Narrative Opinion Summary
In the appellate proceedings involving Steven Slesinger, Inc. (SSI) and Clare Milne, several procedural motions were brought before the court. SSI filed motions requesting judicial notice of certain facts pertaining to Milne, including past legal and contractual relationships and a specific agreement with Disney. Additionally, SSI sought to strike portions of Milne’s reply brief due to alleged misrepresentations and objected to a correction made by SSI in its answering brief. The court denied all motions. It concluded that the facts SSI wished to be judicially noticed were not beyond dispute but were legal conclusions, and one fact was deemed irrelevant. The motion to strike was rejected as it mischaracterized the relevance of Milne's statements, and the notice of errata was deemed to have a negligible effect on the case. The court determined that the disposition of these motions would not be published and could not be cited in the circuit except as permitted under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. This case underscores the strict standards for judicial notice and the importance of relevance and accurate characterization in appellate motions.
Legal Issues Addressed
Irrelevance of Evidence in Judicial Noticesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court deemed one of the facts presented by SSI irrelevant and inappropriate for judicial notice, indicating the necessity of relevance in such motions.
Reasoning: The fourth item was deemed irrelevant and inappropriate for judicial notice.
Judicial Notice under Federal Rules of Evidencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court declined to take judicial notice of alleged facts related to appellant Clare Milne, determining that they were legal conclusions rather than indisputable facts.
Reasoning: The court found that the facts SSI sought to have judicially noticed were not beyond reasonable dispute, but rather legal conclusions regarding relationships established by law.
Motion to Strike Under Appellate Proceduresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: SSI’s motion to strike parts of Milne’s reply brief was denied due to mischaracterization of the relevance of her statements, highlighting the threshold for striking content.
Reasoning: SSI’s motion to strike was rejected as it mischaracterized the relevance of Milne's statements.
Non-Publication of Dispositions Under Circuit Rulessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision to not publish the disposition and its limitation on citation reflects the guidelines under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Reasoning: The disposition of these motions is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Notice of Errata in Appellate Proceduresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Milne’s objection to SSI’s notice of errata was overruled because the correction had minimal impact on the arguments, underscoring the court's discretion in handling minor procedural corrections.
Reasoning: Finally, the change indicated in the notice of errata was determined to have minimal impact on the parties' arguments.