1- PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE MEMORANDUM

IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

79707-0017/LEGAL126689679.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

Erick J. Haynie, OSB No. 982482

EHaynie@perkinscoie.com

Gabrielle D. Richards, OSB No. 114992

GRichards@perkinscoie.com

PERKINS COIE LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Telephone: 503.727.2000

Facsimile: 503.727.2222

Attorneys for Plaintiff

LNV Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

LNV CORPORATION, a Nevada 

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

DENISE SUBRAMANIAM,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:14-cv-01836-MO

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE 

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION

TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF 

INFORMATION AND CRIMINAL 

INDICTMENT AND PLEA AGREEMENT 

OF LORRAINE BROWN

Plaintiff LNV Corporation (“LNV”) hereby responds to the Motion for Judicial Notice of 

Information and Criminal Indictment and Plea Agreement of Lorraine Brown filed by defendant 

Denise Subramaniam (“Defendant”). For the reasons set forth below, LNV requests that the 

Court deny Defendant’s motion — which already has been filed once in this case and denied.

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 67 Filed 06/30/15 Page 1 of 4
2- PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE MEMORANDUM

IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

79707-0017/LEGAL126689679.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

I. DISCUSSION

A. Defendant’s Motion Should Be Denied Because This Court Already

Has Denied Judicial Notice of the “Brown” Documents 

This is the second time that Defendant has asked the Court to take judicial notice of 

documents pertaining to a Florida criminal case involving Lorraine Brown. Defendant filed her 

first motion on January 28, 2015. (Dkt. 19.) The Court denied Defendant’s motion on March 

11, 2015 in a text order. (Dkt. 28.) Defendant’s new motion is substantially similar to the one 

she filed in January. It asks the Court to take judicial notice of the very same documents that 

were presented in Defendant’s failed first motion, yet the recently filed pleading offers no new 

information (let alone the requisite “direct relation to matters at issue”) to justify this Court 

taking judicial notice. This Court is thus precluded from reconsidering Defendant’s motion for 

judicial notice of the Lorraine Brown documents because the merits of the motion already have 

been considered by this Court. United States v. Cuddy, 147 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998) (the 

law of the case doctrine provides that “a court is generally precluded from reconsidering an issue 

that has already been decided by the same court”) (internal quotation and citation omitted). For 

this reason, and for the reasons stated in LNV’s opposition to Defendant’s first motion, 

incorporated herein by reference, Defendant’s latest motion should be denied. (See Dkt. 22, 

Plaintiff’s Response Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Judicial Notice.)

B. Defendant’s Motion Should Be Stricken or, Alternatively, Denied Because 

She Continues to Disregard This Court’s Procedural Rules

As with her previous motions, Defendant did not confer personally or by telephone with 

counsel for LNV prior to filing her latest motion, nor did she include the conferral certification 

required by Local Rule 7. Defendant cannot claim ignorance of the rules, considering that 

counsel for LNV sent her a link to the Local Rules in a letter dated January 21, 2015. Moreover, 

Defendant was served with two recent LNV filings that discuss Defendant’s continued failure to 

confer. (Dkt. 57, 63.) Defendant has failed to sign numerous pleadings, including her recent 

motion, in violation of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 11(a), which provides that the Court “must strike an 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 67 Filed 06/30/15 Page 2 of 4
3- PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE MEMORANDUM

IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

79707-0017/LEGAL126689679.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney’s or 

party’s attention.” (See, e.g., Dkt. 59, 60, 64.) Defendant’s motion thus should be stricken or, 

alternatively, denied for her continued failure to comply with procedural rules.

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above Defendant’s motion should be denied.

DATED: June 30, 2015 PERKINS COIE LLP

By: s/ Gabrielle D. Richards

Gabrielle D. Richards, OSB No. 114992

GRichards@perkinscoie.com

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Telephone: 503.727.2000

Facsimile: 503.727.2222

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 67 Filed 06/30/15 Page 3 of 4
PAGE 1- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

79707-0017/LEGAL126689679.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I served the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE MEMORANDUM IN 

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF 

INFORMATION AND CRIMINAL INDICTMENT AND PLEA AGREEMENT OF 

LORRAINE BROWN on Defendant, Denise Subramaniam at 13865 SW Walker Rd., 

Beaverton, OR 97005 by depositing a copy in the U.S. Mail in a sealed postage-prepaid 

envelope and deposited with the United States Postal Service at Portland, Oregon on the date set 

forth below.

DATED: June 30, 2015 s/ Gabrielle D. Richards

Gabrielle D. Richards, OSB No. 114992

GRichards@perkinscoie.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

LNV Corporation

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 67 Filed 06/30/15 Page 4 of 4