Aquino v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT THERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ae ons x ELECTRONICALLY FILED ANTHONY AQUINO, individually and on nie behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., DATE FILED:_ 5/13/2023 Plaintiffs, 22-CV-4267 (KHP) -against- ORDER UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants. +--+ ----X KATHARINE H. PARKER, United States Magistrate Judge: The Court denies Stevan Johnson's motion for judicial notice. Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b) 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.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The court “must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(c). The request for judicial notice is not relevant to any pending motions before the Court or the action in general as it involves Uber’s alleged obligation to ensure ADA compliance whereas this case involves wage and hour claims. See United States v. Byrnes, 644 F.2d 107, 112 (2d Cir. 1981) (finding district court did not abuse discretion in refusing to take judicial notice of regulations that were irrelevant to case). Stevan Johnson is also not a party before the Court. Accordingly, the motion to take judicial notice at ECF No. 71 is denied.

SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York May 13, 2023 Kat haut H finker KATHARINE H. PARKER United States Magistrate Judge