from reliable sources on the Internet may be judicially noticed). 3 . Instead of contesting whether Section 98 may apply to witnesses covered by Section 1987(b), Plaintiff argues only that Marin is not the type of witness eligible for a written notice pursuant to Section 1987(b). Opp. at 9-10. However, this argument is inapposite because'the applicability of Section 1987(b) to Marin in the instant case does not alter the Court’s analysis of the plain meaning of Section 98, 4 . Additionally, the Court notes that Marin had authorized H&H to accept service on her behalf, see Compl., Ex. 1, and that as a result, had Plaintiff served. H&H, the service would have been binding upon Marin. See Tresway Aero, Inc. v, Superior Court, 5 Cal.3d 431, 441-42, 96 Cal.Rptr. 571, 487 P.2d 1211 (1971) (<HOLDING>). 5 .Defendants have filed an unopposed request
holding that defendant suffered no prejudice from allegedly improper comment on defendants refusal to testify holding that a defendant bears the burden of objecting to an allegedly improper closing argument at the time the improper argument is made holding that a defendant was estopped from asserting improper service where the defendants conduct caused the allegedly improper service recognizing that a default judgment based on improper service is void holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service