— or claim preclusion — is applied to bar litigation of an claim previously decided in another proceeding by a court of competent jurisdiction when — but only when — the facts and the legal standard used to assess the facts are the same in both proceedings. Collateral estoppel does not bar the litigation of the state actor issue in the present suit because, although an entity may be deemed a state actor generally, in the case of a private party, the relevant question is whether the specific conduct in question constituted state action. Milonas determined that Old Provo Canyon’s challenged conduct — treatment of the class — constituted state action. That conduct is irrelevant to whether New Provo Canyon’s individualized treatment of Taylor constitutes state action. T (11th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). 12 . Lib. Mut. Ins., 969 F.2d at 1388; see
holding that cjourts may take judicial notice of facts not subject to reasonable dispute recognizing that a court may rely on matters of which a court may take judicial notice holding district court could not properly take judicial notice of findings of another court establishing nature of salary dispute in question holding district court could not take judicial notice of finding of another court that use of tear gas was reasonable and necessary recognizing that a court may take judicial notice of a document filed in another court  to establish the fact of such litigation and related filings