Joyner v. Alston & Bird LLP
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-08549
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Joyner v. Alston & Bird LLP, Judge Torres denied Joyner’s motion for mandatory judicial notice without prejudice.
Dawn M. Joyner’s request for judicial notice, docketed at ECF No. 22; the order does not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
What happened
In Joyner v. Alston & Bird LLP, Dawn M. Joyner asked the court to formally recognize several federal rules, a cited court decision, and legal definitions.
Her filing referred to rules about affidavits, personal knowledge, testimony under oath, and hearsay. It also cited a decision discussing facts outside the record and included definitions of a competent witness and evidence.
The court denied the motion without prejudice to renewal later in the litigation. Judge Analisa Torres also directed the clerk to close the motion at ECF No. 22 and mail Joyner a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Joyner v. Alston & Bird LLP · No. 1:21-cv-08549
- Analisa Torres
- Mar. 23, 2022
Background
Dawn M. Joyner filed a motion asking the court to take “mandatory judicial notice.” Judicial notice is a procedure under which a court accepts certain matters without requiring the usual proof. The motion identified Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(4), Federal Rules of Evidence 602, 603, 802, a decision cited as Trinsey v. Pagliaro, and definitions of “competent witness” and “evidence.” The caption identifies Alston & Bird LLP, Richard Hays, Cathy Benton, and Michael Stephens as defendants.
The Motion
Joyner’s filing discussed requirements for affidavits and declarations, witnesses’ personal knowledge, oaths or affirmations, and the general rule against hearsay. It also cited language concerning statements by lawyers and facts outside the record in motions to dismiss or for summary judgment. The motion requested judicial notice without a hearing and sought any other relief the court considered appropriate.
Ruling
The court denied the motion without prejudice to renewal at a later stage of the litigation. The order directed the Clerk of Court to close ECF No. 22 and mail a copy of the order to Joyner. The opinion text does not explain why the court denied the motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.