; see also Mattsson v. Pat McGrath Cosms. LLC, No. 21-CV-5187, 2022 WL 21778342, at *6 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2022) (“Even if the [c]ourt were to consider the [extrinsic evidence], the [c]ourt could not . . . rely on [it] ‘for the truth of the matters asserted therein ....'” (emphasis omitted) (quoting James v. Bradley, 808 Fed.Appx. 1, 3 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order))); Cabrera v. Schafer, 178 F.Supp.3d 69, 74 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (denying the defendant's request for judicial notice of selected quotes from a decision in a different court). An opinion by a court in the same case may be entitled to more weight because the parties have had the opportunity to “test the accuracy” of the underlying evidence, see Int'l Star Class Yacht Racing Ass'n v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 146 F.3d 66, 71 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. State of New York, 691 F.2d 1070, 1086 (2d Cir.1982)), but neither Party has provided an on-point case.
The Court may properly consider the inmate misbehavior report and disciplinary hearing disposition as they are explicitly referred to in the Complaint and therefore incorporated by reference. See James v. Bradley, 808 Fed.Appx. 1, 3 (2d Cir. 2020). The Court declines to consider the remaining documents attached to Plaintiff's opposition because they are not integral to the Complaint and do not form the basis of Plaintiff's claims at issue on this motion.
Defendant argues that, fairness and impartiality notwithstanding, the court must find that plaintiff's due process rights were satisfied as long as there is “any evidence that supports the disciplinary ruling.” The Second Circuit has made clear that “[t]he evidence relied upon must be ‘reliable.'” James v. Bradley, 808 Fed.Appx. 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting Luna v. Pico, 356 F.3d at 488). Defendant argues that the evidence supporting defendant Donnelly's guilty determination includes (1) C.O. Allen's misbehavior report, (2) the “master callout sheet” that placed plaintiff at the law library at the time of the alleged incident, and (3) testimony from four correction officers
The Amended Complaint explicitly refers to the inmate misbehavior report, thereby incorporating that document by reference. See James v. Bradley, 808 Fed.Appx. 1, 3 (2d Cir. 2020). Therefore, the misbehavior report may properly be considered on this motion.
Defendants' additional arguments - (1) that only a small fraction of new batteries are faulty, (2) that Amazon's shipping and handling could have introduced the faults complained of, and (3) that the reviews could be malicious acts by competitors - while arguably legitimate defenses to Plaintiffs claim, do not undermine the fact that Plaintiffs allegations are sufficient to state a claim.See James v. Bradley, 808 Fed.Appx. 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2020) ("We do not consider matters outside the pleadings in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim." (quoting Nakahata v. N.Y.-Presbyterian Healthcare Sys., 723 F.3d 192, 202 (2d Cir. 2013))); Berkley Ins. Co. v. Bouchard, No. 20-CV-9, 2020 WL 7646542, at *3 (D. Vt. Dec. 23, 2020) ("To the extent [d]efendants allege additional facts in their motion to dismiss and reply, those facts cannot be considered in determining the sufficiency of the [c]omplaint."
Id. Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499, 509 (2d Cir. 2007); James v. Bradley, 808 F. App'x 1, 3 (2d Cir. 2020) (same). In support of their claim that SKAT had notice that its tax refund process was inadequate, the Goldstein Parties refer to a May 2010 audit conducted by the Danish Ministry of Taxation (the "2010 Audit") and a February 2016 report by the National Audit Office of Denmark to the Danish Public Accounts Committee (the "2016 Audit").
Moreover, these documents are a matter of the public record, and the Court, finding "no serious questions as to [their] authenticity," "may take judicial notice . . . of the content of the record." James v. Bradley, 808 F. App'x 1, 3 (2d Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). The Court does not rely on the document for "the truth of the matters asserted therein," id., but rather only for the fact that they are available in the public record.
"Before taking judicial notice of a document, a district court must consider whether 'no serious question as to [its] authenticity can exist,' Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499, 509 (2d Cir. 2007), and whether the contents of the document are 'facts capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned,' Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 774 (2d Cir. 1991) (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 201(b)(2))." James v. Bradley, 808 Fed.Appx. 1, 3 (2d Cir. 2020). The Court has verified with the National Archives that the N.J. Bankruptcy Case documents no longer exist.