Doran
Doran v. Aus
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Michael Doran, Dana Doran, and Reel Big Fish (collectively “the Dorans”) appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in their action against the Kaanapali Hillside Homeowner’s Association, members of its board of directors, its property manager, and the law firm representing the Association (collectively “KHHA”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .
Prior to the hearing, the Dorans requested this court to take judicial notice of materials from the state court proceedings and KHHA moved to strike this request and the opening brief. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, we grant the Dorans’ request for judicial notice and deny KHHA’s motion to strike the Dorans’ opening brief. Materials from a proceeding in another tribunal are appropriate for judicial notice. See Papai v. Harbor Tug & Barge Co., 67 F.3d 203 , 207 n. 5 (9th Cir.1995), rev’d on other grounds, 520 U.S. 548 , 117 S.Ct. 1535 , 137 L.Ed.2d 800 (1997).
We review de novo a grant of summary judgment regarding (1) collateral estoppel, (2) res judicata, and (3) the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). Littlejohn v. United States, 321 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir.2003); Slenk v.…