Pacer:EDIG v Micron Technology-Asking judge to take judicial notice of the Intel
in response to
by
Message: Who is a David Carter?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
e.Digital Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
Micron Technology, Inc.,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:13-cv-2944-H-BGS
PLAINTIFF E.DIGITAL
CORPORATION’S REQUEST
FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; AND
EXHIBIT A ATTACHED
THERETO SUBMITTED IN
SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANT MICRON
TECHNOLOGY, INC.’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Date: June 2, 2014
Time: 10:30 a.m.
Ctrm: 15A
Judge: Hon. Marilyn L. Huff
Assigned to the Honorable
Judge Marilyn L. Huff
Courtroom 15A (Annex)
TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA:
Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation (“Plaintiff” or “e.Digital”), by and through its
attorneys, hereby respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice pursuant
to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 and/or all other applicable provisions of law as
requested herein when ruling on “
Defendant Micron Technology, Inc.’s Notice Of
Motion And Motion To Dismiss”
(“Motion”) (Dkt #18 et. seq.).
Defendant Micron Technology, Inc. is referred to hereafter as “Micron” or
“Defendant.”
I. STANDARD OF LAW
As a general rule, a district court may not consider any material beyond the
pleadings in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
Huy Thanh Vo v. Nelson &
Kennard
, 931 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1085. (E.D. Cal. 2013)(citing Lee v. City of Los
Angeles
, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001)(overruled on other grounds);Carter v.
Clark County,
253 Fed. Appx. 638, 640 (9th Cir. Nev. 2007)(finding that trial court
improperly considered matters that fell outside of the pleadings);
ATS Prods. v.
Champion Fiberglass, Inc.
, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164645, 2013 WL 6086924 at
*4(N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2013). However, a court may consider matters properly
subject to judicial notice.
Huy Thanh Vo at 1085.
Federal Rule of Evidence 201 provides that "[t]he court may judicially
notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally
known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and
readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questioned." "Judicially noticed facts often consist of matters of public record."
Botelho v. U.S. Bank
, N.A., 692 F. Supp. 2d 1174, 1178 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citations
omitted); see also
W. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Heflin Corp., 797 F. Supp. 790,
792 (N.D. Cal. 1992).
II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 and all other applicable provisions
of law, e.Digital respectfully requests that the Court to take judicial notice of the
following:
1) The Court’s April 24, 2014 “
Order Denying Defendant's Motion To
Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
” (hereafter “Intel Order”) issued in
the case
e.Digital v. Intel Corporation, Southern District of California, District
Court Case No. 3:13-cv-2905-H-BGS (“Intel Case”) (Intel Case, Dkt #25). A true
and correct copy of the Intel Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
III. CONCLUSION
e.Digital respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of the
matters set forth herein.
Dated: May 19, 2014
HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
By: /s/Pamela C. Chalk
Anton N. Handal
Pamela C. Chalk
Gabriel G. Hedrick
Attorneys for Plaintiff
e.Digital Corporation
19 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply