 from the Fresno County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1). Before the Court is Twilight’s request for 18 judicial notice of various documents that are attached as Exhibits A through KK in support of its 19 notice of removal, which request was also filed on December 3, 2021. (ECF No. 3). No other 20 party has filed any response to the request for judicial notice. 21 Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b), a court may take judicial notice of “a fact that is 22 not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court’s 23 territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose 24 accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” The decision to take judicial notice lies within a 25 court’s discretion. See Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 998 (9th Cir. 2018). 26 Upon review of Twilight’s request, the Court declines to take judicial notice of the 27 documents provided. First, Twilight fails to offer any developed argument or cite any legal 28 authority explaining why it is necessary for the court to take judicial notice of each of the 1 | documents attached, which include, among other things, an “April 1, 2020 COVID-19 Focused 2 | Infection Control Survey March 13, 2020.” (ECF No. 3, p. 6 — referring to Exhibit JJ). Second, 3 | under Rule 201(b), “[a] court must also consider—and identify—which fact or facts it is 4 | noticing.” Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir. 2018). Here, 5 | Twilight points to no specific facts from the documents that it seeks to be judicially noticed; 6 | rather, it requests that the documents themselves be judicially notice. (ECF No. 3, p. 1 (requesting 7 | “that the Court take judicial notice of the [attached] documents”)); Khoja, 899 F.3d at 999 (‘Tust 8 | because the document itself is susceptible to judicial notice does not mean that every assertion of 9 | fact within that document is judicially noticeable for its truth.”). Thus, because Twilight provides 10 | no basis to take judicial notice of the documents nor identifies the specific facts from each that 11 | should be judicially noticed, the Court will deny the request for judicial notice. See Capaci v. 12 || Sports Rsch. Corp., 445 F. Supp. 3d 607, 617 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (“Because defendant does not 13 | identify which facts within the exhibits it asks the court to judicially notice nor does it explain 14 | why the court can judicially notice those facts, the court denies defendant's request for judicial 15 || notice.”). 16 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Twilight Haven, Inc.’s request for judicial 17 || notice (ECF No. 3) is denied. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: _ January 3, 2022 [sf ey 0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28