Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01606/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01606-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Balanced Body University, LLC
Plaintiff
Valeria Zahourek
Defendant
Zahourek Systems, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BALANCED BODY UNIVERSITY, 

LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ZAHOUREK SYSTEMS, INC. and 

VALERIA ZAHOUREK, 

Defendants. 

No. CIV. S-13-1606 LKK/EFB 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Balanced Body University, LLC (“BBU”) sues 

defendants Zahourek Systems, Inc. (“ZSI”) and Valeria Zahourek, 

an individual, alleging trademark violations. 

Defendants move to transfer, stay, or dismiss based on the 

first-to-file doctrine, or in the alternative, to transfer 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Zahourek also moves to dismiss 

the case against her for lack of personal jurisdiction. These 

motions are currently set for hearing on January 13, 2014. 

The court does not find oral argument to be necessary. For 

the reasons set forth below, the motions will be denied without 

prejudice to their renewal. 

Case 2:13-cv-01606-LKK-EFB Document 33 Filed 01/07/14 Page 1 of 6
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 

2 

Central to defendants’ motions is their Request for Judicial 

Notice (“RJN,” ECF No. 21). While this document is captioned as a 

request for judicial notice in support of defendants’ motion to 

transfer, stay, or dismiss based on the first-to-file doctrine, 

or in the alternative, to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1404(a), it is also cited repeatedly in Zahourek’s motion to 

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Having reviewed the 

papers in support of both motions, the court has determined that 

the request for judicial notice is central to defendants’ 

arguments in both motions. 

But the request for judicial notice is so badly flawed that 

any motion premised upon it must be denied. 

A fact may be judicially noticed if it is “not subject to 

reasonable dispute,” either because it is “generally known within 

the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court” or it is 

“capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources 

whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 

201(b). 

Defendants begin by requesting that the court take judicial 

notice of the docket in Zahourek Systems, Inc. v. Balanced Body 

University, LLC, No. 1:13-cv-01812-RM-CBS (D. Colo.), filed by 

defendant ZSI on July 10, 2013 (“Colorado Action”). The court 

will do so, as it “may take notice of proceedings in other 

courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if 

those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” 

Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation 

omitted). Plaintiff does not oppose this request. (Opposition to 

Request for Judicial Notice (“Oppo. RJN”) 4, ECF No. 26.) 

Case 2:13-cv-01606-LKK-EFB Document 33 Filed 01/07/14 Page 2 of 6
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 

3 

Defendants then request that the court take judicial notice 

of certain documents filed in the Colorado Action. The court 

declines to do so, as taking judicial notice of these documents 

wholesale may lead to unforeseen consequences. Per Wright & 

Miller: 

Courts could save themselves much grief and 

embarrassment by insisting that lawyers 

specify precisely the fact to be noticed. 

Similarly, lawyers should treat precedents 

with suspicion when the fact noticed seems 

loosely stated. For example, courts that do 

not specify the “fact” being noticed when 

they take notice of “court records” can end 

up turning a hearsay statement into “truth” 

by the alchemy of judicial notice. Astute 

courts reiterate that while court records may 

be sources of reasonably indisputable 

accuracy when they memorialize some judicial 

action, this does not mean that courts can 

notice the truth of every hearsay statement 

filed with the clerk. To do so would make 

judicial notice a kind of bastard res 

judicata in which parties end up being bound 

by facts they never had any opportunity to 

contest. Courts can avoid this by carefully 

specifying just what is being noticed; e.g., 

that the court merely notices that something 

was said at a hearing for the purpose of 

inferring its affect [sic] on the persons who 

heard it, not for its truth. 

21B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and 

Procedure § 5104 (2d. ed. 2013) (“Facts Judicially Noticeable; 

Indisputability”). 

Defendants have identified twenty-two facts of which they 

seek judicial notice. But many of these “facts” are so badlyframed that the court cannot take notice of them. Rather than 

quote specific allegations or statements from documents filed in 

Case 2:13-cv-01606-LKK-EFB Document 33 Filed 01/07/14 Page 3 of 6
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 

4 

the Colorado Action, defendants repeatedly engage in 

inappropriate paraphrase. Consider the following: 

1. In the Colorado Action, ZSI claims that: “In selling 

its models, ZSI does so subject to a ‘Product License 

Agreement.’” 

5. In the Colorado Action, ZSI claims that: “In July 2013, 

after the parties’ negotiations over a possible 

licensing agreement reached an impasse, ZSI issued a 

‘Demand for Arbitration.’” 

The statements in quotation marks do not appear anywhere in ZSI’s 

Verified Petition to Compel Arbitration (“Initial Petition,” RJN 

Exh. B) or its Verified First Amended Petition to Compel 

Arbitration (“First Amended Petition,” RJN Exh. G), i.e., the 

documents which defendants cite in support of these statements. 

The court cannot take judicial notice of statements which 

paraphrase or summarize allegations, as such statements are 

arguably inaccurate, and therefore, “subject to reasonable 

dispute.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). 

 At other points, defendants ask the court to take judicial 

notice of inferences drawn from allegations in the Colorado 

Action. For example: 

4. The parties acknowledge that: ZSI’s and BBU’s 

negotiations over a possible licensing agreement never 

yielded an agreement. 

The court cannot take judicial notice of this “fact.” Defendants’ 

sole citation is to paragraph 25 in the First Amended Petition, 

which alleges certain communications between the parties. This 

paragraph does not yield an indisputable inference that (i) the 

Case 2:13-cv-01606-LKK-EFB Document 33 Filed 01/07/14 Page 4 of 6
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 

5 

parties failed to reach a licensing agreement and (ii) that they 

both acknowledge this failure. 

And, in other instances, defendants seek judicial notice of 

allegations which are potentially subject to dispute, e.g.: 

17. ZSI has its principal place of business in Colorado. 

The court can take judicial notice of the fact that plaintiff 

alleged this in paragraph 6 of the First Amended Petition, but it 

cannot take notice that ZSI’s principal place of business is in 

fact in Colorado. “A court can only take judicial notice of the 

existence of those matters of public record (the existence of a 

motion or of representations having been made therein) but not of 

the veracity of the arguments and disputed facts contained 

therein.” U.S. v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 300 F. Supp. 2d 964, 974 

(E.D. Cal. 2004) (Wanger, J.). 

 If they so choose, defendants may renew their motions, and 

base them on a properly-framed request for judicial notice (or 

other adequate evidentiary foundation). But, given how the 

current request for judicial notice is framed, the court cannot 

take notice of many of the proffered facts. As these facts are 

central to both motions, these motions must be denied. 

The court therefore orders as follows: 

[1] Defendants’ motion to transfer, stay, or dismiss based 

on the first-to-file doctrine, or in the alternative, to 

transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), is DENIED without 

prejudice. 

[2] Defendant Valeria Zahourek’s motion to dismiss for lack 

of personal jurisdiction is DENIED without prejudice. 

Case 2:13-cv-01606-LKK-EFB Document 33 Filed 01/07/14 Page 5 of 6
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 

6 

[3] The hearings on both motions, currently scheduled for 

January 13, 2014, are VACATED. 

[4] Defendants are DIRECTED to file an answer or other 

responsive pleading within twenty (20) days of docketing of 

this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 6, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-01606-LKK-EFB Document 33 Filed 01/07/14 Page 6 of 6