Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old December 4th 09, 12:34 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2009
Posts: 1,132
Default Polgar Response to Request to Take Judicial Notice

PLAINTIFF SUSAN POLGAR’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO TAKE
JUDICIAL NOTICE

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SAM R. CUMMINGS:

COMES NOW SUSAN POLGAR, Plaintiff herein, files this her Response to
Defendants’ Request for Court to Take Judicial Notice, and in support
thereof would respectfully show the Court as follows:

1. Defendants Karl S. Kronenberger and Kronenberger Burgoyne, L.L.P.,
filed a request for this Court to take judicial notice of findings in
the seventeen page Memorandum and Order issued by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, dated October
14, 2009 (the “California Order”). While Defendants do not specify which
findings within the seventeen pages they request the Court take judicial
notice, their request is nevertheless improper, because courts cannot
take judicial notice of another court’s determinations. Accordingly,
Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court deny Defendants’ Request for
Court to Take Judicial Notice.

I. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES

2. While Defendants’ request does not make clear the findings for which
they request the Court take judicial notice, no findings in the
California Order are eligible for judicial notice. FED. R. EVID. 201
states that a Court may take judicial notice of a fact not subject to
reasonable dispute, either because the fact “(1) [is] generally known
within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) [because
it is] capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources
whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned.” FED. R. EVID. 201(b),
(c). The rule establishes a means to dispense with the offering of
evidence to prove a fact outside the area of reasonable controversy and
that possesses a high degree of indisputability. FED. R. EVID. 201,
advisory committee note.
3. For a court to take judicial notice of a fact, that fact must be a
“self-evident truth[] that no reasonable person could question, [a]
truism [] that approaches platitude[] or banality.” Taylor v. Charter
Medical Corp., 163 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 1998), quoting C.A. Hardy v.
Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 681 F.2d 334, 347-48 (5th Cir. 1982). Rule
201 does not authorize a court to take judicial notice of another
court’s legal or factual determinations. Taylor, 163 F.3d at 831, citing
Charles Allen Wright and Kenneth W. Graham, Federal Practice and
Procedu Evidence §5103 at 472-73 (1977). A court may take judicial
notice of the judgment of another court only for the limited purpose of
establishing that the first court actually took such action. Id. at 831,
citing Colonial Leasing Co. of New England v. Logistics Control Group,
762 F.2d 454 (5th Cir. 1985). A court may not take judicial notice of a
judgment for any broader purpose than that. Id.

4. In Taylor, the plaintiff appealed both the lower court’s refusal to
take judicial notice of another court’s judgment holding that the
defendants were state actors for the purpose of 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the
court’s subsequent grant of summary judgment on that issue. Id. at
828-29. The Taylor Court affirmed the lower court’s holding, stating
that a court may only take judicial notice of another court’s judgment
for the purpose of establishing that the judgment was issued, but not
for the truth of any findings or determinations therein. Id. at 831.

5. The Kronenberger Defendants in the case at bar request judicial
notice be given to exactly the type of determinations as those requested
by the plaintiff in Taylor. Defendants’ Request asks this Court to take
judicial notice of findings in the Memorandum and Order issued by the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California,
just as the Taylor plaintiff requested the court there give judicial
notice to another court’s findings. Defendants’ Request does not ask the
Court merely to take notice of the fact that the California court issued
an order, but to consider it instead for the broader purpose of
establishing the truth of the findings therein. None of the
determinations in the California Order meet the standard set forth by
the Fifth Circuit in Taylor. Accordingly, Defendants herein are not
entitled to judicial notice of any of the findings in the Memorandum and
Order issued by the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

II. PRAYER
6. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff respectfully requests this
Court deny
Defendants’ Request for Court to Take Judicial Notice, give no such
notice to any findings in the Memorandum and Order attached thereto, and
grant Plaintiff such other and further relief to which she may be justly
entitled, at law or in equity.

Respectfully submitted,
KILLION LAW FIRM 2521 74th Street
Post Office Box 64670 Lubbock, Texas 79424-4670 (806) 748-5500 Telephone
(806) 748-5505 Facsimile
/s/ Samantha Peabody Estrello
James L. Killion SBN: 11409100 Samantha Peabody Estrello
SBN: 24056112
Attorneys for Plaintiff Susan Polgar
  #2   Report Post  
Old December 4th 09, 04:59 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2009
Posts: 1,132
Default Polgar Response to Request to Take Judicial Notice

Polgar's counsel conveniently ignores the facts that (a) Judge Patel
made rulings in the case she transferred to Texas, and (b) such rulings
are now the law of the case.
  #3   Report Post  
Old December 5th 09, 06:20 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2009
Posts: 24
Default Polgar Response to Request to Take Judicial Notice

On Dec 4, 7:34 am, MrVidmar wrote:
PLAINTIFF SUSAN POLGAR’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO TAKE
JUDICIAL NOTICE

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SAM R. CUMMINGS:

14, 2009 (the “California Order”). While Defendants do not specify which
findings within the seventeen pages they request the Court take judicial
notice, their request is nevertheless improper, because courts cannot ...


I had to smile at this line given the thousands of pages she has
submitted
as evidence of her charges without any specification as to
what qualifies for what charge and to whom it applies.

K
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
USCF Makes Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss In CA MrVidmar rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 August 25th 09 03:08 AM
USCF Makes Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss In CA MrVidmar rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 August 25th 09 03:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017