1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3 * * *
4 PAUL D.S. EDWARDS, Case No. 2:20-cv-00570-JAD-EJY
5 Plaintiff,
6 v. ORDER
7 JUAN MARTINEZ, INC., d/b/a CENTURY 21 AMERICANA, f/d/b/a CENTURY 21 8 MARTINEZ & ASSOCIATES, and REDX, LLC, a/d/b/a/ REAL ESTATE DATA X- 9 CHANGE, INC., and COLE INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., a/d/b/a COLE REALTY 10 RESOURCE, and JUAN MARTINEZ, a/k/a JUAN A. MARTINEZ, JR., a/k/a JUAN 11 ANTONIO MAYEN, and ELIZABETH MARTINEZ, a/k/a ELIZABETH A. 12 MARTINEZ, and SERGIO BRANDON TAMEZ, a/k/a SERGIO TAMEZ, and MARK 13 HARRIS LECK, a/k/a MARK H. LECK, a/k/a MARK H. LEC, a/k/a M. L. ECK, and JIM 14 EGGLESTON, a/k/a JAMES EGGLESTON, and DOES I-X, and ROE CORPORATIONS 15 XI-XX, et al.,
16 Defendants.
17 18 Before the Court are three requests for judicial notice filed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s first 19 Request for Judicial Notice was unopposed.1 Plaintiff’s second Request for Judicial Notice2 was 20 opposed by Defendants Cole Information Services, Inc. (“Cole”) and Jim Eggleston (“Eggleston”).3 21 Plaintiff filed a Reply in support of his second Request for Judicial Notice that was reviewed by the 22 Court.4 Plaintiff’s third Request for Judicial Notice5 was opposed by Defendants RedX, LLC 23 (“RedX”) and Mark Leck (“Leck”).6 Defendants Juan Martinez, Inc. d/b/a Century 21 Americana, 24 Juan Martinez, Elizabeth Martinez, and Sergio Brandon Tamez (collectively, the “Century 21 25
26 1 ECF No. 22. 2 ECF No. 48. 27 3 ECF No. 53. 4 ECF No. 55. 1 Defendants”) joined in this Opposition.7 Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Century 21 Defendants’ 2 Joinder,8 and a Reply to RedX and Leck’s Opposition.9 The Court finds as follows. 3 I. DISCUSSION 4 Federal Rule of Evidence (“Fed. R. Evid.”) 201 provides for judicial notice of adjudicative 5 facts. Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2), a presiding court may “judicially notice a fact that is not 6 subject to reasonable dispute [when] it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from sources 7 whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” A court is required to “take judicial notice if a 8 party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information” to make a determination.10 9 A. Plaintiff’s First Request for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 22) is Denied. 10 In Plaintiff’s first Request for Judicial Notice he asks the Court to judicially notice the alleged 11 fact that the Century 21 Defendants prematurely filed four Notices of Non-Oppositions11 before 12 Plaintiff’s time to respond to each of the underlying motions ran.12 Plaintiff misunderstands the 13 Notices of Non-Opposition. Each Notice simply advises the Court that the Century 21 Defendants 14 do not oppose the motions filed by the other defendants in this case.13 The Notices of Non- 15 Oppositions have no impact on and no connection to whether Plaintiff timely responded to any of 16 the underlying motions. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s first Request for Judicial Notice is denied as 17 seeking relief not available under Fed. R. Civ. P. 201. 18 B. Plaintiff’s Second Request for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 48) is Denied. 19 Local Rule LR IC 2-2(b) provides that “a separate document must be filed and a separate 20 event must be selected” for each type of relief requested or purpose of a document filed with the 21 Court. Here, Plaintiff’s second Request for Judicial Notice “ask[s] this Court to . . . Strike 22 Defendants [Cole and Eggleston’s Proposed Discovery] Plan” and Scheduling Order14 as this 23 7 ECF No. 66. 24 8 ECF No. 67. 9 ECF No. 68. 25 10 Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(2). 11 ECF Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17. 26 12 ECF No. 22 at 2. 13 ECF Nos. 14 at 2 (the Century 21 Defendants do not oppose Cole and Eggleston’s Motion to Dismiss), 15 at 2 27 (the Century 21 Defendants do not oppose RedX and Leck’s Motion for More Definite Statement), 16 at 2 (the Century 21 Defendants do not oppose RedX and Leck’s Motion to Strike), and 17 at 2 (the Century 21 Defendants do not oppose 1 pleading was filed before the parties participated in a Rule 26(f) conference.15 Plaintiff’s second 2 Request conflates the purposes of a motion to strike and a request for judicial notice. Plaintiff 3 maintains that Cole and Eggleston’s Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order is “properly 4 the subject of Judicial Notice as . . . it is part of the record[,] is publically [sic] available[,] and 5 Defendants cannot reasonably dispute any of the document’s authenticity.”16 However, the remedy 6 Plaintiff seeks (i.e., to strike the Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order) is not a remedy 7 available through a motion for judicial notice.17 For this reason, Plaintiff’s second Request for 8 Judicial Notice is denied. 9 C. Plaintiff’s Third Request for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 64) is Denied. 10 Local Rule (“LR”) 7-2 permits the filing of a motion, a response, and a reply. A document 11 not allowed by LR 7-2 or otherwise permitted by order of this Court is a fugitive document and must 12 be stricken from the record.18 13 Plaintiff asks the Court to judicially notice and to strike the following filings as fugitive 14 documents: (1) Defendants RedX and Leck’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct 15 Limited Discovery19 and the Exhibits thereto20; (2) the Century 21 Defendants’ Joinder to Cole and 16 Eggleston’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited Expedited Discovery21; 17 and, (3) the Century 21 Defendants’ Joinder to RedX and Leck’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to 18 Conduct Limited Expedited Discovery.22 In support of this Request, Plaintiff argues that Exhibit 19 A23 (recorded on the docket as ECF No. 58-1) is noncompliant with LR IA 10-3(b) and (c) because 20 this Exhibit is a copy of a pleading filed in the pending matter and is not paginated.24 Plaintiff also 21 claims RedX and Leck failed to perfect service of their motion to dismiss, contrary to what their 22 23 15 ECF No. 48 at 1 (internal alteration omitted). 24 16 ECF No. 55 at 3. 17 U.S. v. Neill, 964 F. Supp. 438, 446 (D.D.C. 1997) (“Judicial notice is a process by which a court takes 25 recognition of a fact in the absence of formal proof”). 18 Reiger v. Nevens, No. 3:12-cv-00218-MM-VPC, 2014 WL 537613, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 7, 2014). 26 19 ECF No. 58. 20 ECF Nos. 58-1 and 58-2. 27 21 ECF No. 61. 22 ECF No. 64. 1 counsel declared under penalty of perjury in Exhibit B (recorded on the docket as ECF No. 58-2).25 2 Finally, Plaintiff argues the Century 21 Defendants’ Joinders should be stricken from the record as 3 they were untimely filed and do not contain memorandums of points and authorities.26 4 Plaintiff’s third Request for Judicial Notice is without merit. First, RedX and Leck properly 5 filed their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited Discovery as established 6 by LR 7-2. In addition, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, Exhibit A is paginated.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3 * * *
4 PAUL D.S. EDWARDS, Case No. 2:20-cv-00570-JAD-EJY
5 Plaintiff,
6 v. ORDER
7 JUAN MARTINEZ, INC., d/b/a CENTURY 21 AMERICANA, f/d/b/a CENTURY 21 8 MARTINEZ & ASSOCIATES, and REDX, LLC, a/d/b/a/ REAL ESTATE DATA X- 9 CHANGE, INC., and COLE INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., a/d/b/a COLE REALTY 10 RESOURCE, and JUAN MARTINEZ, a/k/a JUAN A. MARTINEZ, JR., a/k/a JUAN 11 ANTONIO MAYEN, and ELIZABETH MARTINEZ, a/k/a ELIZABETH A. 12 MARTINEZ, and SERGIO BRANDON TAMEZ, a/k/a SERGIO TAMEZ, and MARK 13 HARRIS LECK, a/k/a MARK H. LECK, a/k/a MARK H. LEC, a/k/a M. L. ECK, and JIM 14 EGGLESTON, a/k/a JAMES EGGLESTON, and DOES I-X, and ROE CORPORATIONS 15 XI-XX, et al.,
16 Defendants.
17 18 Before the Court are three requests for judicial notice filed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s first 19 Request for Judicial Notice was unopposed.1 Plaintiff’s second Request for Judicial Notice2 was 20 opposed by Defendants Cole Information Services, Inc. (“Cole”) and Jim Eggleston (“Eggleston”).3 21 Plaintiff filed a Reply in support of his second Request for Judicial Notice that was reviewed by the 22 Court.4 Plaintiff’s third Request for Judicial Notice5 was opposed by Defendants RedX, LLC 23 (“RedX”) and Mark Leck (“Leck”).6 Defendants Juan Martinez, Inc. d/b/a Century 21 Americana, 24 Juan Martinez, Elizabeth Martinez, and Sergio Brandon Tamez (collectively, the “Century 21 25
26 1 ECF No. 22. 2 ECF No. 48. 27 3 ECF No. 53. 4 ECF No. 55. 1 Defendants”) joined in this Opposition.7 Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Century 21 Defendants’ 2 Joinder,8 and a Reply to RedX and Leck’s Opposition.9 The Court finds as follows. 3 I. DISCUSSION 4 Federal Rule of Evidence (“Fed. R. Evid.”) 201 provides for judicial notice of adjudicative 5 facts. Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2), a presiding court may “judicially notice a fact that is not 6 subject to reasonable dispute [when] it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from sources 7 whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” A court is required to “take judicial notice if a 8 party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information” to make a determination.10 9 A. Plaintiff’s First Request for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 22) is Denied. 10 In Plaintiff’s first Request for Judicial Notice he asks the Court to judicially notice the alleged 11 fact that the Century 21 Defendants prematurely filed four Notices of Non-Oppositions11 before 12 Plaintiff’s time to respond to each of the underlying motions ran.12 Plaintiff misunderstands the 13 Notices of Non-Opposition. Each Notice simply advises the Court that the Century 21 Defendants 14 do not oppose the motions filed by the other defendants in this case.13 The Notices of Non- 15 Oppositions have no impact on and no connection to whether Plaintiff timely responded to any of 16 the underlying motions. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s first Request for Judicial Notice is denied as 17 seeking relief not available under Fed. R. Civ. P. 201. 18 B. Plaintiff’s Second Request for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 48) is Denied. 19 Local Rule LR IC 2-2(b) provides that “a separate document must be filed and a separate 20 event must be selected” for each type of relief requested or purpose of a document filed with the 21 Court. Here, Plaintiff’s second Request for Judicial Notice “ask[s] this Court to . . . Strike 22 Defendants [Cole and Eggleston’s Proposed Discovery] Plan” and Scheduling Order14 as this 23 7 ECF No. 66. 24 8 ECF No. 67. 9 ECF No. 68. 25 10 Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(2). 11 ECF Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17. 26 12 ECF No. 22 at 2. 13 ECF Nos. 14 at 2 (the Century 21 Defendants do not oppose Cole and Eggleston’s Motion to Dismiss), 15 at 2 27 (the Century 21 Defendants do not oppose RedX and Leck’s Motion for More Definite Statement), 16 at 2 (the Century 21 Defendants do not oppose RedX and Leck’s Motion to Strike), and 17 at 2 (the Century 21 Defendants do not oppose 1 pleading was filed before the parties participated in a Rule 26(f) conference.15 Plaintiff’s second 2 Request conflates the purposes of a motion to strike and a request for judicial notice. Plaintiff 3 maintains that Cole and Eggleston’s Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order is “properly 4 the subject of Judicial Notice as . . . it is part of the record[,] is publically [sic] available[,] and 5 Defendants cannot reasonably dispute any of the document’s authenticity.”16 However, the remedy 6 Plaintiff seeks (i.e., to strike the Proposed Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order) is not a remedy 7 available through a motion for judicial notice.17 For this reason, Plaintiff’s second Request for 8 Judicial Notice is denied. 9 C. Plaintiff’s Third Request for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 64) is Denied. 10 Local Rule (“LR”) 7-2 permits the filing of a motion, a response, and a reply. A document 11 not allowed by LR 7-2 or otherwise permitted by order of this Court is a fugitive document and must 12 be stricken from the record.18 13 Plaintiff asks the Court to judicially notice and to strike the following filings as fugitive 14 documents: (1) Defendants RedX and Leck’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct 15 Limited Discovery19 and the Exhibits thereto20; (2) the Century 21 Defendants’ Joinder to Cole and 16 Eggleston’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited Expedited Discovery21; 17 and, (3) the Century 21 Defendants’ Joinder to RedX and Leck’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to 18 Conduct Limited Expedited Discovery.22 In support of this Request, Plaintiff argues that Exhibit 19 A23 (recorded on the docket as ECF No. 58-1) is noncompliant with LR IA 10-3(b) and (c) because 20 this Exhibit is a copy of a pleading filed in the pending matter and is not paginated.24 Plaintiff also 21 claims RedX and Leck failed to perfect service of their motion to dismiss, contrary to what their 22 23 15 ECF No. 48 at 1 (internal alteration omitted). 24 16 ECF No. 55 at 3. 17 U.S. v. Neill, 964 F. Supp. 438, 446 (D.D.C. 1997) (“Judicial notice is a process by which a court takes 25 recognition of a fact in the absence of formal proof”). 18 Reiger v. Nevens, No. 3:12-cv-00218-MM-VPC, 2014 WL 537613, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 7, 2014). 26 19 ECF No. 58. 20 ECF Nos. 58-1 and 58-2. 27 21 ECF No. 61. 22 ECF No. 64. 1 counsel declared under penalty of perjury in Exhibit B (recorded on the docket as ECF No. 58-2).25 2 Finally, Plaintiff argues the Century 21 Defendants’ Joinders should be stricken from the record as 3 they were untimely filed and do not contain memorandums of points and authorities.26 4 Plaintiff’s third Request for Judicial Notice is without merit. First, RedX and Leck properly 5 filed their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited Discovery as established 6 by LR 7-2. In addition, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, Exhibit A is paginated. Further, while 7 Plaintiff is correct that “[r]emoval does not create a new case” but is a means of bringing cases into 8 the federal courts’ system,27 striking a document filed with the Court as fugitive is appropriate when 9 the document is not one “allowed by Local Rule 7-2, or otherwise permitted by order of this Court,” 10 not when a party attaches exhibits filed in the pending matter or fails to paginate their pleading.28 11 Moreover, the Court is not required to strike a pleading simply because it misstates a fact, is untimely 12 filed, or lacks a memorandum of points and authorities.29 Finally, as previously stated, if Plaintiff 13 seeks to strike a filing by one of the defendants, a motion for judicial notice is not the proper means 14 to do so as Fed. R. Civ. P. 201 does not provide for such relief. For each of these reasons, Plaintiff’s 15 third Request for Judicial Notice is denied. 16 II. ORDER 17 Accordingly, 18 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s first, second, and third Requests for Judicial 19 Notice (ECF Nos. 22, 48, and 64) are DENIED. 20 DATED THIS 17th day of August, 2020. 21
22 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24
25 25 Id. at 5. 26 Id. at 6-7. 26 27 Bank of New York Mellon v. Inthirath, Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-00853-O-BP, 2018 WL 1703126, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2018), citing 14B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3721 (4th ed. 27 2018). 28 Reiger, 2014 WL 537613, at *2.