Cluster 1383814

See Tollis, 505 F.3d at 942 (“If an industrial site is reasonably accessible and has sufficient infrastructure to be ‘available’ under Topanga, it remains available even if its use for other commercial purposes may be restricted by the zoning law.”) Sites located in industrial or manufacturing zones, however, must be “reasonably accessible to the general public,” have “proper infrastructure,” and must be suitable for “some generic commercial enterprise, although not [necessa…

Evid. 201(b) (court may take judicial notice of 16 facts “not subject to reasonable dispute” and which “can be accurately and readily 17 determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned”); Tollis v. 18 County of San Diego, 505 F.3d 935 , 938 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Municipal ordinances are 19 proper subjects for judicial notice.”). 20 Next, the Court turns to the extensive evidentiary objections each party has raised to 21 the opposing party’s affidavits …

See Tollis Inc. v. County of 25 San Diego, 505 F.3d 935 , 938 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Municipal ordinances are proper subjects for judicial notice.”); Madani v. County of Santa Clara, No. 16-CV-07026-LHK, 2017 WL 1092398 , at *4 (N.D.

See 15 Tollis Inc. v. Cnty. of San Diego, 505 F.3d 935 , 938 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Municipal 16 ordinances are proper subjects for judicial notice.”); Madani v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 17 No. 16-CV-07026-LHK, 2017 WL 1092398 , at *4 (N.D.

Evid. 201(b) & (c)(2); Tollis, Inc. v. Cty. of San Diego, 505 F.3d 935 , 938 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Municipal ordinances are proper subjects for judicial notice.”).

(Request for Judicial Notice 1–8 (“Pl.’s RJN”) (Docket No. 50).) See Tollis, 7 Inc. v. Cty. of San Diego, 505 F.3d 935 , 938 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Municipal ordinances are proper subjects for judicial 8 notice.”).

(Request for Judicial Notice 1–8 (“Pl.’s RJN”) (Docket No. 50).) See Tollis, 7 Inc. v. Cty. of San Diego, 505 F.3d 935 , 938 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Municipal ordinances are proper subjects for judicial 8 notice.”).

See Tollis, Inc. v. Cnty. of San Diego, 505 F.3d 935 , 938 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Municipal ordinances are proper subjects for judicial notice.”); Demos v. City of Indianapolis, 302 F.3d 698, 706 (7th Cir. 2002) (same); Zimomra v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 111 F.3d 1495 , 1503–04 (10th Cir. 1997) (same).5 While our sister circuits use the language “judicial notice,” in this circuit we have a slightly more refined understanding of that term.

As 14 Plaintiff points out, “severance is inappropriate if the 15 remainder of the statute would still be unconstitutional,” 16 Tollis Inc. v. County of San Diego, 505 F.3d 935, 943 (9th Cir. 17 2007), and the Court finds that no other parts of AB 2839, 18 except for the audio only disclosure requirement, pass 19 constitutional muster. 20 IV.

P. 201; Tollis, Inc. 22 v. Cnty. of San Diego, 505 F.3d 935, 938, n.1 (9th Cir. 2007); Santa Monica Food 23 Not Bombs v. City of Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022, 1025, n.2 (9th Cir. 2006); 24 Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ.

(ECF No. 13-3.) “Municipal ordinances are proper subjects for judicial notice.” Tollis, Inc. v. Cty. of San 24 Diego, 505 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2007).

The Court need not take judicial notice of documents simply because 6 Defendants disagree with Peyton’s characterization of certain events and wish to characterize them 7 in a different way. 8 As to the ordinance, “[m]unicipal ordinances are proper subjects for judicial notice.” 9 Tollis, Inc. v. Cnty. of San Diego, 505 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2007).

Tollis, Inc. v. County ofSan Diego, 505 F.3d 935,941 (9th Cir. 2007).

Tollis, Inc. v. County of San Diego, 505 F.3d 935, 941 (9th Cir.2007).

See id. at 968-969 ; id. at 969 (holding that the district court did not err in finding that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate notice of new allegations where the plaintiffs complaint gave the defendants “no notice of the specific factual allegations presented for the first time in [the plaintiffs] opposition to summary judgment”); Tollis, Inc. v. County of San Diego, 505 F.3d 935, 943 (9th Cir.2007) (finding that the district court properly granted the defendant’s mo…

See United States v. Alexander, 467 F. App’x 355, 360 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Tollis, Inc. v. Cnty. of San Diego, 505 F.3d 935 , 938 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007)).

See Tollis, Inc. v. Cty. of San Diego, 505 F.3d 935 , 938 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007) (''Municipal ordinances are proper subjects for judicial notice.”). .

See Tollis, Inc. v. County of San Diego, 505 F.3d 935, 941 (9th Cir.2007).

See id.; see also Tollis, Inc. v. Cty. of San Diego, 505 F.3d 935 , 938 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007).

See, e.g., Tollis, Inc. v. Cnty. of San Diego, 505 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir.2007) (“At least where we are dealing with “unincorporated” areas, it is appropriate to recognize the likely availability of other locations within the same economic market in neighboring municipalities.”).