McAdams

McAdams v. El Dorado County

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 21, 20212:20-cv-01290California1,515 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

facts in that record that are not subject to reasonable dispute, Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(1), and grants allegations of the complaint as true and draw[s] all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 1999). “The court need not, however, accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or by exhibit. Nor is the court required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). For example, matters of public record may be considered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 201, including pleadings, orders and other papers filed with the court or records of administrative bodies. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001). Conclusions of law, conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact need not be accepted. See Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). “Where the facts and dates alleged in a complaint demonstrate that…

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.