Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Meyer v. Haeg

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

November 21, 2016

Harley Dean Meyer, Plaintiff,
v.
Thomas Haeg, Hennepin County Referee, in his official capacity, et al., Defendants.

          Harley Dean Meyer, % Ladapa Tiwasingha, 96 Moo 3 Vibabadee Randsit Road, Laksi, Bangkok, Thailand 10210, pro se.

          Andrew Tweeten, Richard S. Reeves, David Grobeck, Ronald S. Stadler, Mallery & Zimmerman, S.C., Stacy A. Broman, Laura J. Hanson, Meagher & Geer, PLLP, Bryon Glen Ascheman, Burke & Thomas, PLLP, Virginia K. Ekola, Amie E. Penny Sayler, Jonathan P. Norrie, Bassford Remele, P.A., Angela B. Brandt, David M. Wilk, Larson King LLP, Ann-Marie Anderson, Wright Welker & Pauole, PLC, Steven C. Kerbaugh, Steven M. Phillips, Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie P.A., Barry G. Vermeer, Jennifer M. Waterworth, Gislason & Hunter, Lindsey A. Streicher, Patrick M. Biren, Brownson & Linnihan, PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, Erin M. Secord, Ashley M. DeMinck, and Ellen B. Silverman, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, for Defendants.

          ORDER

          SUSAN RICHARD NELSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Before the Court are two motions brought by Plaintiff Harley Dean Meyer: Plaintiffs First Motion for Court to Take Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts [Doc. No. 391], and Plaintiffs First Motion for Court to Take Judicial Notice of Law [Doc. No. 404]. For the following reasons, both motions are denied.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Plaintiffs Motion for Court to Take Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

         Plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial notice of several hundred pages of documents and other items. (See generally Notice [Doc. No. 393] and attached exhibits.) For at least two reasons, the Court will deny the request. First, despite originally having been filed more than a year ago, this case has not left the pleading stage of litigation-indeed, several motions to dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint ("FAC") are currently pending before this Court. Accordingly, without converting those motions to motions for summary judgment, this Court is constrained to consider only those factual allegations contained within the four corners of the FAC, as well as those materials attached to the FAC as exhibits. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d); Morton v. Becker, 793 F.2d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1986); Kennedy v. Settles, No. 10-299-HRW, 2014 WL 1621999, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 22, 2014). As Plaintiffs motion constitutes neither, the Court need not-and will not-consider it here.

         Second, and more pertinently, the Federal Rules of Evidence greatly limit the type of "facts" this Court can take judicial notice of. Under Rule 201(b), only facts that are "generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction, " or which "can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned" can be noticed by the Court. "A high degree of indisputability is the essential prerequisite" to this requirement. Fed. R Evid. 201 advisory committee's note (1972). Plaintiffs materials do not meet this burden here.

         Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion is denied.

         B. Plaintiffs Motion for Court to Take Judicial Notice of Law

         Plaintiff also asks the Court to take extensive judicial notice of various statutes, cases, and principles of law. (See generally Notice [Doc. No. 407] and attached exhibits.) As Plaintiff concedes, no rule exists requiring the Court to do so. (See PL's Mot. at 1.) This Court thus declines to take explicit notice-outside of the regular course of briefings-of such materials. Plaintiff is advised however, that the Court will accept (and does accept) the facial validity of any statute or case of the United States or one of the states cited by a party in memoranda of law. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to bring any such material to this Court's attention, he is advised to do so in that format going forward.

         III. ORDER

         Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records and proceedings ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.