Case No. 8204221 Respondent, Court of Appeal, Third Appellate V. District No. C063863 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD Sacramento County Superior Court Respondent, No. 34-2009-80000249 PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE CRAIG MEDEIROS Appellant and Real Party in Interest. Pursuant to Evidence Code Sections 459 and 452(c), Appellant’s motion for judicial notice is GRANTED. The Court takes judicial notice of the Precedent Benefit decision, seven federal labor arbitrator decisions and the National Labor Relations Board decision attached to the motion as Exhibits 1-9. DATED: HON. CHIEF JUSTICE OR ASSOCIATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD THIS DECISION DESIGNATES FORMER BENEFIT DECISION NO. 5361 AS A PRECEDENT DECISION PURSUANT TO SECTION 409 OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CODE.

Exhibits A, B, and C are also judicially noticeable under Evidence Code section 452, subdivisions (g) and (h), as they concern matters of common knowledge and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. It CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, appellant respectfully moves that this Court take judicial notice of exhibits herein, pursuant to Evidence Code sections 450, 452, 453 and 459 and Rule 8.252, California Rules of Court, as well as the relevant decisional authority.

No. BC361768 demonstrates the court’s record of the proceedings,filings, and other actions taking place in this matter dating backto the filing of the complaint. Exhibit A. Thus, this Court may properly take judicial notice of the case summary as a record of any court of this state under Cal. Evid. Code § 452(d) and 459(a). The matter to be noticed is relevant to this appeal becausethetrial court granted Respondents’ motion to dismiss appellant’s action on the groundsthat appellant failed to show facts ofreasonable diligence, impracticability, or impossibility.

In re Johnson (1998) 18 Cal. 4th 447, 465, fn. ) California Rules of Court, Rule 8.252(a) implements Evidence Code § 459, and requires a party seeking judicial noticeto file a separate motion stating why the matter to be noticed is relevant to the appeal and whether the matter relates to the proceedings occurring after the judgment. 1. Relevance of the Exhibit The issue before this Court is whether the appellate court erred in its decision to grant the appeal ofAppellant and Real Party in Interest, Kristy Drinkwater.

San Francisco Proposition J, November 1983, setting fire fighter overtimerate; Exhibit D: San Francisco Proposition I, November 1982, setting police retirement benefits; Exhibit E: San Francisco Proposition B, February 2008, establishing a deferred retirement program; Exhibit F: Sacramento County, Measure A, November 2009, establishing binding arbitration for probation officers; Exhibit G: San Francisco Proposition F, June 1990 concerning minimumstaffing levels for fire fighters; and This request is based upon the instant request, the memorandum of points and authorities, and the declaration ofAmici’s counsel, Arthur A. Hartinger, included herein. Dated: December 1, 2017 RENNE SLOAN HOLT AN SAKALLLP ARTHUR A. HARTINGER I. MEMORANDUMOFPOINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF AMICI’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE California Evidence Code sections 459 provides reviewing courts the same powerto take judicial notice of documents astrial courts under Evidence Code section 450 et seq. Evid. Code § 459. In turn, Evidence Codesection 452(b) provides that a court maytake judicial notice of “[rJegulationsand legislative enactments issued by or underthe authority of the United States or any public entity in the United States.”

Good cause appesring, this application should be granted and the motion for judicial notice filed. vated: 6/19/2017 Respectfully submitted, AMICUS CURIAE MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the California Supreme Court: Pursuant to California Evidence Code, section 459, California Rules of Court, Rule 8.520(g) and 8.252(a), and decisional law of this State, amici curiae Aubrey Grant and William Vogel hereby move the Court for judicial notice of subdivision (h) of Penal Code sec- tion 1170.2 as added by Senate Bill 709 (Stats. 1978, chap. 579) in In re Roy Butler, No. $237014.

Specifically, ADP asks that judicial notice be taken of the Superior Court’s April 19, 2017 Minute Order adjudicating Plaintiff-Respondent Sharmalee Goonewardene’s California Labor Code, California Fair Labor Standards Act, and California Business & Professions Code section 17200 claims, presented by her against her employer Altour International, Inc. Dated: June 20, 2017 Respectfully submitted, MORGAN,LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP By: Me =Nowe Robert A. Lewis c? Attorneys for Defendants, Respondents and Petitioners ADP, LLC; ADP PAYROLL SERVICES, INC.; AD PROCESSING, LLC DB3/ 201475244.3 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES A reviewing court may take judicial notice of any matter specified in Evidence Code section 452. “In determining the propriety of taking judicial notice of a matter, or the tenor thereof, the reviewing court has the same powerasthe trial court under Section 454.” Evidence Code section 459(b). A court may take judicial notice of the “{o]fficial acts” of the legislative and Judicial branches.

Dated: April 6, 2017 Respectfully submitted, MORGAN,LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Thomas M.Peterson Attorneys for Amici Curiae Legal Services for Children, Immigration Center for Women and Children, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, and Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area MEMORANDUMOFPOINTS AND AUTHORITIES A reviewing court maytakejudicial notice of any matter specified in Evidence Code section 452. “In determining the propriety of taking judicial notice of a matter, or the tenor thereof, the reviewing court has the same powerasthe trial court under Section 454.” Evidence Code section 459(b). A court may take judicial notice of the “[rJecords of . .. any court of this state.”

This motion is based on the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Declaration ofAndrea Nill Sanchez. Respectfully submitted, Dated: March 20, 2017 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP By: SHARIF E. JACOB Attorneys for ROY BUTLER By Appointment of the Court of Appeal of the First Appellate District MEMORANDUM OFPOINTS AND AUTHORITIES California Evidence Code Sections 459(a) and 452(c) provide in pertinent part that, on motion of a party, the appellate court may take judicial notice of “[o]fficial acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States.” Roy Butler seeks judicial notice of Chairman’s Directive Nos. 75/30 and 75/20, both ofwhich were “[o]fficial acts of the... executive .. . department[]” of the State of California when they issued.

Further, a reviewing court may take judicial notice of a matter not before the trial court if the matter “is of substantial consequence to the determination of the action.” (People vy. Terry (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 432, 439; Evid. Code, § 459, subds. (a), (c).