Use Of Judicially Noticed Records In Ruling On A Demurrer.

The Court of Appeal held:  Plaintiffs sued defendants for trade secret misappropriation. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer on the ground that plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the Taiwanese statute of limitations. On appeal, plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer because it resolved disputed issues of fact based on information from judicially noticed documents. The appellate court noted that “In order for the bar [of statute of limitations] . . . to be raised by demurrer, the defect must clearly and affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint [and matters subject to judicial notice]; it is not enough that the complaint shows that the action may be barred.” Here, the trial court had taken judicial notice of complaints filed in Taiwan, but the Court of Appeal concluded, that while the trial court could properly judicially notice the existence of those complaints, it was error “to use the allegations in those complaints to resolve factual disputes for purposed of the demurrer in this case.” In reversing, the Court of Appeal held: “Utilizing judicially noticed documents in ruling on a demurrer is only proper when the documents are not used to determine disputed factual issues, such as the timing of acquisition of knowledge of the misappropriation of customer information or power supply technology.” (Richtek USA, Inc. v. UPI Semiconductor Corp. (Cal. App. Sixth Dist.; November 24, 2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 651.)