California
Appeals
Standard of Review

Standard of Review-judicial notice rulings
Harmless error standards should apply

 In resolving the legal questions presented, we must also evaluate the state of the record in light of the trial court's judicial notice rulings.  "Although a court may judicially notice a variety of matters [citation], only relevant material may be noticed.  'But judicial notice, since it is a substitute for proof [citation], is always confined to those matters which are relevant to the issue at hand.'  [Citation.]"  (Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063 (Mangini).)  Further, when a court takes judicial notice of official acts or public records, it does not also judicially notice " 'the truth of all matters stated therein.'  [Citations.]  '[T]he taking of judicial notice of the official acts of a governmental entity does not in and of itself require acceptance of the truth of factual matters which might be deduced therefrom, since in many instances what is being noticed, and thereby established, is no more than the existence of such acts and not, without supporting evidence, what might factually be associated with or flow therefrom.'  [Citation.]"  (Id. at pp. 1063-1064.)  The Supreme Court has clarified these standards as follows:  "When judicial notice is taken of a document, however, the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable.  [Citation.]"  (StorMedia Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 457, fn. 9 (StorMedia).)

            When a trial court's judicial notice rulings are challenged, harmless error standards should apply:  "The Evidence Code declares the party's right and the trial judge's duty, but does not deal with the problems of appellate review and reversible error.  Hence, even though the matter called for compulsory notice, or was appropriate for optional notice, and the appellant fully complied with the procedural requirements, refusal to take notice is merely error.  Whether it is reversible error depends on the state of the record, and also involves considerations of estoppel and waiver.  [Citations.]  Likewise, the improper taking of notice is subject to harmless error analysis.  [Citation.]"  (1 Witkin, Cal. Evidence (4th ed. 2000) Judicial Notice, § 44, p. 137.)

            Before looking to the record, we first set forth the rules regarding minimum contacts as bases for findings of general or specific jurisdiction.

Aquila v. Sup. Ct. D048963 3/13/07 CA4/1
Aquila v. Sup. Ct. D048963 3/13/07 CA4/1-PDF