Opinion
Civil Action 20-cv-01638-CMA-SKC
12-09-2021
ELET VALENTINE, Plaintiff, v. JAMES RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and, RASIER, LLC, Defendants.
ORDER
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Elet Valentine's Objection (Doc. # 233) to Judge Crews's Order (Doc. # 228) denying Plaintiff's request for judicial notice. The Order is affirmed.
Valentine has filed nearly two dozen “Requests for Judicial Notice” in this case. (Docs. ## 51, 59, 63, 153, 186, 190, 195, 198, 201, 202, 211, 212, 213, 217, 218, 219, 220, 224, 229). These requests ask the Court to take notice of various matters, including disputed facts, legal theories, and settlement discussions. However, as Judge Crews has repeatedly explained, none of these matters are appropriate for judicial notice. (Docs. ## 58, 228). Under Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, a court may take judicial notice of a particular fact only where that fact is either (1) not subject to reasonable dispute because it is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) it can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed.R.Evid. 201. Valentine has failed to demonstrate that either of these circumstances is present in this case. Where, as here, a magistrate judge issues an order in a nondispositive matter, “[t]he district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” F.R.C.P. 72. Valentine fails to identify any part of Judge Crews's Order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law, so the Order must be affirmed.
Despite Judge Crews's clear and well-reasoned denials, Valentine has persisted in filing one meritless request after another. These requests are frivolous, inappropriate, and sometimes nonsensical. They have become harassing to Defendants, and they overburden this Court's already heavy docket. Valentine is therefore advised that filing further unsupported motions for judicial notice may result in sanctions, up to and including dismissal with prejudice of the claims asserted in this case.
For the foregoing reasons, Valentine's Objection (Doc. # 233) is OVERRULED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Judge Crews's Order denying Plaintiffs request for judicial notice (Doc. # 228) is AFFIRMED.