Page 1 Case5:11-cv-05496-HRL Document50 Filed10/15/13 Page1 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
MICHAEL J. ASCHENBRENER (SBN 277114)
mja@aschenbrenerlaw.com
ASCHENBRENER LAW, P.C.
795 Folsom Street, First Floor
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone: (415) 813-6245
Fax: (415) 813-6246
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
10
11
THINK COMPUTER CORPORATION, a
Delaware Corporation,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
v.
ROBERT VENCHIARUTTI, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 11-cv-05496-HRL
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Before the Honorable Howard R. Lloyd
Complaint Filed: November 14, 2011
First Amended Complaint Filed: January 31,
2012
Trial Date: None Yet Set
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
11-cv-05496-HRLPage 2 Case5:11-cv-05496-HRL Document50 Filed10/15/13 Page2 of 4
1
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court take judicial
3
notice of the documents listed herein, true and correct copies of which are attached hereto.
LEGAL STANDARD
4
Federal Rule of Evidence 201 “governs judicial notice of an administrative fact only, not
5
6
a legislative fact.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(a). The Court has the authority to take broad notice of
7
legislative facts. “Legislative history is properly a subject of judicial notice.” Anderson v.
8
Holder, 673 F.3d 1089, 1094 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215, 1223
9
n. 8 (9th Cir. 2005)). “Federal courts also notice ‘legislative facts’ when construing statutes,
10
including determining the validity of administrative regulations.” Hightower v. City of San
11
Francisco, Case No. 12-cv-5841-EMC, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2013) (quoting Wright, et al.,
12
Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 5103.2).
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
13
14
Plaintiff Think Computer Corporation hereby requests that the Court take judicial notice
15
of the following legislative exhibits, true and correct copies of which are attached hereto. These
16
exhibits concern the legislative history of the 2013 amendments to the California Money
17
Transmission Act contained in Assembly Bill 786, as well as a petition filed with the California
18
Office of Administrative Law concerning the Money Transmission Act.
19
Exhibit A: California Assembly Bill No. 786: Chapter 533, Statutes of 2013.
20
Exhibit A is properly subject to judicial notice because it constitutes legislative history,
21
and “[l]egislative history is properly the subject of judicial notice.” Anderson, 673 F.3d at 1094
22
n. 1.
23
Exhibit B: California Assembly Bill No. 786 Redlined Changes to Current California
Financial Code.
24
25
26
Exhibit B is properly the subject of judicial notice because it constitutes legislative
history. Id.
27
28
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
1
11-cv-05496-HRLPage 3 Case5:11-cv-05496-HRL Document50 Filed10/15/13 Page3 of 4
1
Exhibit C: California Assembly Bill No. 786 Legislative History.
2
Exhibit C is properly the subject of judicial notice because it constitutes legislative
3
4
history. Id.
Exhibit D: April 29, 2013 California General Assembly Committee on Banking and
Finance Bill Analysis for Assembly Bill No. 786.
5
6
7
Exhibit D is properly the subject of judicial notice because it constitutes legislative
history. Id.
8
Exhibit E: July 3, 2013 California Senate Banking and Financial Institutions
9
Committee Bill Analysis for Assembly Bill No. 786.
10
11
12
Exhibit E is properly the subject of judicial notice because it constitutes legislative
history. Id.
Exhibit F: July 23, 2013 Petition by Thomas P. Brown to the California Office of
13
Administrative Law Concerning Illegal Underground Regulations and the
14
California Money Transmission Act.
15
Exhibit F is properly the subject of judicial notice because it concerns construing the
16
statute at the base of Plaintiff’s Complaint and construing the validity of administrative
17
regulations. Hightower, Case No. 12-cv-5841-EMC, at *5.
CONCLUSION
18
19
20
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant Plaintiff’s
request for judicial notice and take judicial notice of Exhibits A through F attached hereto.
21
22
Respectfully submitted,
23
24
Dated: October 15, 2013
By: s/ Michael Aschenbrener
Michael Aschenbrener
ASCHENBRENER LAW, P.C.
One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff
25
26
27
28
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
2
11-cv-05496-HRLPage 4 Case5:11-cv-05496-HRL Document50 Filed10/15/13 Page4 of 4
1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
The undersigned certifies that, on October 15, 2013, he caused this document to be
3
electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send
4
notification of filing to counsel of record for each party.
5
6
Dated: October 15, 2013
ASCHENBRENER LAW, P.C.
7
By: s/ Michael Aschenbrener
Michael Aschenbrener
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
3
11-cv-05496-HRL
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case5:11-cv-05496-HRL Document50 Filed10/15/13 Page1 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
MICHAEL J. ASCHENBRENER (SBN 277114)
mja@aschenbrenerlaw.com
ASCHENBRENER LAW, P.C.
795 Folsom Street, First Floor
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone: (415) 813-6245
Fax: (415) 813-6246
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
10
11
THINK COMPUTER CORPORATION, a
Delaware Corporation,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
v.
ROBERT VENCHIARUTTI, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 11-cv-05496-HRL
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Before the Honorable Howard R. Lloyd
Complaint Filed: November 14, 2011
First Amended Complaint Filed: January 31,
2012
Trial Date: None Yet Set
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
11-cv-05496-HRL
PDF Page 3
Case5:11-cv-05496-HRL Document50 Filed10/15/13 Page2 of 4
1
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court take judicial
3
notice of the documents listed herein, true and correct copies of which are attached hereto.
LEGAL STANDARD
4
Federal Rule of Evidence 201 “governs judicial notice of an administrative fact only, not
5
6
a legislative fact.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(a). The Court has the authority to take broad notice of
7
legislative facts. “Legislative history is properly a subject of judicial notice.” Anderson v.
8
Holder, 673 F.3d 1089, 1094 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215, 1223
9
n. 8 (9th Cir. 2005)). “Federal courts also notice ‘legislative facts’ when construing statutes,
10
including determining the validity of administrative regulations.” Hightower v. City of San
11
Francisco, Case No. 12-cv-5841-EMC, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2013) (quoting Wright, et al.,
12
Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 5103.2).
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
13
14
Plaintiff Think Computer Corporation hereby requests that the Court take judicial notice
15
of the following legislative exhibits, true and correct copies of which are attached hereto. These
16
exhibits concern the legislative history of the 2013 amendments to the California Money
17
Transmission Act contained in Assembly Bill 786, as well as a petition filed with the California
18
Office of Administrative Law concerning the Money Transmission Act.
19
Exhibit A: California Assembly Bill No. 786: Chapter 533, Statutes of 2013.
20
Exhibit A is properly subject to judicial notice because it constitutes legislative history,
21
and “[l]egislative history is properly the subject of judicial notice.” Anderson, 673 F.3d at 1094
22
n. 1.
23
Exhibit B: California Assembly Bill No. 786 Redlined Changes to Current California
Financial Code.
24
25
26
Exhibit B is properly the subject of judicial notice because it constitutes legislative
history. Id.
27
28
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
1
11-cv-05496-HRL
PDF Page 4
Case5:11-cv-05496-HRL Document50 Filed10/15/13 Page3 of 4
1
Exhibit C: California Assembly Bill No. 786 Legislative History.
2
Exhibit C is properly the subject of judicial notice because it constitutes legislative
3
4
history. Id.
Exhibit D: April 29, 2013 California General Assembly Committee on Banking and
Finance Bill Analysis for Assembly Bill No. 786.
5
6
7
Exhibit D is properly the subject of judicial notice because it constitutes legislative
history. Id.
8
Exhibit E: July 3, 2013 California Senate Banking and Financial Institutions
9
Committee Bill Analysis for Assembly Bill No. 786.
10
11
12
Exhibit E is properly the subject of judicial notice because it constitutes legislative
history. Id.
Exhibit F: July 23, 2013 Petition by Thomas P. Brown to the California Office of
13
Administrative Law Concerning Illegal Underground Regulations and the
14
California Money Transmission Act.
15
Exhibit F is properly the subject of judicial notice because it concerns construing the
16
statute at the base of Plaintiff’s Complaint and construing the validity of administrative
17
regulations. Hightower, Case No. 12-cv-5841-EMC, at *5.
CONCLUSION
18
19
20
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant Plaintiff’s
request for judicial notice and take judicial notice of Exhibits A through F attached hereto.
21
22
Respectfully submitted,
23
24
Dated: October 15, 2013
By: s/ Michael Aschenbrener
Michael Aschenbrener
ASCHENBRENER LAW, P.C.
One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff
25
26
27
28
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
2
11-cv-05496-HRL
PDF Page 5
Case5:11-cv-05496-HRL Document50 Filed10/15/13 Page4 of 4
1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
The undersigned certifies that, on October 15, 2013, he caused this document to be
3
electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send
4
notification of filing to counsel of record for each party.
5
6
Dated: October 15, 2013
ASCHENBRENER LAW, P.C.
7
By: s/ Michael Aschenbrener
Michael Aschenbrener
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
3
11-cv-05496-HRL
Third party AI contribution in government documents
Possible
Document content is reproduced directly from government sources. Think Computer Corporation does not generate, alter, annotate, or summarize documents using artificial intelligence. Some filings in our database may themselves contain AI-generated content submitted by third parties to government agencies.
Back to 
