U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Radu v. Johnson Shon, Docket No. 22-16316, For Publication

Foreign Law

 

Interpretation of Foreign Law

 

Judicial Notice

 

Expert Testimony

 

Legal Research (Int’l)

 

Comity (Int’l)

 

Federal Procedure

 

 

 

(…) Federal Rules of Evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1. Moreover, “the court is not limited by material presented by the parties; it may engage in its own research and consider any relevant material thus found.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1 advisory committee’s note to 1966 amendment. That said, “expert testimony accompanied by extracts from foreign legal materials has been and will likely continue to be the basic mode of proving foreign law.” Universe Sales Co., Ltd. v. Silver Castle, Ltd., 182 F.3d 1036, 1038 (9th Cir. 1999). Courts nonetheless have an “independent obligation to adequately ascertain relevant foreign law, even if the parties’ submissions are lacking.” de Fontbrune, 838 F.3d at 997. Though international comity requires American courts to “carefully consider a foreign state’s views about the meaning of its own laws,” that deference has its limits. Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharm. Co., 138 S. Ct. 1865, 1873 (2018). “The appropriate weight in each case . . . will depend upon the circumstances; a federal court is neither bound to adopt the foreign government’s characterization nor required to ignore other relevant materials.” Id.

 

 

(…) And our de novo review of the ultimate legal conclusion ensures that foreign legal issues are treated like domestic ones.

 

 

The district court neither abused its discretion nor violated Shon’s due process rights by communicating with the State Department and, through it, the German Central Authority. “Independent judicial research” on a legal question “does not implicate the judicial notice and ex parte issues spawned by independent factual research.” de Fontbrune, 838 F.3d at 999; see also G&G Prods. LLC v. Rusic, 902 F.3d 940, 948 (9th Cir. 2018) (“formal notice” of court’s intent to research foreign law not required). Nor do the Federal Rules of Evidence and its hearsay rules apply to foreign law materials, much as legal research on domestic law cannot trigger evidentiary objections. See de Fontbrune, 838 F.3d at 999.

 

 

 

 

(U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, March 13, 2023, Radu v. Johnson Shon, Docket No. 22-16316, For Publication)

 

California Court of Appeal, Grosz v. California Dept. of Tax and Fee Administration, Docket No. B309418

 

Judicial Notice

 

California Law

 

 

 

Chacon v. Union Pacific Railroad (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 565, 573 [judicial notice may be taken of a document, but not the truth of its contents].

 

 

While courts take judicial notice of public records, they do not take notice of the truth of matters stated therein.” (Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1375.)

 

 

“A court will not take judicial notice of a case that was not cited in the briefs.” Neither will appellate courts “take judicial notice of matters irrelevant to the dispositive point on appeal.” The interpretation of a sister state’s statute by that state’s courts that was not discussed in the briefs is not relevant to our consideration of the issues on this appeal. Indeed, the question at issue on that appeal—whether non-Pennsylvania businesses that sell merchandise through Amazon’s FBA Program must collect and remit Pennsylvania sales tax—has no bearing on whether the determination of who is a retailer under California’s Sales and Use Tax Law is a ministerial task or involves the exercise of DTFA discretion.

 

 

 

(California Court of Appeal, Jan. 9, 2023, Grosz v. California Dept. of Tax and Fee Administration, Docket No. B309418, Certified for Publication)

 

Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc., S233983

Judicial notice: Unpublished opinions:

(…) M. asked us to judicially notice several unpublished Court of Appeal opinions that adopted the same rule. With certain exceptions, not applicable here, the Rules of Court generally prohibit us from noticing unpublished opinions. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a).) We therefore declined to grant her request.

(Cal.S.C., Jan. 29, 2018, Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc., S233983)

De manière générale, le Tribunal n'est pas admis à prendre en compte les décisions de justice non publiées. Il n'est donc pas non plus utile d'essayer de les faire déposer au dossier par une requête en "judicial notice". La requête sera rejetée, sauf dans deux hypothèses prévues à la lettre b de la Rule of Court 8.1115: http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=eight&linkid=rule8_1115

Judicial notice: Legal research: Legislative history:

Judicial notice: Legal research: Legislative history:

« You need to provide the court with a copy of any legislative history materials on which you rely in a brief. Legislative history materials are often submitted to the court through a request for judicial notice. See Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc., 133 Cal. App. 4^th 26, 29-31 (3d Dist. 2005) (discussing protocol for submitting legislative history materials via request for judicial notice)”.

(Macfarlane, Dudovitz, Rowe, California Legal Research, Second Edition, Carolina Academic Press, 2013, p. 108, fn. 12)

In Re Tobacco

Judicial notice: we grant the request for judicial notice by amicus curiae the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights to judicially notice the text of Proposition 64, the ballot pamphlet argument for and against the proposition, and the analysis of the initiative by the Legislative Analyst (fn. 10) (Cal. S. Ct., 18.05.09, In Re Tobacco).

Prise en compte judiciaire d’un moyen de preuve, sans qu’une partie ait spécialement besoin de le produire : dans cette affaire, la Cour Suprême de Californie accepte de considérer par ce biais, et de verser au dossier, un projet de loi, l’argumentaire pour et contre le projet, et l’analyse de l’initiative populaire faite par l’analyste du législatif.

Vargas v. City of Salinas, S140911

Judicial notice: (…) as an official government document, is a proper subject of judicial notice.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c).)  (p. 22) (Cal. S. Ct., 20.04.09, Vargas v. City of Salinas, S140911).

Prise en compte judiciaire par la Cour d’un document officiel.