You're viewing Docket Item 43 from the case Jonah Ansell v. Daniel S. Laikin et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 2:10-cv-09292-PA -AGR Document 43 Filed 07/11/11 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:344



Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. (SBN 219683)
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
333 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel.: (213) 785-2610
Fax: (213) 226-4684
Email: [email protected]

Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs and the Class


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WESTERN DIVISION



JONAH ANSELL, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DANIEL S. LAIKIN, TIMOTHY S.
DURHAM, PAUL SKJODT,
ROBERT LEVY, JAMES P.
JIMIRRO, DUNCAN MURRAY,
JAMES TOLL, LORRAINE
EVANOFF, and NATIONAL
LAMPOON, INC.,

Defendants.


)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 10-CV-09292 PA (AGRx)

CLASS ACTION

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE IN OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANT LAIKIN’S MOTION
TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT

Hearing:
Date: August 1, 2011
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Dept.: 15
Judge: Hon. Percy Anderson

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice in Opposition to Defendant Laikin’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint

No. 10-CV-09292 PA (AGRx)

0


Case 2:10-cv-09292-PA -AGR Document 43 Filed 07/11/11 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:345



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28



Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 Plaintiff hereby respectfully
request that the Court take judicial notice of the attached exhibits in connection
with their memoranda of law in opposition to Defendant Laikin’s motion to
dismiss the Complaint.

Under the incorporation by reference doctrine, a court may consider on a Rule
12(b)(6) motion documents “whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose
authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the
plaintiff’s pleading.” In re Silicon Graphics Sec. Litig., 183 F.3d 970, 986 (9th
Cir. 1999) (internal citation omitted); In re Portal Software, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
LEXIS 20214, *12 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2005) (“courts are specifically authorized,
in connection with a motion to dismiss a securities fraud complaint, to consider
documents and filings described in the complaint under the incorporation by
reference doctrine”).

In addition, Federal Rule of Evidence 201 allows a court to take judicial notice
of facts that are “not subject to reasonable dispute in that [they are] either (1)
generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable
of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot
reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).

It is also well established in the Ninth Circuit that courts may take judicial
notice of the record in court proceedings. Fed.R.Evid. 201(b)(2), (c); see also,
e.g., Papai v. Harbor Tug & Barge Co., 67 F.3d 203, 207 n. 5 (9th Cir. 1995)
(upholding judicial notice of orders and decisions by other courts), rev'd on other
grounds, 520 U.S. 548 (1996); United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens
Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding courts may
take judicial notice of “proceedings in other courts, both within and without the
federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at
issue”); Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1388, n.9 (9th Cir.

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice in Opposition to Defendant Laikin’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint

No. 10-CV-09292 PA (AGRx)

1


Case 2:10-cv-09292-PA -AGR Document 43 Filed 07/11/11 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:346



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1040 (1988) (determining courts may take judicial
notice of contents in court files in other lawsuits); MGIC Indem. Corp. v.
Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 504 (9th Cir.1986) (finding courts may take judicial
notice of matters of public record outside pleadings).

Furthermore, the Court may properly consider facts subject to judicial
notice without converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary
judgment. U.S. v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).

This Court should take judicial notice of the following documents attached
as an exhibit to the Declaration of Laurence Rosen, filed herewith, because they
are incorporated by reference into the Complaint and/or judicially noticeable
under Federal Rule of Evidence 201:

1. Exhibit 1: A true and correct copy of the final consent judgment entered against
Defendant Laikin in SEC v. National Lampoon, Inc., C.A. No. 08-5790 (PBT) (E.D. Pa.),
Doc. 34 (Ex. A);



2. Exhibit 2: A certified copy of the relevant portions of the transcript of the
change of plea hearing in the matter U.S. v. Laikin, et al., No. 2:08-cr-00733-
JHS-1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 23, 2009).
Dated: July 11, 2011





















Respectfully submitted,


Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. (SBN 219683)

THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
333 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel.: (213) 785-2610
Fax: (213) 226-4684
Email: [email protected]
Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs and the Class












/s/ Laurence Rosen, Esq.


























Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice in Opposition to Defendant Laikin’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint

No. 10-CV-09292 PA (AGRx)

2


Case 2:10-cv-09292-PA -AGR Document 43 Filed 07/11/11 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:347



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Laurence M. Rosen, hereby declare under penalty of perjury as follows:
I am the managing attorney of the Rosen Law Firm, P.A., with offices at 333
South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071. I am over the age of
eighteen.

On July 11, 2011, I electronically filed the following PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
LAIKIN’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT with the Clerk of the
Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of such filing to counsel
of record.
Executed on July 11, 2011


























/s/ Laurence Rosen
Laurence M. Rosen



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice in Opposition to Defendant Laikin’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint

No. 10-CV-09292 PA (AGRx)

3