10th STREET PARTNERS, LLC v. COUNTY COMMISSION FOR SARASOTA COUNTY
United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division.
September 20, 2012.
10th Street filed its complaint on October 19, 2011, alleging a failure to accommodate in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f), and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. (Doc. # 1). Prior to conducting discovery, on January 3, 2011, the Board filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment and Request for Judicial Notice, to which 10th Street responded on February 24, 2012. The Board subsequently filed a motion seeking to transfer the case to Track 1 and to limit discovery and the Court's review to the administrative record from the zoning proceedings below. (Doc. # 25). After conducting a hearing on the motion, the Magistrate Judge denied the motion to change the case to Track 1 and to limit discovery.
II. Judicial Notice
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the Board requests the Court to take judicial notice of certain relevant portions of the Sarasota County Code of Ordinances and Comprehensive Plan.
Rule 201(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that:
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.
"In order for a fact to be judicially noticed under Rule 201(b), indisputability is a prerequisite." United States v. Jones, 29 F.3d 1549, 1553 (11th Cir. 1994)(citing 21 C. Wright & K. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence § 5104 at 485 (1977 & Supp.1994)). Further, Rule 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that "A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information."