Safari Club Int’l v. Harris, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1349 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2016):
Plaintiff states in its FAC: "In this lawsuit, Plaintiff . . . challenges the State of California's [statutory] ban on the importation, transportation, and possession in California of mountain lions hunted outside of California" (referred to herein as "Import Ban"). (Pl.'s First Am. Compl. ("FAC") 1:8-11, ECF No. 38.) California voters approved the Import Ban through ballot initiative Proposition 117 in the year 1990; the Import Ban is prescribed in California Fish & Game Code §§ 4800(a), (b)(1). Plaintiff alleges the Import Ban "is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause (art. I, § 8, cl. 3) and the Equal Protection Clause (amend. XIV)." (Id. at 1:12-13).
Plaintiff argues that exhibit J can be found on the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's website and helps demonstrate that California allows "the same hunting methods" used to hunt Mountain Lions that are used to hunt "numerous other species." (Id. 8:2-7.) Plaintiff contends "Exhibit J is the Guide to Hunting Wild Pigs in California, [and that it] states that hunters can use dogs to hunt feral pigs." (Id. 7:24-8:1.)
"It is appropriate to take judicial notice of [the referenced public website] information, [since] it was made publicly available by government [*10] entities . . . , and neither party disputes the authenticity of the web sites or the accuracy of the information displayed therein." Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2010). Therefore, judicial notice is taken of Plaintiff's Exhibits A to and including J.
Share this article: