Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 20

Filed 01/17/2008

Page 1 of 10

, I ^ z , 4 5 6

Chad Austin. Esq. SBN235457 3129lndiaStreet Sa n i e g oC A 9 2 l 0 3 -6 0 1 4 D . T el e p h o n(6:1 9 ) 9 7 -8 8 8 8 e 2 Facsimile: (619) 295-1401 Attorney Plaintifl, for JAMESM. KINDER,an individual

8 9 l0 i 1 JAMESM. KINDER, 12 l3 14 l5 16
1 1

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCoURT SOUTHERN DISTRICToI..CALIFORNIA

Case No. 07 CV 2226 DMS (A.lB) .Tudge: llon. DanaM. Sabraw Mag..ludgc: Ilon. Anthony.f Battaglia . P L A I N T I F FJ A M E S M . K I N D B R ' S P O I N T SA N D A U T H O R I T I E S I N R E P L Y T O O P P O S I T I O NT O M O T I O N TO FILE FIRST AMENDET) COMPLAINT [)ate: January 25.2008 Time: 1:30 .m. p Place: Courlrooml0

Plaintiff. v' HARRAH's ENTERTAINMENT, and Inc. DOESI through 100. inclusive.
Defendants.

18 t9 20

INTRODUCTION TO THE COIJRT" ALL PARTIES AND TIIEIRATTORNEYS RITCORD: Plaintiff OF

2l
22 23 24
)5

JAMES M. KINDER herebysubmitsthe fbllowing Memorandum ol-Pointsand Authoriticsin Supportof his Replyto Def-endant's Opposition his Motion 1oFile First AmendcdComplaint, to namins new defendants.

ilt

26 27 28

ut
N D C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 2 2 6 M S( A J t s )

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 20

Filed 01/17/2008

Page 2 of 10

. 2
a

ARGUMENT A. DEFENDANT HAS BEENPUT ON CLEAR NOTICEOF THE NATUREOF PLAINTIFF'SPROPOSED AMENDMENTAND HAS NOT BEEN PREJUDICED.
L DefendantDoesNot Deny The Key FactsWhich Give Rise To Liabiliry By The DefendantsPlaintiff SeeksTo Name.

^ + 5 6 , 8 9 l0 ll
'ta
L L

Defendant blithelyasserts Plaintiff "providesno explanation (factualor legal)lor that addingthese entities the case...or viableargument to why the C'ourl to any as shouldallow him to amend." (Page Lines6-8 of Defendant's 2, Opposition.)However.as was conclusively established Plaintiff s Motion to File First AmendedComplaintand the attachecl in l)eclaration of ChadAustin,it is a matter publicrecord of that tIARRAII'S LAIJGIILIN, Inc.ownsthe Harrah's LauglinCasino.(fl 5, Declaration ChadAuslinin support Molion 1olrile First of of AmendedComplaint).Also, seeExhibitsA and G. attachcd hcretoand incorporated hercinby reference, Fastweb a recordand Harrah'swebsiteprintoutshowingthat tlarrah's Laughlin Casinois ownedby Harrah'sLaughlin,Inc. Defendant doesnot cleny that Harrah'sl,aughlin, Inc. own Harrah'sLaughlinCasino. Moreover.Plaintiff hasprovidedcompetent cvidcnce that he received prerecorded a telemarketing promoting call Ilarrah'sl-aughlin Casino.(fl 5, Declaration ChadAustinin support Motion to Filc FirstAmended of of Complaint).Delbndant doesnot denythat Plaintiffreceived prerecorded a telemarkeling promolingIlarrah's call LaughlinCasino. And, as was conclusively established Plaintifl--s in Opposition Defendant's to Motion to Dismiss,makingunlawfulprerecorded telemarketing callsto Californiaresidents

l3 14 15 l6 l7 18 lg 20
1 1 LL

22 -n"n l+ 25 26 2 2g 7 ) D C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 2 2 6 M S( A J B ) N subjects Telephone a Protection Act Violator who resides outsideCaliforniato Consumer in specificand generaljurisdiction Califbrnia.

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 20

Filed 01/17/2008

Page 3 of 10

1 ? 3 4 ' 5 6 7 $ 7 l0 l1
lz

Plaintiff hasalsoprovidedcompetent conclusive and evidence that he received a prerecorded telemarketing call promoting Hanah's Las VegasCasino(fl 6, Declarationof Chad Austin in supportof Motion to File First AmendedComplaint)and that Harrah'sOperating Company" Inc. owns Harrah'sLas VegasCasino. SeeExhibitsB. C and II. attached heretoand incorporated hereinby reference, Fastweb a record. NevadaSecretary ol'State'sOfllce website printoutshowingthat Harrah'sLas VegasCasinois ownedby Printoutand Harrah'swebsite Harrah'sOperating Company, Inc. Defendant doesnot denythat I'laintifTreceived prerecorded a telemarketing promotingHarrah'sLas VegasClasino that Ilarrah's Opcrating call or Cornpany, Inc. owns Harrah'sLas VesasCasino.

l3 14 l5 t6

Plaintiff hasalsoprovidedcompetenl and conclusive evidence thal he received a prerecorded telemarketing promotingHarah's CouncilBtutls Casino(tl 7. Declaration call o1' ChadAustin in support Motion to File First AmendedComplaint)and that HBR Realty of Company, Inc. owns Ilarrah'sCouncilBluffs Casino. SceExhibitst) and I. attached heretoand incorporated hereinby reference. Fastweb a recordand Ilarrah'swebsileprintoutshowingthal Harrah'sCouncil Bluffs Casinois ownedby tlBR RealtyCiompany, Inc. I)cl'cndant doesdcny that Plaintiff received prerecorded a telemarketing promotingHarrah'sCounciltslu1fs call Casinoor that HBR RealtyCompany, Inc. owns Harrah'sCouncilBlufTsCasino. Because Defendant well awareof the truth of thesefacts.it relieson thc subterfr.rge is created Mr. by

t7
l8 lg 20
11

22

:^ l+ 25 26

Kostrinsky'smisleading and self-serving declaration.Of'thehighestimportance that Mr. is Kostrinsky and Defendantat no point deny any of the factualallegations containedin Plaintiff s Motion to File First AmendedComplaint or the attached Declarationof Chad Austin. Thev

2l 28
C A S E O .0 7C V 2 2 2 6 M S( A J B ) N D

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 20

Filed 01/17/2008

Page 4 of 10

, 2 3
A 'a

chooseinsteadto hide behind diatribesand paper-thinevidentiaryobjections. Apparently, Defendantbelievesthat it can do away with due process togetherand try this matterin its all Opposition Plaintiff s Motion to Amend,knowing full well that PlaintifThas vct had the to not
benefit of any tli.scovcry.

5 6
2. DefendantHas Cited No Controlling Authority For lts PositionThat Plaintiff Was Required To Attach A ProposedFirst Amended Complaint To His Motion In Order To Prevail.

8 9 l0 ll 12 l3 14 l5 16

Defendantasserts that the fact that no proposedtrirst AmendedComplaint was allached to his Motion to File First AmendedComplaintdef-eats Plaintiff s Motion. Howevcr.the authoritycitedby Defendant doesnot conlrolthis court. Also. in contrast thc CentralDistrict to of California,thereis no local rule in the Southcrn Dislrict which rcquircslhat a motion to flle an amended complaintbe accompanied the proposed by amended complaint. Del'endant againseeks to circumvent due process relyingon a non-existenl by rule. so that I']laintill'will losehis right to nameadditional parties who are essential properdetermination to o1-this action. Morcover. Plaintiff has attached heretoa Proposed First AmendedComplainl v,hich tli//ers in rut way.fiom the original c'omplainl this action. The only change Plaintilf s complaintis that he seeks in to to nameadditional parties who areresponsible the unlawlul prerecordcd fbr telemarketing which is the subjectof this action.

t7
l8 19 20 2l

22
Additionally, in that Plaintiff only seekslo nameadditional defendanls, add any not .A 1,+ 25 26 causes action,seekany additionaldamages modify his prayerlbr reliel-in any way, it is of or absurdfor Defendant represent this courtthat it could possiblybe prejudiced any way by in to to Plaintiff filing an amended complaint. Any prejudicewhich may allegedty lTowto third parties

27
2g C A S EN O . 0 7 C V 2 2 2 6D M S ( A J B )

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 20

Filed 01/17/2008

Page 5 of 10

, l 2 3 4 5 6 I $ 9 10 1l 12 l3 14 l5

not yet namedcannotlogically or properly be claimedby this Defendant. Only Ihosethircl
'

parties could claim any alleged prejudice arisingfrom an amendment namingthem as defendants.

3.

DefendantHas Been Clearly Noticed Of The Nature Of Plaintiff s Proposed Amendment,Via Plaintiff s Motion And The Declaration Chad Austin. Of

As demonstrated above,Defendant cannotclaim ignorance preiudice or thereliom regarding natureof Plaintiff s proposed the amendment.PlaintifT seeks modify the complaint to in one way and one way only: to nameadditional clef'endants. Suchwas clearlysct forlh throughout Plaintifls Motion. Memorandum Supporl'I'hcrcol. thc Dcclaration Chad in and of Austin. It is totally disingenuous Defendant claim that it hasbccnin any way surpriscd for 1o or kept in the dark,particularly light of the fact that I'laintill'hashercwithsubmittcda Proposed in First AmendedComplaintthat differsfrom the originalcomplaintonly in that it namesadditional defendants. Additionally,as stated above.Plaintiff seeks modify thc complaintin no way that to would alteror affecthis praycrfor rclicf against this Dcl'endant. Dcl-cndanl cannotin goodfaith claim any preiudice Plaintifl-sproposed by amendmcnt.

t6
1'l

l8 19

4. 20 2l 22 23
)4

Plaintiff Has Concurrently Herewith Filed A ProposedFirst Amended Complaint That Differs In No SubstantiveWay From The Originat Complaint Filed In This Action.

As stated way above, Proposed the IrirstAmendedComplaintdill'crsin no substantive from the original complaint. It only namesadditionaldefendants, which Plaintiff has an absolute

of and the same causes action rightto do. TheProposed Amended First Complaint alleges exact no prayers relief. Therefore, Defendant demonstrated prejudice has for contains exactsame the 7 s
C A S EN O . 0 7 C Y 2 2 2 6D M S ( A J B )

25 26 2
2g

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 20

Filed 01/17/2008

Page 6 of 10

,
l

whatsoever which could flow to it as a resultof Plaintif 1'namins additionaldeI'endants.
. -

5. 3 4 5 6 ' 8 ^ 9 l0 II

DefentlantDoesNot Deny The AllegationsOf Ownership Regarding Thc 6asinos Which Were Being Promoted In The fJnlawful Prerecorded TelemarketingCalls To Plaintiff.

As detailed above,Defendant doesnot denyany of Plaintiff s allegations regarding his receiptof unlawful prerecorded telemarketing callspromotingvariousHarrah'scasinos, does nor 'fhe Defendant denyany of Plaintiff s allegations regarding owncrship thosccasinos. of simple fact, which Def-endant hasnot denied.is that Def'endant also brokethe law by makingillegalcalls to a Californiaresident.It thcrefbre stretchcs boundso1-rcason l)el-endant saythat it its the lbr to illegal conducthasnot subjected itself to jurisdictionin California.

t2 l3 t4
l5 16 17 l8 19 thatiurisdictionis based Defendant's the otherHarrah'sentitics'unlawful tclemarkcting on and Kostrinskythat any of the Harah's entitiesPlaintiff sceks amenddo not makelelemarketing to callsto Califbrnia,eventhoughPlaintill'hasalleged thal suchis true. Nor docsl)elbndant assert that it or any of the otherHanah's entitieshavenot contracted with third-par-ty telemarkcting firms to maketelemarketinc callsto Califbrnia. Because Plaintiff-sentiretheorvof'the caseis Finally,Def-endant doesnot assert its Opposition in the Declaration Michael in or o1-

20
ll

^,

callsto California,as a matterof law. Plaintiff hasallcgedl'acts sufllcienlto hail l)efendant and the other Harrah'sentitiesinto Californiato answerlbr their illegal conduct. It is particularly noteworthy that Defendanthas offered not one singlesourceauthority which would stanrl for the proposition that a nonresidentDefendantmaking unlawful telemarketingcalls to California residentsis not subjectto generalor specificjurisdiction in the State of

22 23
./ tt

25 26 2 2g 7 6 D C A S E O .0 7C V 2 2 2 6 M S( A J B ) N

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 20

Filed 01/17/2008

Page 7 of 10

,I

California.

2 3
4

B.

DEFENDANT ASKSTHIS COURTTO DISMISS COMPLAINTTHAT HAS A YET TO BE FILED, RELYING ON INCOMPETENT EVIDENCE. 4TTEMPTING To CIRCUMVENT DUE PRoCESS.
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was an end-around.an attempt 1o 1ry this case at the

5 _ 6 t 8 9 10 l1

pleadingstage, without giving Plaintifl-access discovery which he is entitledas a mattero1to to right. Defendant's Opposition this Motion is a similarand starker to exarnplc than its Motion to Dismiss of Defendantattemptingto deny Plaintiff his due process rights. Ratherthan address the meritsof Plaintiff s request leaveto amend.Defendant choscnto contortits Opposition for has theretointo an impromptuMotion to Dismiss. This is truly puttingthc cart beforethe horse. lf Defendant chooses challenge First AmendedComplaintalier it hasbccn lllcd. it ccrtainly to the hasthe right to do that. What Defendant doesnot havethe right to do. and what Delbndant is attempting do, is dismissan amended to complaintthat hasnot yet evenbeenfrled. 'l'his

12
l3 14
1 <

'r

approach offendsnotionsof fair play andjusticeand shouldnot be entertained the court. by

16 17 l8 19 20 2l 22 Court], is January 2008. If the relief soughthereinis not granted. Plaintiff may foreverlose 30, :"^ 2+ 25 26 2 28 the right to amendhis complaintto add def-endants areparties who ncccssary tl.re to absolutcly full and final adjudication Plaintiff s claims. of 'l'herelbre. has considering that Defendant C. PLAINTIFF WILL SUFFER IRREPERABLE INJURY IF THIS COURT DOES NOT GRANT HIS MOTION TO AMEND, NAMING NEW DEFENDANTS. As was stated Plaintiff s Memorandum in o1-Points Authoritiesin Supporto1-Motion and to File First AmendedComplainl,the 120daysaftercommencement this actionby which of Plaintiff must haveserved "Doe" def'endants, pursuant FRCP4 (m) lif appliedby the all to

of demonstrated potentialprejudiceto it, any balancingof equitiesaffectingthe determination no 7 j C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 2 2 6 M S( A J B ) N D

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 20

Filed 01/17/2008

Page 8 of 10

, l 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 ^ q l0 l1
1 1

this Motion tips only in onepossible direction:in favor of Plaintifl-.
^

D,

IN ADDITION TO EACH TO-BE-NAMED HARRAH'S ENTITY HAVING CASE-RELATED CONTACTS, HARRAH'S MARKETING SERVICE,S 6oRpoRATIoN AND HARRAH'S opERATTNG coMpANy. rNC. HAVE CONSENTED TO SUIT IN CALIFORNIA Plaintiff seeks name,inter alia. Harrah'sMarketingServices to Corporation and Harrah's

Operating Company, Inc. as defendants this matter. Both of thoseentitieshavedesignated in agents service process file with thc CaliforniaSccretary State(,\cc,F.xhibits and [,, for of on of Il r e s p e c t i v e l yT.h e y h a v e o n s e n l e t l t o s ui in t h e S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a a n d a r e t h e r e l b r c s u b . i e c t t o ) c t jurisdictionhere. "Appointrnent general and specific o1-a registered agentlor service...is a traditionallyrecognized well accepted and species o1-general consent."Knov,ltonv. Allied Van

tL

Lines, (8"'Cir.1990) F2d1196. 199 federal Inc. 900 1 statute required interstate carricr to designate agent. local (3'u Bane llerlink,Inc'. Cir. l99l) 925F2d637.640-641 lbreign v. corporations authorized do business state to in statutorily designate Secretary ol'Clommonwealth
to acceptprocess. E. A S U B S T A N T I A LN U M B E R O F A U T H O R I T I E S F R O M A R O U N D T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S ,I N C L U D I N G T H E C A L I F O R N I A S U P R E M EC O U R T , STAND FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT A HOTEL'S OUT OF STATE ADVERTISEMENTS SUBJECT IT TO SPECIFIC JURISDICTION IN THE STATE IN WHICH IT ADVERTISES, EVEN IF THE INJURY IS SUFFERED IN THE STATE WHERE THE HOTEL AND FqREIGN CoRPqRATIqN RESIDE. lnSnowne!v.Harrah'sEntertainment, Inc.35 Cal.4tr'1054. P.3d 28.zgClal.Rptr.3d I l2 33 (June6, 2005),a Californiaresident filed a classactionsuit in Los AngelesSuperior Court

l3 t4
15

16 17 IQ IO Ig 20 2I 22
aa

variousNevadahotels,includingHarrah'sEnterlainment. lDefbndanl Inc. hereinl, n"^ against /.+ 25 26
.\,7 L t

allegingcauses actionfor California'sunfair competition law, breachof contracl, of unjust enrichmentand false advertising. fhe Plaintiff, Mr, Snowney,allegedthat the hotelshad failed
g

2g

C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 2 2 6 M S( A J B ) N D

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 20

Filed 01/17/2008

Page 9 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6

'l'he failed to provide notice of an energysurcharge imposedon hotel guests. Los Angeles SuperiorCourt granteda motion to quashserviceof summonsfor lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court of Appealreversed, which holdingwas affirmedby the CaliforniaSupreme Court.

The California SupremeCourt noted. "By purposefully and successfully solicitingthe business Californiaresidents, of defendants could reasonably anticipate beingsub.ject litigationin Calilbrniain to the eventtheir solicitations caused injury to a Calilbrniaresidcnt.(SeellurS4er an King, supra.471U.S.at pp. 475-476.) Cases holdingthat claimsfor injuriessuffered duringa plaintiff s stayat a hotelor resortarenot related and do not ariseliom that hotel'sor resort'sadvertising to in the forum stateare inapposite.fCitations lbotnoteomittcdl. As an initial matter, in most,if not all, of thesecases not applvthe substantial did conncction test established inVons. In any event, evenil'we agree with the holdings these in cases, in footnote omittedlthey distinguishable. are tJn]ikethe injuries [Citations suffered the plaintiffsin thosecases, injury allegedlysufl-ered plaintiff in by the by this caserelates directly1othe content defendants' of advcrtising California. in As such,the connection plaintiff's claimsand defendants' between contacts far is closerthanthe connection between claimsand conlacts the allegedin the cases citedabove. Indeed. somecourlsthat haverefused exercise.f to urisdiction where a plaintiff sufferedan injury during a stayat a hotel or resorl acknowledge thal they would havereached differentconclusion that plaintiff had allegedfalse a if advertising fraud. (SeeSmith,supru,l997 WL 162156 p. *6 [suggesting or at that claimsof falseadvertising liaudulentmisrcprcscntalion or would meetthc relatedness requirement]; Oberlies. supra.633N.W.2d at p. 417 l"A foreign corporation that advertises Michigancanreasonably in expcctto bc calledto defendsuitsin Michigancharging unlawfuladvcrtising allcgingthat thc or advertising, itself,directlyinjureda Michiganresident"l.) Accordingly,we conclude that plaintiff hasmct thc relatcdness requiremenl."Id ut 37-38.

8 9 10 l1 t2 13 14 15 16 l7 l8 19 20 2l 22
z)

24 25

The Court alsonotedin a footnotethat "Severalcourtshavercached the...conclusionthat injuries sufferedduring a stayat a hotel or resorture relaledto and r/o arisefrom that hotel's

Ltd. v. 26 or resort'sadvertisingin the forum state. (See,e.g.,ly'o)l,ak Tuk Hov, Inveslmenls, (lst
zt

28

CASENO. 07 CV 2226DMS(AJB)

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 20

Filed 01/17/2008

Page 10 of 10

'I
2 3 4 ' 5 6 , 8 9 10 lt 12 l3 14 l5 16

Cir. 1996)94F.3d708,715-716; Mallonv.Walt Disney World (D.Conn.1998) Co. 42
F . S u p p . 2 d 1 4 3 , l 4 7 : O ' B r i e n v .k e m o o u n t a i nI,n c . ( D . C o n n 1 9 9 8 )1 7 F . S u p p . 29 8 , 1 0 1 ; . O M d Rooneyv. Walt Disney WorkJCo. (D.Mass.2003) 2003 WI- 22937728.p.*4; ,szgros Walt v. D i , s n e y l l o r l d o . ( D . M a s s . 2 0 0 1 )2 9 F . S u p p . 2 d 5 6 . 6 7 : s h o p p F r .o d W a r a f u t u s c , s u p r a , T 4 6 C 1 eo r A.2datp.336 Tatrov.Manor Care,Inc. (Mass.1994) 625N.E.2d549.553-554; Rutligunv. Innisbrook Resort Go( Club (N.J.Sup.Ct.App.Div. & 1977)375A.2d 1229.1231.)" Id.

It is therefore well settled the Stateof Calilbrniathat a foreigncorporation in hotel jurisdictionin the Stateof California. advertising Californiaresidents to subjects itself to specific particularly the advertising unlawful. Because if is PlaintilJ-s claimsrelateto an illegal advertising method,unlawfulprerecorded telemarkeling. directed Calilbrniarcsidents, at jurisdictionin the Defbndant and the otherHarrah'sentitiesareabsolutely subject specific 1o State California. of .'NCLUST'N

t7 18 l9 20 2l For all of the reasons stated above,Plaintiff rcspcctfully requcsts that this Court grant Plaintiff s Motion to File First AmendedComplaint. namingnew def-endants whom this ovcr court hasjurisdiction. DATED: January t7.2oo| Bv: /s/ ChadAustin CHAD AUSTIN, Esq.,Attorneyfor Plaintiff. .IAMESM. KINDER Email: [email protected]

22
ZJ

24 25 26 27 28
10

CASENO. 07 CV 2226DMS(AJB)