Opinion ID: 587252
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Bankruptcy Orders.

Text: 22 In evaluating Bankers Trust's claim that no statutory trust had been created, the district court took notice of the Bankruptcy Court's factual finding that the Sellers listed in Schedule A attached to its order provided the notices required to preserve their trust rights and were cash sellers, 758 F.Supp. at 893 n. 3, citing Fed.R.Evid. 201(b). Rule 201(b) provides: 23 A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. 24 Apparently, the district court believed that the finding of the bankruptcy court fell into the latter category. We disagree. A court may take judicial notice of a document filed in another court not for the truth of the matters asserted in the other litigation, but rather to establish the fact of such litigation and related filings. Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 774 (2d Cir.1991) (citing United States ex rel. Geisler v. Walters, 510 F.2d 887, 890 n. 4 (3d Cir.1975)). Here, however, the district court relied upon the Bankruptcy Orders precisely to establish facts asserted therein, i.e., that the Sellers listed in Schedule A attached to [the bankruptcy court's] order provided the notices required to preserve their trust rights and were cash sellers. 758 F.Supp. at 893 n. 3. We note further, as the district court recognized, id. at 893, that the doctrine of collateral estoppel cannot be invoked in support of the district court's ruling because Bankers Trust was not a party to the bankruptcy proceeding. 25 The cases cited by the district court (id. at 893 n. 3) in support of its judicial notice ruling are inapposite. In E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Cullen, 791 F.2d 5 (1st Cir.1986), the court took judicial notice of a complaint that had been filed in a related state court action to ascertain the legal nature of the claim stated in that complaint, not to support any factual determination in the subsequent litigation. See id. at 7-8. Similarly, in Ives Lab., Inc. v. Darby Drug Co., 638 F.2d 538, 544 n. 8 (2d Cir.1981), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Inwood Lab., Inc. v. Ives Lab., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 102 S.Ct. 2182, 72 L.Ed.2d 606 (1982), we took judicial notice of several indictments simply to establish that such indictments had in fact been returned, but of course express[ed] no opinion as to the guilt or innocence of those indicted. 26