my first pleading. look what I did!

I had like 4 hours to find out what this objection was and do one. I think I did a good job!:

COMES NOW Plaintiff and submits this Objection to Defendant’s Requests for Judicial Notice, filed in support of Defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions of first Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs object to Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice on several evidentiary grounds.
Defendant seeks judicial notice to clarify unambiguous language in the code. Judicial notice is not allowed where the plain language of the statute is clear on its face. People v. Brock (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1320, 1327. “If the language of the statute is not ambiguous, the plain meaning controls and resort to extrinsic sources to determine the Legislature's intent is unnecessary.” Id. The language of Cal. Lab. Code §226.7 regarding compensation for missed meal periods is clear and, as such, any judicial notice of legislative history is improper.
Assuming, arguendo, that judicial notice is appropriate in this matter, Defendant’s Exhibits 7,9,10, and 11to its Request For Judicial Notice are irrelevant to legislative intent. It would follow that materials relevant to the intent of the legislature while drafting legislation in the year 2000, were produced by that legislature prior to that time. However, Exhibits 7,9,10, and 11 either offer no date or were generated subsequent to the 2000 amendments to § 226.7. Moreover, courts have consistently denied judicial notice of press releases where they do not reflect a reliable indication that the Legislature was aware and agreed with the objective defined in the press release. See People v. Garcia (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1166, 1176.
Additionally, as explained in Plaintiffs Opposition To Motion to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint, Defendant relies upon unpublished authority, and asks this Court to take improper judicial notice of same in Exhibits 9 and 11, in direct violation in Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 977.
Finally, Defendant seeks judicial notice of documents generated and gathered by the Legislative Intent Service. However where Legislative Intent Service produces documents which are irrelevant or inappropriate, judicial notice must be denied. See Kobzoff v. Los Angeles County Harbor/UCLA Medical Center (1998) 19 Cal.4th 851; Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26. Dated: September 29, 2006