Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/31/24 Page 1 of 50
`
`Ashley M. Gjovik, JD
`In Propria Persona
`2108 N St. Ste. 4553
`Sacramento, CA, 95 816
`(408) 883 -4428
`
`legal@ash ley gjov ik .com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`United States District Court
`
`Northern District of California
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:23 -CV-04597-EMC
`
`
`
`Ashley M. Gjovik , an individual,
`
`Plaintiff’s Request for
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Judicial Notice
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` vs.
`
`
`
`Apple Inc., a corporation,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In Support of Plaintiff ’s
`
`Opposition to Defendant’s
`
`Motions to Dismiss & to Strike
`
`Motion Hearing & Ca se
`Management Conference:
`Dept: Cour troom 5 (Zoom)
`Judge Edwa rd M. Chen
`Date: Augus t 22, 2024
`Time: 1:3 0 P M PT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/31/24 Page 2 of 50
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Contents
`I. Table of Authorities ................................................................ iii
`
`II.
`
`Arguments ........................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Legal & Government Records (Exhibits A, B, E, G, N, O). ................ 3
`
`News Articles; Publications (Exhibits A, C, D, F, H -N) .................... 5
`
`Science & Medicine (Exhibits C, E, N, O). ...................................... 6
`
`D. Maps & Locations (Exhibit B) ......................................................... 7
`
`III. Conclusion .......................................................................... 8
`
`IV. Appendix: Exhibits ............................................................... 10
`
`Exhibit: US EPA, RCR A Enforcement, 3250 Scott Blvd Inspection
`A.
`Report .................................................................................................... i
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Exhibit: Map: Location of 3250 Scott Blvd Santa Clara, CA, 95054. ... ii
`
`Exhibit: “Hazardous Production Gases” (1986) ................................ v
`
`Exhibit: “Silicon Valley toxics pose a ‘Bhopal’ peril” (1987). ......... viii
`
`Exhibit: ICSC for Toxic Gases ........................................................ x
`
`F. Exhibit: San Jose Mercur y News, LSI LOGIC advertisement. ........... xxii
`
`Exhibit: Letter from California Assemblymember Lloyd G. Connelly
`G.
`(1987) ............................................................................................... xxiii
`
`H.
`
`
`Exhibit: “Warning to Silicon Valley on computer chip gases” (1987)
`xxiv
`
`I. Exhibit:” Activist calls semiconductor industr y histor y’s most
`dangerous” ......................................................................................... xxv
`
`J. Exhibit: “Blast scene ‘pretty brutal’” (1988) .................................. xxvi
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`M.
`
`
`Exhibit: “Residents flee homes in fear of new blast” (1988) ......... xxvii
`
`Exhibit: “Toxic gas leak is ‘ inevitable’ doctor warns,” (1982) ..... xxviii
`
`Exhibit: “Deadly gas stored next door to South Bay homes” (1986).
`xxix
`
`Exhibit: “Modeling Toxic Gas Releases Using a Simple Screening
`N.
`Model,” (1987). ................................................................................... xxx
`
`P l .’ s Re q . f or Ju d . No t. in S u p p. o f P l .’s Op p. | C as e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— ii —
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/31/24 Page 3 of 50
`
`Exhibit: International Fire Code; International Zoning Code;
`O.
`California Fire Code ........................................................................... xxxi
`
`
`
`
`
`I. Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`
`Adetuyi v. Cit y & Cnt y. of San Francisco , 63 F. Supp. 3d 1073, 1080 –81 (N.D. Cal.
`
`2014)
`
`1
`
`Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Savage , 897 F.3d 1025, 1032 n.11 (9th Cir. 2018) 3
`
`Arroyo v. Plosay, 225 Cal. App. 4th 279, 170 Cal. Rptr. 3d 125 (2d Dist. 2014)
`
`4
`
`Center for Biological Diversity, Inc . v. FPL Group, Inc ., 166 Cal. App. 4th 1349, 83
`
`Cal. Rptr. 3d 588 (1 s t Dist. 2008), as modified on denial of reh'g, (Oct. 9,
`
`2008)
`
`4
`
`Church v. Jamison , 143 Cal. App. 4th 1568, 50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 166 (5th Dist. 2006) 5
`
`Cit y of Monterey v. Carrnshimba , 215 Cal. App. 4th 1068, 156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (6th
`
`Dist. 2013)
`
`Cit y of Oakland v. Williams, 15 Cal. 2d 542, 103 P.2d 168 (1940);
`
`5
`
`8
`
`Cit y of Palm Springs v. Luna Crest Inc ., 245 Cal. App. 4th 879, 200 Cal. Rptr. 3d
`
`128 (4th Dist. 2016)
`
`Cit y of San Diego v. Van Winkle, 69 Cal. App. 2d 237, 158 P.2d 774 (4th Dist.
`
`1945)
`
`Curcini v. Count y of Alameda , 164 Cal. App. 4th 629, 79 Cal. Rptr. 3d 383 (1st
`
`Dist. 2008)
`
`Dollar -A-Day Rent -A-Car Syste ms, Inc . v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. , 26 Cal. App. 3d
`
`454, 102 Cal. Rptr. 651 (2d Dist. 1972
`
`Farah v. Esquire Magazine , 736 F.3d 528, 534 (D.C. Cir. 2013)
`
`Gerritse n v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc . , 112 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1029 (C.D.
`
`Cal. 2015).
`
`5
`
`8
`
`5
`
`4
`
`6
`
`7
`
`P l .’ s Re q . f or Ju d . No t. in S u p p. o f P l .’s Op p. | C as e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— ii i —
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/31/24 Page 4 of 50
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`HsingChing Hsu v. Puma Biotechnolog y, Inc ., slip op. at 7. 8:15 -cv-00865 (C.D.
`
`Cal. Sept. 30, 2016)
`
`Jackson v. Godwin, 400 F.2d 529, 536 (5th Cir.1968)
`
`Katz v. Helbing , 205 Cal. 629, 27 1 P. 1062, 62 A.L.R. 825 (1928).
`
`Kelly v. Cit y of San Diego, 63 Cal. App. 2d 638, 147 P.2d 127 (4th Dist. 1944)
`
`Khoja v. Orexige n The rapeutics, Inc . , 899 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir. 2018).
`
`League of California Cities v. Superior Court, 241 Cal. App. 4th 976, 194 Cal.
`
`Rptr. 3d 444 (4th Dist. 2015)
`
`Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distribs., Inc ., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986).
`
`Madain v. Cit y of Stanton , 185 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 111 Cal. Rptr. 3d 447 (4th
`
`Dist. 2010)
`
`3
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`2
`
`5
`
`2
`
`5
`
`Massachusetts v. Westcott , 431 U.S. 322, 97 S. Ct. 1755, 52 L. Ed. 2d 349 (1977) 3
`
`McAllister v. Workme n's Compensation Appeals Bd ., 69 Cal. 2d 408, 7 1 Cal. Rptr.
`
`697, 445 P.2d 313 (1968)
`
`Mogle v. Moore, 16 Cal. 2d 1, 104 P.2d 785 (1940)
`
`6
`
`7
`
`Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Ct. for Dist. of Nev ., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987). 2
`
`Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc ., 596 F.3d 112, 124 (2d Cir.
`
`2010)
`
`3
`
`Olympic Forest Coalition v. Coast Seafoods Co., 884 F.3d 901, 904 (9th Cir. 2018) 3
`
`People v. Arthur, 1 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 768, 32 P.2d 1002 (App. Dep't Super. Ct.
`
`1934)
`
`People v. Hosney, 204 Cal. App. 2d 584, 22 Cal. Rptr. 397 (2d Dist. 1962)
`
`People v. Stralla , 14 Cal. 2d 617, 96 P.2d 941 (1939).
`
`6
`
`8
`
`7
`
`Skilstaf, Inc . v. CVS Caremark Corp., 669 F3d 1005, 1016, fn. 9; (9th Cir. 2012) 2
`
`Stockton Citize ns for Sensible Planning v. Cit y of Stockton , 210 Cal. App. 4th 1484,
`
`149 Cal. Rptr. 3d 222 (3d Dist. 2012)
`
`Tahoe Forest Inn v. Superior Court, 99 Cal. App. 3d 509, 160 Cal. Rptr. 314 (3d
`
`Dist. 1979).
`
`5
`
`7
`
`P l .’ s Re q . f or Ju d . No t. in S u p p. o f P l .’s Op p. | C as e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— iv —
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/31/24 Page 5 of 50
`
`
`
`Tower Lane Properties v. City of Los Angeles, 224 Cal. App. 4th 262, 168 Cal. Rptr.
`
`3d 358 (2d Dist. 2014)
`
`United States v. Coutchavlis, 260 F.3d 1149, 1153 –54 (9th Cir. 2001).
`
`United States v. Ramirez -Jiminez, 967 F.2d 1321, 1326 (9th Cir. 1992).
`
`5
`
`7
`
`4
`
`Utility Reform Network v. Public Utilities Commission , 223 Cal. App. 4th 945, 167
`
`Cal. Rptr. 3d 747 (1 s t Dist. 2014)
`
`4
`
`Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasade na 592 F3d 954, 960, (9th Cir.
`
`2010).
`
`Washington Post v. Robinson , 935 F.2d 282, 291 (D.C.Cir.1991)
`
`Watson v. Los Altos School Dist., Santa Clara County, 149 Cal. App. 2d 768, 308
`
`P.2d 872 (1st Dist. 1957).
`
`Young v. State Water Resources Control Board , 219 Cal. App. 4th 397, 161 Cal.
`
`Rptr. 3d 829 (3d Dist. 2013), as modified, (Sept. 20, 2013); State Water
`
`Resources Control Bd . Cases, 136 Cal. App. 4th 674, 39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 189 (3d
`
`Dist. 2006).
`
`Other Authorities
`
`2
`
`6
`
`5
`
`4
`
`“Activist calls semiconductor indus tr y histor y’s most dangerous,” The
`
`Oregonian (1984).
`
`xxv
`
`“Blast scene ‘pretty brutal’: Firefighters pull screaming victim from explosion
`
`site,” Courier News, March 18 1988.
`
`xxvi
`
`“Deadly gas stored next door to South Bay homes,” San Francisco Examiner,
`
`August 10 1986.
`
`xxix
`
`“Hazardous Production Gases: Par t 2. Toxicity and Hazards,” Semiconductor
`
`International, pg 231 -233, May 1986.
`
`v
`
`P l .’ s Re q . f or Ju d . No t. in S u p p. o f P l .’s Op p. | C as e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— v —
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/31/24 Page 6 of 50
`
`
`
`“Modeling Toxic Gas Releases Using a Simple Screening Model,” by Kenneth P.
`
`MacKay and David Sweet, Department of Meteorology, and James Zavagno,
`
`Department of Urban Planning, San Jose State University – for Silicon Valley
`
`Toxics Coalition and Santa Clara County Fire Chief ’s Association (1 Februar y
`
`1987).
`
`xxx
`
`“Residents flee homes in fear of new blast,” Courier News, March 19 1988. xxvii
`
`“Silicon Valley toxics pose a ‘Bhopal’ peril,” San Francisco Examiner, Februar y
`
`5 1987.
`
`viii
`
`“Toxic gas leak is inevitable doctor warns: Dangerous form of arsenic is used in
`
`electronics industr y,” Mercur y News (1982)
`
`xxviii
`
`“Warning to Silicon Valley on computer chip gases,” The New York Times,
`
`Februar y 8 1987.
`
`Letter from California Assemblymember Lloyd G. Connelly to Silicon Valley
`
`Toxics Coalition, March 11 1987.
`
`LSI LOGIC advertisement, San Jose Mercur y News ( July 15 1996).
`
`Rules
`
`F Fed. R. Civ. E. 201(b)
`
`xxiv
`
`xxiii
`
`xxii
`
`1
`
`1
`
`6
`
`1
`
`i
`
`2
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`18
`
`Fed. R. Civ. E. 201
`
`Fed. R. Civ. E. 902.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f )
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(1) – (2)
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).
`
`Treatises
`
`2021 Fire Code Essentials: Based on the 2021 International Fire Code: Chapter
`
`16 General Requirements for Hazardous Materials
`
`2021 IFC Code & Commentar y: Chapter. 27: Semiconductor Fabrication
`
`Facilities, Section 2701, General
`
`— v i —
`
`xxxi
`
`xxxi
`
`P l .’ s Re q . f or Ju d . No t. in S u p p. o f P l .’s Op p. | C as e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/31/24 Page 7 of 50
`
`
`
`2021 International Zoning Code & Commentar y: Chapter 7: Factor y/Industrial
`
`Zones
`
`2022 California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9 with July 2024 Supplement:
`
`Appendix E Hazard Categories
`
`Regulations
`
`xxxi
`
`xxxi
`
`World Health Organization, IPCS INCHEM , International Chem Safety Cards
`
`for most common toxic gases used in semiconductor fabrication.
`
`x
`
`P l .’ s Re q . f or Ju d . No t. in S u p p. o f P l .’s Op p. | C as e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— v ii —
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/31/24 Page 8 of 50
`
`
`
`Points & Authorities
`
`
`Plaintiff Ashley Gjovik respectfully requests, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
`
`1.
`
`E. 201, that the Court take judicial notice of the following of the public records
`
`described below and attached as Exhibits. Plaintiff submits this Memora ndum of
`
`Points and Authorities concurrently with her Oppositions to both motions and also
`
`a Declaration providing authentication for the Exhibit and additional procedural
`
`context.
`
`2.
`
`This request is in support of Plaintiff ’s Opposition to Defendant’s
`
`fourth Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss and third Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f )
`
`Motion to Strike at Docket No’s 78 and 79. The hearing is scheduled for August
`
`22, 2024. All of the exhibits in this request support Plaintiff ’s Private Nuisance,
`
`Ultrahazardous Activities, and IIED related to 3250 Scott Blvd, Santa Clara,
`
`California – and more indirectly, also her 2020 -2021 whistleblowing about the site.
`
`3.
`
`A court may take judicial notice of facts not subject to reasonable
`
`dispute and can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy
`
`cannot reasonably be questioned . Federal Rules of Evidence 201(b) ; Adetuyi v. City
`
`& Cnty. of San Francisco , 63 F. Supp. 3d 1073, 1080 –81 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .
`
`II. Arguments
`
`4.
`
`Judicial notice under Rule 201 permits a court to notice an
`
`adjudicative fact if it is "not subject to reasonable dispute." Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).
`
`A fact is "not subject to reasonable dispute" if it is "generally known," or "can be
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`P l .’ s Re q . f or Ju d . No t. in S u p p. o f P l .’s Op p. | C as e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— 1 —
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/31/24 Page 9 of 50
`
`
`
`accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably
`
`be questioned." Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(1) – (2). Accordingly, "[a] court may take
`
`judicial notice of matters of public record without converting a motion to dismiss
`
`into a motion for summar y judgment." Khoja v. Orexigen The rapeutics, Inc . , 899
`
`F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir. 2018) .
`
`5.
`
`A matter that is properly the subject of judicial notice may be
`
`considered along with the complaint when deciding a motion to dismiss for failure
`
`to state a claim . Skilstaf, Inc . v. CVS Caremark Corp., 669 F3d 1005, 1016, fn. 9;
`
`(9th Cir. 2012) . Therefore, on a motion to dismiss a court may properly look
`
`beyond the complaint to matters of public record and doing so does not convert a
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) motion to one for summar y judgment. Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distribs.,
`
`Inc ., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986) .
`
`6.
`
`The court need not accept as true allegations that contradict facts
`
`that may be judicially noticed by the court. Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of
`
`Art at Pasade na 592 F3d 954, 960, (9th Cir. 2010). Fur ther, if the Court takes
`
`judicial notice of facts that contradict allegations in an Answer or Motion to
`
`Dismiss, the Cour t need not accept those allegations could be true. Mullis v. U.S.
`
`Bankr. Ct. for Dist. of Nev ., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987).
`
`7.
`
`A party requesting judicial notice of material must provide the court
`
`and each party with a copy of the material . This efiled motion for judicial notice
`
`includes the Exhibits noted , and Each document that was posted online is marked
`
`with the uniform resource locator (URL) and date accessed. HsingChing Hsu v.
`
`P l .’ s Re q . f or Ju d . No t. in S u p p. o f P l .’s Op p. | C as e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— 2 —
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/31/24 Page 10 of 50
`
`
`
`Puma Biotechnolog y, Inc ., slip op. at 7. 8:15 -cv-00865 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2016) .
`
`A. Legal & Government Records (Exhibits A, B, E, G, N, O).
`
`8.
`
`The Court may take judicial notice of letters from agencies related to
`
`environmental matters . See, e.g., Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Savage , 897 F.3d
`
`1025, 1032 n.11 (9th Cir. 2018) ( in Endangered Species Act case, reviewing cour t
`
`notices USFS letter requesting re -consultation with Fish and Wildlife Ser vice
`
`before approving forest management project). The Court may take judicial notice
`
`of records related to permits See, e.g., Massachusetts v. Westcott , 431 U.S. 322, 97
`
`S. Ct. 1755, 52 L. Ed. 2d 349 (1977) (records of the Vessel Documentation Division
`
`of the Coast Guard that an individual's vessel is enrolled and licensed); Olympic
`
`Forest Coalition v. Coast Seafoods Co., 884 F.3d 901, 904 (9th Cir. 2018) (reviewing
`
`court notices letter from Washington Department of Ecology to defendant about
`
`pollution discharge permit) .
`
`9.
`
`A court may take judicial notice of consent orders between private
`
`parties and environmental agencies related to hazardous waste liability. See, e.g.,
`
`Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc ., 596 F.3d 112, 124 (2d Cir.
`
`2010) (noticing consent order executed by property owner and state Depar tment
`
`of Environmental Conser vation indicating release of CERCLA liability). A court
`
`may take judicial notice of agency reports that are "factual findings resulting from
`
`an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law” and which suggest a
`
`pattern of violations with a company’s day -to-day operations. United States v.
`
`Ramirez-Jiminez, 967 F.2d 1321, 1326 (9th Cir. 1992).
`
`P l .’ s Re q . f or Ju d . No t. in S u p p. o f P l .’s Op p. | C as e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— 3 —
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/31/24 Page 11 of 50
`
`
`
`10. A formal US EPA RCR A Inspection report is included as Exhibit A
`
`(separate PDF). This is a true and correct copy from the US EPA Region 9
`
`Enforcement and Compliance group, released via FOIA as noted on the exhibit.
`
`This is the initial report of the inspections conducted by US EPA due to my
`
`disclosures in June 2023. Any enforcement action comes later. The findings in the
`
`repor t support all of the toxic tort claims. This document is incorporated in the
`
`Fourth Amended Complaint on page 45, ¶ 151.
`
`11.
`
`A court may
`
`take
`
`judicial notice of
`
`the decisions of state
`
`administrative boards, such as the public utilities commissio n. See, Utility Reform
`
`Network v. Public Utilities Commission , 223 Cal. App. 4th 945, 167 Cal. Rptr. 3d
`
`747 (1 s t Dist. 2014); Dollar -A-Day Re nt -A-Car Systems, Inc . v. Pacific Tel. & Tel.
`
`Co., 26 Cal. App. 3d 454, 102 Cal. Rptr. 651 (2d Dist. 1972 ) – or the State Water
`
`Resources Control Board . See, Young v. State Water Resources Control Board , 219
`
`Cal. App. 4th 397, 161 Cal. Rptr. 3d 829 (3d Dist. 2013), as modified, (Sept. 20,
`
`2013); State Water Resources Control Bd . Cases, 136 Cal. App. 4th 674, 39 Cal. Rptr.
`
`3d 189 (3d Dist. 2006).
`
`12. A court may take judicial notice of decisions of local bodies, such as
`
`county boards of zoning adjustments and county boards of super visors . See, Ce nter
`
`for Biological Diversity, Inc . v. FPL Group, Inc ., 166 Cal. App. 4th 1349, 83 Cal.
`
`Rptr. 3d 588 (1 s t Dist. 2008), as modified on denial of reh'g, (Oct. 9, 2008) – or
`
`the Depar tment of Public Health . See, Arroyo v. Plosay, 225 Cal. App. 4th 279, 170
`
`Cal. Rptr. 3d 125 (2d Dist. 2014) ( issuance of license) – or the Division of Labor
`
`P l .’ s Re q . f or Ju d . No t. in S u p p. o f P l .’s Op p. | C as e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— 4 —
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/31/24 Page 12 of 50
`
`
`
`Standards Enforcement . See, Church v. Jamison , 143 Cal. App. 4th 1568, 50 Cal.
`
`Rptr. 3d 166 (5th Dist. 2006) (manual and opinion letter) – or a county planning
`
`commission . See, Watson v. Los Altos School Dist., Santa Clara County, 149 Cal.
`
`App. 2d 768, 308 P.2d 872 (1st Dist. 1957).
`
`13. A copy sections of the International Fire Code, International Zoning
`
`Code, and California Fire Code are attached in Exhibit O (separate PDF). These
`
`guides explain policy and an prioritization of hazards for semiconductor fab.
`
`14. A court may take judicial notice of city and county ordinances, codes,
`
`and similar legislative enactments . See, Cit y of Palm Springs v. Luna Crest Inc .,
`
`245 Cal. App. 4th 879, 200 Cal. Rptr. 3d 128 (4th Dist. 2016) (city municipal
`
`code); League of California Cities v. Superior Court, 241 Cal. App. 4th 976, 194 Cal.
`
`Rptr. 3d 444 (4th Dist. 2015) (city administrative regulation); Tower Lane
`
`Prope rties v. City of Los Angeles, 224 Cal. App. 4th 262, 168 Cal. Rptr. 3d 358 (2d
`
`Dist. 2014) (municipal code); City of Monterey v. Carrnshimba , 215 Cal. App. 4th
`
`1068, 156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (6th Dist. 2013) (city ordinances); Stockton Citize ns for
`
`Sensible Planning v. Cit y of Stockton , 210 Cal. App. 4th 1484, 149 Cal. Rptr. 3d 222
`
`(3d Dist. 2012) (municipal code); Madain v. City of Stanton , 185 Cal. App. 4th
`
`1277, 111 Cal. Rptr. 3d 447 (4th Dist. 2010) (municipal code); Curcini v. County of
`
`Alameda, 164 Cal. App. 4th 629, 79 Cal. Rptr. 3d 383 (1st Dist. 2008) (county
`
`administrative code and salar y ordinance).
`
`B. News Articles; Publications (Exhibits A, C, D, F, H-N)
`
`15. The Cour t may take judicial notice of the coverage and existence of
`
`P l .’ s Re q . f or Ju d . No t. in S u p p. o f P l .’s Op p. | C as e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— 5 —
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/31/24 Page 13 of 50
`
`
`
`newspaper and magazine articles. See, e.g., Washington Post v. Robinson , 935 F.2d
`
`282, 291 (D.C.Cir.1991) (allowing judicial notice of the existence of newspaper
`
`articles); Jackson v. Godwin , 400 F.2d 529, 536 (5th Cir.1968) (finding that
`
`newspapers and magazines allowed in a prison carried extensive coverage of riots
`
`to the point where the district court could take judicial notice of such coverage);
`
`Farah v. Esquire Magazine , 736 F.3d 528, 534 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ( in defamation
`
`action, noticing publicly available historical articles attached to defendant
`
`publisher's motions to dismiss). Newspapers or publications, and official
`
`publications, are self -executing records. Fed. R. Civ. E. 902.
`
`16. Copies of several news articles are attached as Exhibits D, F, H, I, J,
`
`K, L, and M. True and correct copies are included as provided from the San José
`
`State University Librar y Special Collections & Archives. These ar ticles support
`
`all of the toxic tort claims, support the prior finding of
`
`law related to
`
`ultrahazardous activities, and do not align with Defendant’s attempted arguments.
`
`C. Science & Medicine (Exhibits C, E, N, O).
`
`17. Cour ts take judicial notice of scientific facts and propositions,
`
`McAllister v. Workme n's Compensation Appeals Bd ., 69 Cal. 2d 408, 7 1 Cal. Rptr.
`
`697, 445 P.2d 313 (1968) (that smoke is visible because it contains incompletely
`
`oxidized materials). Well-known physical and chemical characteristics of
`
`substances will be judicially noticed. People v. Arthur, 1 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 768,
`
`32 P.2d 1002 (App. Dep't Super. Ct. 1934) (uses of hydrogen peroxide). Judicial
`
`notice may be taken of the deleterious effect of certain chemical elements on the
`
`P l .’ s Re q . f or Ju d . No t. in S u p p. o f P l .’s Op p. | C as e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— 6 —
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/31/24 Page 14 of 50
`
`
`
`tissues, flesh, and organs of the human body. Katz v. Helbing , 205 Cal. 629, 27 1 P.
`
`1062, 62 A.L.R. 825 (1928).
`
`18. An article from Semiconductor International is included as Exhibit C,
`
`explaining the known dangers of many of the gases specific to semiconductor fab.
`
`An academic “worst case scenario” planning article drafted by San Jose State
`
`University professors for the Santa Clara County Fire Chief ’s Association to use
`
`in drafting toxic gas ordinances is included as Exhibit N. Copies of current World
`
`Health Organization, INCHEM, International Chem Safety Cards for six of the
`
`toxic gases specific to semiconductor fabrication are included as Exhibit E . The
`
`example gases include: Arsine, Phosphine, Stibine, Fluorine, Diborane, and
`
`Silane. Four of these six gases include a warning to avoid all human contact, noting
`
`no amount of exposure is safe, and any exposure requires medical treatment. All
`
`of these exhibits suppor t the toxic tort claims, especially Ultrahazardous
`
`Activities.
`
`D. Maps & Locations (Exhibit B)
`
`19. The Court may take judicial notice of geographic location s and
`
`distances between locations . United States v. Coutchavlis, 260 F.3d 1149, 1153 –54
`
`(9th Cir. 2001) . Tahoe Forest Inn v. Superior Court, 99 Cal. App. 3d 509, 160 Cal.
`
`Rptr. 314 (3d Dist. 1979). The court may examine historical data, maps, and public
`
`records. People v. Stralla , 14 Cal. 2d 617, 96 P.2d 941 (1939).
`
`20.
`
`Judicial notice may be taken of topography and geographical facts.
`
`See, Mogle v. Moore, 16 Cal. 2d 1, 104 P.2d 785 (1940) ; City of Oakland v. Williams,
`
`P l .’ s Re q . f or Ju d . No t. in S u p p. o f P l .’s Op p. | C as e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— 7 —
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/31/24 Page 15 of 50
`
`
`
`15 Cal. 2d 542, 103 P.2d 168 (1940); People v. Hosney, 204 Cal. App. 2d 584, 22
`
`Cal. Rptr. 397 (2d Dist. 1962) . A cour t will take judicial notice for example of
`
`overcrowded conditions in some localities. See, City of San Diego v. Van Winkle,
`
`69 Cal. App. 2d 237, 158 P.2d 774 (4th Dist. 1945) ; Kelly v. City of San Diego, 63
`
`Cal. App. 2d 638, 147 P.2d 127 (4th Dist. 1944) .
`
`21.
`
`Included as Exhibit B are four maps of 3250 Scott Blvd. The first
`
`shows an aerial view of the facility next to the apartments, from the city’s official
`
`website. The second is the County’s official property record for the site, with an
`
`image identifying the building. The third and f our th images show Google’s
`
`“measure distance" from the factor y to the apartments, from curb to curb, and
`
`from building to building.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`III. Conclusion
`16
`
`22.
`
`I verified the authenticity of each of these documents. A true and
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`correction version of each document is attached in each exhibit. I declare under
`
`penalty of perjur y this is true and correction.
`
`
`
`Dated: July 30, 2024.
`
`
`
`Signature:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`— 8 —
`
`P l .’ s Re q . f or Ju d . No t. in S u p p. o f P l .’s Op p. | C as e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/31/24 Page 16 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ashley M. Gjovik
`
`Pro Se Plaintiff
`
`
`Email: lega l@ashleygj ovik.com
`
`Physica l Address :
`Boston, Massachusetts
`
`Mailing Address:
`2108 N St. Ste. 4553 Sacramento, CA, 95816
`
`Phone : (408) 883 - 4428
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`P l .’ s Re q . f or Ju d . No t. in S u p p. o f P l .’s Op p. | C as e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— 9 —
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/31/24 Page 17 of 50
`
`
`
`IV. Appendix: Exhibits
`
`EXHIBIT NO.
`
`RECORD DESCRI PTION
`
`ASSOCIATED CLAIMS
`
`EXHIBIT A
`(SEPAR ATE PDF)
`
`US EPA RCR A Inspection
`Repor t for 32 50 Scott Blvd
`
`Ultrahazardous Activ ities,
`Nuisance, IIED , § 110 2.5
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`Map: Location of 3250 Scott
`Blvd Santa Cla ra, CA, 95054.
`
`Ultrahazardous Activ ities,
`Nuisance, IIED, § 110 2.5
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`Hazardous Production Gases
`
`Ultrahazardous Activ ities,
`Nuisance, IIED, § 110 2.5
`
`EXHIBIT D
`
`Silicon Valley toxics pose a
`‘Bhopal’ peril
`
`Ultrahazardous Activ ities,
`Nuisance, IIED, § 110 2.5
`
`EXHIBIT E
`
`I C S C fo r : A r s i ne , P ho sp hi n e ,
`St i b i n e , Fl uo r i n e , Di b o r a n e , Si la n e
`
`Ultrahazardous Activ ities,
`Nuisance, IIED, § 110 2.5
`
`EXHIBIT F
`
`EXHIBIT G
`
`EXHIBIT H
`
`San Jose Mercur y News, LSI
`LOGIC advertisement.
`
`Ultrahazardous Activ ities,
`Nuisance, IIED, § 110 2.5
`
`Letter from California
`Assemblymember Connelly
`
`Ultrahazardous Activ ities,
`Nuisance, IIED, § 110 2.5
`
`Warning to Silicon Valley on
`computer chip gases
`
`Ultrahazardous Activ ities,
`Nuisance, IIED, § 110 2.5
`
`EXHIBIT I
`
`Activist calls se mi condu ctor
`industr y hi stor y’s most dangerous
`
`Ultrahazardous Activ ities,
`Nuisance, IIED, § 110 2.5
`
`EXHIBIT J
`
`Blast scene ‘pretty brutal’
`
`Ultrahazardous Activ ities,
`Nuisance, IIED, § 110 2.5
`
`EXHIBIT K
`
`EXHIBIT L
`
`Residents flee homes in fear of
`new blast
`
`Ultrahazardous Activ ities,
`Nuisance, IIED, § 110 2.5
`
`Toxic gas leak is ‘inevitable’
`doctor warns
`
`Ultrahazardous Activ ities,
`Nuisance, IIED, § 110 2.5
`
`EXHIBIT M
`
`Deadly gas stored next door to
`South Bay homes
`
`Ultrahazardous Activ ities,
`Nuisance, IIED, § 110 2.5
`
`EXHIBIT N
`(SEPAR ATE PDF)
`
`Modeling Toxic Gas Releases
`Using a Screen ing Model
`
`Ultrahazardous Activ ities,
`Nuisance, IIED, § 110 2.5
`
`P l .’ s Re q . f or Ju d . No t. in S u p p. o f P l .’s Op p. | C as e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— 1 0 —
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/31/24 Page 18 of 50
`
`EXHIBIT NO.
`
`RECORD DESCRI PTION
`
`ASSOCIATED CLAIMS
`
`EXHIBIT O
`(SEPAR ATE PDF)
`
`International Fire and Zon in g
`Code; Californ ia Fire Code
`
`Ultrahazardous Activ ities,
`Nuisance, IIED, § 110 2.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2021 IF C Code & Co mme ntar y
`Chapte r. 27 :
`Semi conductor Fa bricat ion
`Facilities
`
`2021 I nte r national Zon ing Code
`& Comme ntar y
`Chapte r 7 :
`Factor y/Industrial Zones
`
` 2021 Internationa l Fi re Code
`NFPA 704 Hazard Rati ngs by
`Hazard Categori es
`
`2022 California Fi re Code, Title
`24, Part 9 with July 20 24
`Suppl eme nt Hazard Ca tegori es
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`P l .’ s Re q . f or Ju d . No t. in S u p p. o f P l .’s Op p. | C as e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`— 1 1 —
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/31/24 Page 19 of 50
`
`Appendix: Exhibits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`P l .’ s Re q . f or Ju d . No t. in S u p p. o f P l .’s Op p. | C as e No . 3 : 2 3 - C V- 0 4 5 9 7 - E M C
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/31/24 Page 20 of 50
`
`
`
`A. Exhibit: US EPA, RCRA Enforcement, 3250 Scott Blvd Inspection
`Report
`
`
`Report attached as separate PDF “ US EPA RCR A Enforcement Report, 3250 Scott
`Blvd.”
`
`
`The FOIA request to US EPA that provided the report:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/31/24 Page 21 of 50
`
`B. Exhibit: Map: Location of 3250 Scott Blvd Santa Clara, CA, 95054.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1: 3250 Scott Blvd, Santa Clara , California ,
`https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our -city/about-santa-clara/maps
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/31/24 Page 22 of 50
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`Figure 2: Santa Clara County Property