Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 21, 2023

Wimberly v. Stern

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:22-cv-07581
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In Wimberly v. Stern, Judge Broderick granted Wimberly’s request to notice publicly available webpages without deciding whether their contents were true.

Who this affects

Jason Wimberly and the defendants in the case; the order concerns the identified webpages and does not determine the truth of their contents.

What happened

In Wimberly v. Stern, Jason Wimberly asked the Southern District of New York to take judicial notice of Spring Bank’s website and identified webpages. The motion relied on a federal evidence rule concerning facts that are not reasonably disputed.

The court granted the application. It recognized the identified webpages as publicly available and said their existence was not reasonably disputable.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick emphasized that the order did not decide whether the statements on any of the webpages were true.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Wimberly v. Stern · No. 1:22-cv-07581
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
July 21, 2023

Background

Plaintiff Jason Wimberly filed a motion asking the court to take judicial notice of Defendant Spring Bank’s website in its entirety or, alternatively, of specified webpages. The motion cited Federal Rule of Evidence 201 and listed pages from Spring Bank’s website, an American Banker webpage concerning Melanie Stern, and the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund website.

Ruling

The court granted the application. It took judicial notice of the identified website pages because they were publicly available and their existence was not subject to reasonable dispute. Judicial notice permits a court to accept certain facts without requiring ordinary proof. The court expressly stated that it made no findings about the truth of matters asserted on the webpages.

Effect

The order addressed only whether the webpages’ existence and public availability could be judicially noticed. It did not determine whether the information published on those pages was accurate or resolve the underlying claims in Wimberly v. Stern.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.