Gundersen

Gundersen v. Betenbaugh CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 4, 2025C095468California2,867 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

Gundersen started working as a financial advisor for Edward Jones in Willows, California in 1999. His employment was terminated in December 2014. Betenbaugh worked as a financial advisor for Edward Jones in Orland, California, and Rodriguez worked as a financial advisor for Edward Jones in Corning. Following

1 Gundersen asked this court to take judicial notice of two newspaper articles and the following assertions stated therein: that the Sacramento Valley Mirror is a twice-weekly newspaper in Glenn County, that it had a print circulation of 2,500, and that it had no online presence other than Facebook. The truth of the contents of newspaper articles are not judicially noticeable. (State ex rel. Edelweiss Fund, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1119, 1133, fn. 7; In re Noreen G. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1389, fn. 13.) Moreover, Gundersen acknowledges that the articles were not presented in the trial court. Absent exceptional circumstances, a reviewing court generally does not take notice of evidence that was not presented to the trial court, and Gundersen has not shown such circumstances exist. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.