WRIGHT
v.
EDWARDS

M.D. Fla. | 2023-05-08
No. 29
2010 WL 11505113 District Court, M.D. Florida (2023) Caution
Also reported at: 2020 WL 1478504
Cited by 3 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The court denied the plaintiff's motion for judicial notice of the truth of his complaint's allegations and the falsity of the defendant's statements.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed a motion seeking judicial notice of the truth of his second amended complaint and the falsity of statements in the …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics
Adjudicative Facts Judicial Notice

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Adjudicative Facts cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

ADJUDICATIVE FACTS (Doc. No. 29) FILED: May 2, 2023

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.1

To the extent that Plaintiff is arguing that the second amended complaint should stand and Defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied, the motion to dismiss, Doc. No. 18, along with Plaintiff's already-filed response, Doc. No. 20, will be addressed in due course. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 8, 2023.

ayn [...]

LESLIE AN PRICE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

Footnotes
1 The Court does not require the benefit of a response from Defendant to resolve the motion. Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed the above-styled motion for “judicial notice of adjudicative facts,” in which he appears to be asking the Court to take judicial notice of the truth of the allegations of his second amended complaint and to grant the relief requested therein, and to take judicial notice that Defendant’s motion to dismiss contains false statements. Doc. No. 29. On review, Plaintiff’s motion fails to establish entitlement to the relief sought. See generally United States v. Jones, 29 F. 3d 1549, 1553 (11th Cir. 1994) (“In order for a fact to be judicially noticed under Rule 201(b), indisputability is a prerequisite.” (citation omitted)); Gomez v. Lozano, No. 09-22988-CIV, 2010 WL 11505113, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2010) (“[T]o be considered an ‘adjudicative fact’ capable of judicial notice, ‘[a] judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is . . . capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)). Cf. B&G Equip. Co., Inc. v. Airofog USA, LLC, No. 8:19-cv-403-T-36AEP, 2020 WL 1478504, at *7 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 26, 2020) (taking judicial notice only of the fact that a complaint was filed in another case, but “not the truth or accuracy of those allegations or any matters asserted” in that litigation).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Wright v. Edwards, 2010 WL 11505113 (M.D. Fla. 2023)
    …relief sought. See generally United States v. Jones, 29 F. 3d 1549, 1553 (11th Cir. 1994) (“In order for a fact to be judicially noticed under Rule 201(b), indisputability is a prerequisite.” (citation omitted)); Gomez v. Lozano, No. 09-22988-CIV, 2010 WL 11505113, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2010) (“[T]o be considered an ‘adjudicative fact’ capable of judicial notice, ‘[a] judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is . . . capable of accurate and ready determination by r…
    1 / 2
  • Aguilar Mendez v. St. Johns Cnty. (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …knew there was no reasonable suspicion for the initial stop or probable cause for the arrest, id. ¶ 136, and thus that they too maliciously used excessive force to [5] ---PAGE 6--- effect an unlawful arrest, see Gomez v. Lozano, No. 09-22988- CIV, 2010 WL 11505113, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2010) (acknowledging conclusory nature of plaintiff’s malice allegations, but allowing claim to go forward on the facts alleged because “[t]he senseless, random detention and beating of an innocent pedestrian constitutes w…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw