Aquino v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:22-cv-04267
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Aquino v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Judge Parker denied Stevan Johnson’s request for judicial notice because it was irrelevant to this wage-and-hour case.
The ruling directly affected Stevan Johnson’s motion. The underlying case concerns wage-and-hour claims brought by Anthony Aquino and other plaintiffs against Uber Technologies, Inc., and other defendants.
What happened
In Aquino v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Stevan Johnson asked the court to officially recognize information about Uber’s alleged duty to comply with disability-access laws.
The court said that request was unrelated to the pending case, which involves wage-and-hour claims. The court also noted that Johnson is not a party in the case.
Judge Katharine H. Parker denied Johnson’s motion for judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201.
The detailed version
- Aquino v. Uber Technologies, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04267
- Katharine Parker
- May 13, 2023
Background
The case involves wage-and-hour claims brought by Anthony Aquino, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against Uber Technologies, Inc., and other defendants. Stevan Johnson filed a motion asking the court to take judicial notice of information concerning Uber’s alleged obligation to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Evidence 201 allows a court to recognize a fact without requiring formal proof when the fact is generally known in the court’s area or can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. The court must take judicial notice when a party requests it and provides the necessary information, but the requested fact must be relevant to the case.
Ruling
The court found that Johnson’s request was not relevant to any pending motion or to the action generally because the case concerns wage-and-hour claims, not Uber’s alleged obligations under disability-access law. The court also noted that Johnson is not a party before it. The court therefore denied the motion for judicial notice at ECF No. 71.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.