## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 2400 C HA RLES D O SS, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. C LEA RW ATE R T IT LE C O ., etal. , D efend a nts, an d
F IR S T F RANK LI N F INANCIAL C O RP ., etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 06 C6170

— SamuelD er-Yegh iayan, Judge .
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 4, 2008

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 24, 2008

Befo re M A NI ON, W OO D , a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C i r c uit Ju dg e. A lth ou gh th is c as e b eg an as a su it und erthe Truth i n Lend i ng A ct ( “TI LA ”) , 15 U
. S. C. § 1 601 et seq. , al ong w i th supp l em ental sta te theo ri es, it w as ni pp ed i n the bud by the dist ri ct c ourtwith a di sm i ssa l f orf ai l ure t o st ate a cl ai m upon w hi ch r el i efcan be2 N o. 07

- 2400 gr anted. S ee F ED . R. C IV . P. 12 (b )(6)
. I n gr anti ng tha t m o ti o n, ho wev er, the di st r i ctc o ur t f ai l ed to ta ke the al l ege d fa cts i n the l i ght m ostf avo rabl e t o the pl eader

— a p e r s p e c t i v e th a tr e ma i n s i nf o r c e e v e n a ft e r th e S u p r e me Cou r t’ s dec i si o n i n Bel l At l ant i c Corp
. v. Twom b l y, 550 U
. S. 544 ( 2007 )
. Once w e sor t thro ugh a fe w j uri sdic ti onal i ssues , i t be com es cl earthatDoss i s e nti tl ed to pro ceed w i th hi s l aw sui t. W e there for e r eve rs e a nd r em and fo r furtherpro ceedi ngs.

I On A ugust 2 7, 20 04, Charl es Doss r efi nanced the m or tg ag e o n h i s ho m e. He u se d the s er vi ce s o fa c o m pan y c all ed The Loan A rr anger, wh i ch put hi m i n to uch w i th Frank l i n Fi nanci alCor pora ti on. Fr ankl i n agr eed to l oan Doss $135 , 000, o n the condi ti on ( am ong othe r thi ngs) th at h e o b ta in tit le in su ra n c e. D os s d id so , g i v i n g h is busi ness to Clea rwaterTi tl e C om pany. U nbeknownst to Doss, The Loan A rra n gerand Cle ar w ate r w er e a ffi l i ate d wi th o n e a n o th e r ; wo r s e , C l e a r wa t e r w a s u n l i c e n s e d

. At the c l osing o fthe re fi nanci ng tr ansaction D oss was gi ven a do cumente nt i tl ed I te m i za ti o n o f Am o untF i na nc ed. The I tem i zati on ind i cate d that Dos s was to be cha rg ed $5 00 f orthe ti tl e i nsu ra n c e, but the HU D-1 Se ttl em ent S tat em ent for m r eve al s that Doss was actual l y c harg ed $1, 470 for th at ite m . On N o ve m b er 13 , 200 6, D os s filed th is l aw sui t i n federa l cou rt , a sse rt i ng tha t TI LA had bee n vi o l at ed i n v ar i o us way s i n the c ou rse o fhi s r efi na nc i ng deal, as h ad the I l l i noi s Consum erFr aud and Decepti ve Bu si ness P ra c tices Act, 81 5 I LC S § 5 05/ 1 et seq. The de f en -N o. 07

- 2400 3 dants nam ed i n the TI LA c ou n t w er e F ra nkl i n, J PM or gan Ch a s e Ba nkN. A. , S a xo n M o r t g a g e S e r v i c e s , I nc . , a nd a J ohn Doe; Cl ear w ater, Fr ankl i n, and The Loan A rr anger w er e the defendants nam ed i n the Consum erFr aud count. Ch ase o w ned the no te a nd the m or tga ge, and Sa xon w as ser vi ci ng the m or tga ge. Chase a n d S ax on had fi l ed f or f o r ec l o su r e o n Mar ch 29 , 20 06 , so m e si x an d a ha l fmonths be f o r e Doss su ed

. Do ss s et tl ed wi thCl ea r wat era nd Th e Lo a n Ar r a ng e r a t s o me po i nt b e f o r e the mot i o n, and so th ey p lay n o p ar t in th is a p p ea l. T h e p os itio n ofa p p ella n t F ra n klin req u ire s s om e a d d iti onalexpl anati on. Earl y in the proce edi ngs, Do ss m ove d for d efault ju d gm en t against Franklin; th e d istri ct cou rt’s or der o fFe bruar y 2 8, 20 07, di sposin g of that m oti on re ads i n re l evantpartas f ol l ows: Pl ai nti ffCharl es Doss’ m oti on fo r defa ultj ud gm ent a s to d efe n d an t F i r s t F ra n klin Fin an c ial C or p or at ion is g r an te d. De f au l t i s he r eb y e nt er ed i n f avoro fthe pla i nti ffCharl es D oss and ag ai nst defendant Fi rs t F r an k l i n F i na nc i alCo r po r at i o n. W hi l e i t i s no t en ti r el y c l ea r fr o m thi s o r derwhethe r the cou rt w as m erely entering a d efault un d er F ED . R. C IV . P. 55( a) , o r a def aul t j ud gm ent under Rule 55(b) ( 2), l ate r proce edi ngs c on vi nce us that i t was a defa ultj ud gm ent. Fr ankl i n so i nter prete d i t, w hi ch i s w hy i t fi l ed a m ot i on see ki ng to se t a si de the “def aul t j ud gm ent”; the dist ri ct cour t ackno w l edged that m oti on i n an or der d ate d M ar ch1 5, 2 00 7. As f ara s th i s recor d s ho ws tha t i s th e l astti m e the di str i ct c ourtf ocuse d on Fr anklin ’s part of th e c ase. Thi s was, ther ef or e, the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s fi nal di spo si ti o n wi thr es pec t to F r an k l i n.4 N o. 07

- 2400 Inres p on se to D os s’s co m p lain t, C h as e a n d Sa x on j oin tly fi l ed a m oti on under Rul e 1 2( b) ( 6) to d i sm i ss f orf ai l ure to sta te a cl ai m . That m oti on int roduced a new f actual a s s e r t i o n i nt o the c a s e : i ta l l e g e d tha tDo s s sol d the p r o per ty b y a qu i tcl ai m deed dated J une 27, 20 06; the deed w as re cor ded o n J une 29, 20 06. They a tta ched a co py of that deed to thei r m oti on. Based on thi s ne w ev id ence, Cha se a nd Sax on ar g ue d tha t Dos s no l o ng erha d a r i g ht t o r e s c i nd the t r a ns a c t i o n. S e e 1 5 U. S

. C. § 1 6 3 5 ( f )
. Doss then fi l ed a r esponse , i n w hi ch he a ss erted thathe ha d not sol d oro ther w i se tr ansfer re d his p ro perty, and that the dee d atta ched to t he defendants’ m oti on was a f or ger y. Ind ee d , D os s c on tin u ed , he h ad filed a qu iet tit le c laim i n the Cir cui t Cour t o fCookCount y an d had caused a li s pe nde ns noti ce to be re cor ded w i th the C oo k C ounty R ec or d er of D ee d s. D os s a t t a c h e d a c op y of b ot h h is sta te cour t c om p l ai nt and hi s l i s pe nde ns n ot ice to h is re sponse. The dis tr i ct c ourtgr anted the m oti on t o dism i ss i n an or der d at ed A pri l 17, 20 07. I t deci ded to ta ke j ud i ci al noti ce o fthe deed ofsa l e, o ff er i ng the f ol l ow i ng expl anati o n: I n the ins t a nta c t i o n, we c a n t a k e j ud i c i a l n o t i c e o f the Deed, w hi ch is a m att erof publi c r eco rd. A l though Doss c l ai m s that the Deed is a f or ger y he has no t prese nted any evi dence thatsho w s the Deed has been f o u n d i n v a l i d b y th e s t a t e c o u r t
. D o s s c a n n o tpr ev en t a di sm i ssa l o f thi s acti on m er el y by prese nti ng al l ega tio n s o f frau d on th e p ar t o f th e A lleg ed B u ye rs . A t t h is j unc tu r e, the De ed i s ev i den ce o fa v al i d s al e o ftheN o. 07

- 2400 5 Ho us e . Th e r e f o r e , b a s e d up o n the r e c o r d b e f o r e us, w e c o nc l ud e tha tDo s s n o l o ng e r h a s a r i g htt o r e s c i ssi on a nd we gr ant the m oti on t o dism i ss. W i th the TI LA cl ai m go ne, t h e dist ri ct c ourtexer ci sed i ts disc re ti on t o dism i ss Doss’ s su p p l em entalst ate l aw ar gum ents as w el l

. I t no ted atthe end ofi ts or der that th e a c tio n w as d ism iss ed w ith ou t p rej u d ice . In ad d itio n, i t rul es th at “[ a] l l pending dates and m oti ons ar e her eby str i cken as m oo t. ” The e ff ect ofthe l asts entence was to deny Fr ankl i n’s m oti on t o setas i de the defa ultj ud gm ent a gai nst i t. Dos s fi l ed a ti m el y m o ti o n f o r r ec o ns i der at i o n o r, i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , f o r l e a v e t o f i l e a n a me n d e d c o mpl a i n t
. He a r g ue d tha tthe de f e nd a nt s ’ a l l ega t i o n tha th i s T I LA r i g ht s ha d ex p i r ed was a n a ffi r m at i ve de f en se , a nd thus n ot an ap p ro p ria te su b j ec t fo r a d ism iss al u n d er R u le 12(b)(6). M ore over, he said, there w as an eviden tiary d i s p u t e ab o ut th e s t a t u s o fth e s u p p o s e d c o n v e y a n c e . He u r g e d th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tt o p e r mi th i m t o a me n d h i s c o mpla i nt so thathe c oul d asse rtthatthe c on vey ance was i nval i d and that no sal e o fhi s pro pertyhad t ak en pl ace. Fi nal l y, Doss sugge ste d that the di str i ct c ourtst ay i ts pr o c e e di ng s u nt i l the s t a t e c o ur ta c t i o n wa s r eso l ve d, poi nti ng o ut that h is r i ght t o re sci nd under TI LA was du e t o expir e o n A ugust 2 7, 20 07. The dis tr i ct c ourt, i n an or der date d M ay 24, 20 07, deni ed al l o fDoss’ s r equests
. I t held that he w as precl ud ed f r o m t ak i ngthe po si ti o n that the de f en dan ts wer e tr y i ng to u se a n affirm at ive d efe n se , bec au se h e h ad n ot sa id anythi ng ab out thi s i n hi s res p onse to thei r m oti on t o6 N o. 07

- 2400 di smi ss . I n a ny e ve nt, the c our t co ns i der ed th i s ar g um ent t o be without m er i t, bec au se, i t s ai d, § 1 635( f ) i s no t a st atut e o fl i m i ta ti o ns , but r athe r i s a co ndi ti o n pr ec ede nt to b r i ng i nga TI LA r es ci ss i o n acti o n. The c o ur t th o ug ht th atDo ss ’ s r eque stf o r di sc o ve r y a l so c ame t oo late, a nd it s aw n o re as o n t o g r an t t h e re q u es te d st ay be c au se it had no way ofpre dict i ng wh at the s tat e co urt w oul d do. Dos s fi l ed a no ti ce ofa ppea lo n J une 1 4, 2 00 7. W hi l e th e case was pend i ng be f or e thi s court, the sta te cour t e nter ed a j udg m en t o n Aug us t 23 , 2 00 7, in Dos s’ s f av o r, fi ndi ng th at th e d eed h ad n ot been d eli vered , n or h ad any ow ne rshi p i nter esti n the proper ty been c on ve yed to ano ther per so n.

II In som e w ays, i t is ha rd to know w he re to begin, ap art f r om s ay i ngtha t th i s l i ti g at i o n t o o ka b ad f al l o ffthe rails. W e s houl d com m ent, however, bo th o n the dist ri ct cou rt’s j urisd iction an d on ap p ell ate j urisd iction, before ex pl aini ngwhy th ati s the c as e. W e fi r sta ddr es s th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s su bj ec t- m at te r j ur i sdi ct i o n, a nd the n o ur o wn appe l l at e j ur i sdi ct i o n. The de f en dan ts ha ve a r g ue d b efo r e th is cour t th atthe dis tri ct c ourtl acke d subj ect- m att erj uri sdic ti on o ver Doss’ s TI LA cl ai m bec ause he had so l d the pro perty bef or e he cl ai m ed a r i ght t o re sci ssi on. The st at u te , they poi nt o ut, pro vi des that : A n obl i gor ’ s r i ght o fr esci ssi on sh all expir e three yea rs afterthe date o fco nsum m ati on o fthe tr ans-N o. 07

- 2400 7 acti on o r up on the sa l e o fthe proper ty, wh i chever oc c u rs first

. . . . 1 5 U
. S

. C. § 1 6 3 5 ( f )
. T h e y n o t e a s w e l l th a tth e S u p r e me Cou r t, i n Beac h v. O cwe n Fe de r al B a nk, 523 U
. S. 410 (1997), ch ar ac te r i ze d § 1 63 5( f ) a s a st atut e o fr epo se , ho l di ng ther e that bo rr owers had no r i ght t o ass er t a r i ght t o re sci nd as an a ffi rm ati ve defe nse in an ac ti on t o col l ect br o ug htb y a l en dermor e th anthr ee y ear s afte r the c o nsu m m at ion of th e t ra n sa c tio n . O cw en, 523 U
. S. at41 9. The O c w en o pi ni o n c o nt ains no t a wor d abo utthe subj ect- m att erj uri sdic ti on o f the di str i ct c ourt
. I t pr ese nts onl y a n exam ple o fa case i n w hi ch a cl aim i s doo m ed to f ai l o n the mer i ts
. I t i s wor thr epe at i ng whatthe S up r e me C o u r t h a d t o s a y a b o u t th i s i n Bel l v. Hood, 32 7 U
. S. 678 (1946): J uri sdic ti on, ther ef or e, i s no t d efea ted as r espondents seem to conte nd , by t h e p ossibil ity that th e averm ents m i ght f ai l to sta te a cause of acti on on w h ich p et itio n er s c ou ld ac tu ally rec ov er . For itis w ell set tl ed that the f ai l ure to sta te a proper cause ofact i on cal l s f ora j u d gm en t on the m er i ts and not f ora dismi s s a l f o r w a n to fj u r i s d i c t i o n . W he th e r th e c o mpla i nt st ate s a cause of acti on o n w hi ch r el i efco uld be gr anted i s a questi on o f la w a n d j ust a s i ssues o ff act it m ust be deci ded afterand not bef or e the co urt has as su m ed j urisdi ct i o n o ve r the c o nt r o ve r sy . I fthe cou rt doe s l a ter exe rcise i ts j urisd iction to det erm i ne thatthe al l ega tion s i n the com pla i nt do no t sta te a g ro und f orr el i ef, then dism i ssa l o fthe case w ou ld be on th e m er its , no t for w an t o f j u ris d ict ion
. . . .8 N o. 07

- 2400 The previ ousl y c ar ved out excepti ons ar e that a sui t m ay som eti m es be di sm iss ed f orwant ofj uri sdi ct i o n whe r e th e al l eg ed cl ai m unde r the Con sti tu
ti on o r f edera l st atute s cl ear l y a pp ear s to be i m m ate
r i ala nd made so l el y f o r the pur p ose of obt aini ng j uri sdic ti on o r w here s u c h a c l ai m i s wholl y insubsta nti aland fri vol ous. Id. at68 2-8 3. T h e C o u rth as st ea d fas tly follow ed th is ru le i n the yea rs si nce B el l. See , e.g., O ne i da Indi an N at i on of N e w York St at ev. County of O ne i da, Ne w York, 41 4 U.S

. 66 1, 66 6-6 7 (1 97 4); Ste el Co
. v. Citize n s fo r a B et te r E nvironm ent, 52 3 U .S. 8 3 , 8 9 (19 98 ); A rba ug h v . Y& HC o rp., 54 6 U.S

. 50 0, 513-16 (2006 ). W e a cknowle dge thatso m e o fo ur s i ste r ci rcuit s hav e ch ar ac te r i ze d § 1 63 5( f ) a s “j ur i sdi ct i o na l, ” witho uta ny disc ussi on o fthes e Suprem e Cour t ca ses . S ee M igue l v. C o u n t ry F un din g C o rp., 309 F.3d 116 1, 1164 ( 9th Cir. 2002); see al so H a yes v . Gen eral M o to rs C o rp., 94 F. 3d 64 4, *4 (6 th C ir. 19 96 ) (u n p u b lish ed ) (cit in g T en n es se e la w ). H a y e s, how eve r, i s no nprecedenti al, and nothi ng se em s t o have tu r ne d o n the l ab eli n M iguel, si nce the bank(w h i ch w as the par ty see ki ng to ta ke advantage o fthe thre eyea r peri od ofr epose ) does notse em t o h av e slept on i ts ri ghts. I n o ur vi ew, th er e i s no th i ng j ur i sdi ct i o na l abo ut § 1 635( f ) ’ s per iod o fr epose . J ust l i ke the 1 5- em plo yee r e q u i r e me n t i n T i t l e V I I d i s c u s s ed i n A r b augh, s upra, it is m er el y a pr ec o ndi ti o n t o a s ubs ta nt i ve r i g htt o r el ief

. I nter est i ng tho ugh t h e poi nt i s, however, thi s i s no t a di sa g r ee m ent t ha t we ne ed to pus h i n thi s ca se . TheN o. 07

- 2400 9 i s s ue he r e i s no t whe the r the a l l e g e d s a l e o f Do s s ’ s pr o per ty acts a s a j u ri sdic ti onalbarto hi s l aw sui t. I t i s i nstea d w hetherther e was a sale atal l

. Even the defendants concede that both the dist ri ct c ou rtand thi s co urt have j ur i sdi ct i o n t o de te r m i ne tha t que st i o n. Tha t i s why th e defen dan ts urge d the di st r i ctc o ur t to f o cus o n the ti m el i ne ss o fDo ss ’ s r es po ns e, r athe r tha n i ts j ur i sdi ct i o n. W e therefor e m ove o n to the questi on o fappel l ate j uri sdic ti on. A s we note d ear l i er, the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s o rder di s mi s s ingDo s s’ s ca se w as “w i thout prej ud i ce. ” N or m al l y, “a dism i ssa l witho ut prej ud i ce i s no t a fi nal o rd erf or pu r po s e s o fa pp e l l a t e j ur i s di c t i o n un de r 2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 29 1.” Kaba v. St epp, 458 F. 3d 678, 680 ( 7th C ir . 2006). W e hav e g one s o f ara s to s aytha t di smi ss al s wi th o ut prej ud i ce a re “ca noni cal l y no n-fi nal

. ” Id., quoti ng Glau s v. Ande rs on, 4 08 F
. 3d 38 2, 3 85 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) , i n tur n quo ting Am
. St at e s Ins . Co. v. Capi t al As s oc . of Jac ks on County, 39 2 F.3 d 93 9, 94 0 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ). D os s’s ca se , h ow ev er , falls wi th i n the r ec o g ni ze d e xc ept i o ns t o tha t ca non ic alno nfi nal i ty: fi rs t, r eadi ng the di str i ct c ourt ’s order s a s a w hol e, we h av e no doubt that the di str i ct c ourtwas fi ni sh ed wi ththi s ca se o nc e an d f o r a l l ; a nd s ec o nd, a ny new act i on th at D oss m i ght t ryto br i ng would be bar re d bythe thr ee - y ea r s ta tu te o fr epo se b y thi s ti m e. W e th us c o n c l u d e th a twe h a v e a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n n o t wi th

stan d ing the l an gu age in th e d istri ct cou rt’s order.

III A ssur ed ofo ur j uri sdic ti on, w e are n ow re ady to turn to the m er its
. W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s di sm i ssa l f or10 N o. 07

- 2400 f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m deno vo, a cc ept i nga s tr ue all of th e f a c tu al a lleg at ion s c on ta in ed in th e c om p lain t. Segal v. G eisha N Y C LL C, 517 F. 3d 501, 504 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. “W e m ay affi rm the dis m i ssa l onlyifthe com pla i nt fai l s t o setf or th

‘ enough fac ts to st ate a cl ai m to r el i efthati s pl ausibl e o n i ts f ace. ’ ” Id. ( quoti ng St
. Jo hn ’s U ni t e d Chur ch of Chr i s tv. City of Chi cago, 50 2 F
. 3d 616, 6 25 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) , wh i ch qu o t e d Tw o m bly, s up ra, 55 0 U. S

. a t

__, 1 27S

. Ct. a t 19 74
. The S upr em e C o ur t’ s dec i si o n i n E rick son v. P a rdu s, 12 7 S

. Ct. 19 55, 21 97 ( 2007 ) , put to r estany concern that Twom bly si gnal ed an end to not i ce pl eadi ng i n th e fed er alco urts
. And nothi ngi n Tw om blyor Eri cks on change d the r ule s un d er w hich a party m akin g a m otion un d er F ED . R. C IV . P. 12 is entitled to rely on new eviden ce, doc u m en tary oro ther w i se. The di st r i ctc o ur t’ s pr i nc i pal m ista k e was i n thi nk i ng that i t was ent i tl ed to r el y o n the deed ofsa l e a tt ac hed to the defendants’ Rule 12 ( b) ( 6) m oti on, i n the cour se of adj ud i cating tha t m oti on. W h et her ornotthe deed w as the k i nd o fdo c ume ntf o r wh i c h j ud i c i a l n o t i c e was proper

— a po i ntt o w hich we tur n i n a mom en t

— th er e is n o doubt thati t was a “m att ero utsi de the ple ad in gs ,” w ith in th e m ea n in g of R u le 1 2 ( d ) . T h at ru le s ay s t h at if “m att er s o utsi de the ple ading s a re pre se n te d to and not excl ud ed by the c ou rt , the m oti on [ und erRule 12 ( b) ( 6) o r Rule 12( c) ] m ust be tr eat ed as one f orsu m m ar y j ud gm en t unde r Rul e 56
. Al l pa r ti es mustb e given a r ea so nab le op p or tu n ity to p re se n t a ll th e m a t e ria l th at is pertinent t o the m oti on. ” I fthe dist ri ct cour t had f ol l owed the instr ucti ons i n Rule 12 ( d), then Doss would have had an opp ortu nity both to prese nt and to sup p ort his asser-N o. 07

- 2400 11 ti o n tha t th e dee d was notwhati t appe ar ed to b e. The di s t r i c t c o ur t wo ul d ha v e s e e n tha t the r e we r e i s s ue s o f m ate ri alf act that had to be re sol ved, and the case w oul d have co nti nued befor e the di str i ct c ourt
. A lth ou gh th er e e x i s t s a n ar ro w ex c ep tio n to th e R u le 12(d) i nstr ucti ons that perm i ts a di str i ct c ourtto ta ke j ud i ci alnot i ce o f m att er s of pu bl i c re cor d w i thout conve rt
ing a Ru le 12(b) (6) m otion into a m otion f o r sum m ary j udg m en t, the d i st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n thi nk i ngtha t th e de e d wa s a p r o pe r s ubj e c tf o r j ud i c i a l n o t i c e . S ee Gen e r al Ele ct r i c Capi t al Corporat i on v. Le ase Res ol ut i on Corp or at i on , 128 F. 3d 1074, 10 80- 81 ( 1997 )
. S tat em ents i n docum ents a ff e c t i nga n i nt e r e s ti n pr o pe rty do f a l l wi thin a n e xc e pti on t o the he ar sayr ule , s ee F ED . R. E V ID . 8 0 3 ( 1 5 ) , b u twe do not see how, w hen the defe nd ants pro po sed the deed f orj ud i ci alnot i ce, the cour t co uld have f ound th at it w as “n o t su bj ec t to r ea so nabl e di spu te ” wi th in the mean i ng of F ED . R. E V ID . 20 1( b) o nce Doss fi l ed hi s r esponse . J udi c i a l n o t i c e “ me r i t s th e t r a d i t i o n a l c a u t i o n i ti s g i ve n, an d c o ur ts s ho ul d s tr ictl y a dhe r e to the c r i te r i a bythe Feder alRule s o fEvi dence befo re ta ki ng j ud i ci alnot i ce ofper ti nent f acts
. ” G enera l E lectric C a pit a l C o rpo rati o n, 128 F
. 3d at 1081
. I t ta k es mor e th ana n e xc ept i o n t o the hear sayr ule , i n other w or ds, to j usti fy j ud i ci alnot i ce. W e co ul d g o o n, b ut th is i s en o ug h t o s ho w tha t th e j ud g men to fthe di s t r i c tc o ur tdi s mi s s i ngDo s s ’ s T I LA cl ai m s m ust be r eve rs ed. The si tu at ion with re spect to Fr ankl i n i s m or e co m ple x. The di stric t courtwas m is ta k ent o thi nktha t F r an k l i n’ s m o ti o n t o s eta si de th e defa ultj ud gm ent a gai nst i t w as m oo t. Rightl y o r w ro ngl y,12 N o. 07

- 2400 ho wev er, the c as e en ded wi ththe defa ul t j udg m en t aga i nst F ra nkl i n sti l l i n pla ce. Frankl i n did n ot fi l e a cr oss appeal fro m thatr uling, and so w e a re pow er l ess to change i t her e. S ee G reenla w v. U nited Sta tes, 12 8 S

. Ct. 25 59, 25 64 ( 20 08 )
. ( W e ex pr es s no o pi ni o n ab o ut an y po wer the di st r i ct co ur t m i g ht ha ve o n r emand to se t as ide the deci sion aga i nst F ra nkl i n. ) The supplem entalst ate theo ri es und erthe Consum erFr aud A c t m ust a l so be r eins ta te d, s i nc e th eywer e di smis se d o nl y b ec au se the predi cate federa l cl ai m was no l onge r b efor e the co urt. W e have no need to add re ss the defe nd ants’ co m pla i nts about Doss’s eff or t t o bring the l ate r I l l i noi s pro ceedi ngs to our att enti on, as theyhave pl aye d no parti n ourd i sposi ti on o fthe case . The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s R EVER S ED and the case i s R EMAND ED f o r fur th erpr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi th thi s o pi ni o n. Ci r c ui tR ul e 3 6 s ha l l a pp l y o n r e man d.

12- 24- 08