Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01732/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01732-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 06cv1732

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RENEE P. GEOFFROY and ALICE MACK,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 06cv1732 JM(WMC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

vs. DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK,

Defendant. ____________________________________

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK,

 Third-Party Plaintiff,

 vs.

JEANAN MCCULLOUGH,

 Third-Party Defendant.

Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Washington Mutual Bank (“Wamu”) moves, pursuant to

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss Plaintiff’s first cause of action for

violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. §1693 et seq. (“EFTA”). Plaintiffs Renee

Geoffroy and Alice Mack oppose the motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 71.(d)(1), this matter is

appropriate for decision without oral argument. 

The court denies the Rule 12(b)(6) motion without prejudice because the present motion is

largely predicated upon extraneous evidence, not properly considered on a motion to dismiss. Arpin

Case 3:06-cv-01732-JM-WMC Document 58 Filed 11/30/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 While the legal arguments raised by Wamu appear to have some merit, the court simply

cannot apply extrinsic evidence to the legal arguments on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion in order to determine

whether Plaintiffs state a claim for violation of EFTA. 

- 2 - 06cv1732

v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 925 (9th Cir. 2001) (“extraneous evidence should

not be considered in ruling on a motion to dismiss’). Wamu, in its notice of motion and motion to

dismiss, represents that the “motion is based upon Plaintiffs’ admissions [contained in a letter brief

submitted to Magistrate Judge McCurine] that the purported unauthorized transfers of funds from

Plaintiffs’ money market savings account, . . . were accomplished through telephonic communications.

. . .” (Notice of Motion at p. 2:10-13). Without citing any authority, Wamu represents that the court

may properly take judicial notice of a letter brief which is not part of the court’s docket. Furthermore,

the court notes that pertinent portions of the letter brief relied upon by Wamu are primarily based

upon the declaration of Ms. Karen Gill, a Wamu bank officer and compliance specialist. (Request for

Judicial Notice, Exh.1).

The court concludes that Wamu’s Exhibit 1 is not a proper subject for judicial notice under

FRE 201. A judicially noticed fact is one either (1) generally known in the community or (2) “capable

of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be

questioned.” FRE 201(b). Indisputably, Exhibit 1 does not satisfy either prerequisite for judicial

notice.1

 The court notes that Rule 56 provides Wamu with the procedural mechanism to raised

evidentiary-based motions.

In sum, the motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 30, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:06-cv-01732-JM-WMC Document 58 Filed 11/30/07 Page 2 of 2