Free Response to Motion - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB

Document 68

Filed 05/30/2008

Page 1 of 7

. I 2 " . 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 II

ChadAustin, Esq.SBN 235457 4632 Berwick Drive SanDieso.CA92117 g) Telephoi.' 1Ot 992-7100 F'acsimile: (619)295-1401 Attorneyfor Plaintiff,JAMES M. KINDER, an individual

UNITED STATESDISTRICTCOURT SOUTHERN DISTRICTOF CALIFORNIA

JAMES M. KINDER, Plaintifi,

t2 l3 14
,. |)

v'
IIARRAII'S ENI'ERTAINMENT,Inc.;

ITARRAH's opERAT'tNG coMpANy,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

N C a s e o . 0 7 C V 2 1 3 2D M S ( A J B ) with 07CV2226DMS (A.lB)] [Consolidated .ludge: IIon. I)anaM. Sabraw Mag. .ludge: Hon. AnthonyJ. Battaglia PLAINTIFF JAMES M. KINDER'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'

I n c . ;I I A R R A I I ' S M A R K E T I N G ,. ) I O SERVICES CORPORATIoN;HARRAH,S i C | t I - I C E N S E O M P A N Y ,L l . C ; H A R R A H ' S ) \ 1 I-AUGHLIN, Inc.;HBR REALTY ) , o COMPANY. Inc. andDOES I through100,) Io inclusive. ) ) 19 Defendants ) ) 20 )

i

nnortoN To REMAND ACTIoN
REMOVED TO FEDERAL COURT IIY DEFENDANT HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT, Inc. INO ORAL ARGIIMENT] [)ate : .func 13,2008 Time: l:30 p.rn. Clourtroom: l0

2l 22

I. INTRODUCTION TO THE COURT. ALL PARTIESAND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:PLEASE

/,)

24 25 26

IIARRAH'S TAKE NOTICE THAT Plaintiff .IAMES M. KiNDER herebyopposes Defendants ENTERTAINMENT,Inc.,HARRAH'S OPERATINGCOMPANY, Inc.,IIARRAH'S MARKETING SERVICESCORPORATION.HARRAH,S LICENSE COMPANY. LLC.

27 28
C A S EN O . 0 7 C V 2 1 3 2D M S ( A J B )

Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB

Document 68

Filed 05/30/2008

Page 2 of 7

I r

HARRAH'S LAUGHLIN, Inc. and HBR REALTY COMPANY, Inc.'s Motion to Remand, for the reasons forth below. set

II. ARGUMENT
4 5 6 , 8
n

Defendant HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT, Inc. ("HARRAH'S") removed this case to federalcourton November21,2007 on the basisof diversityiurisdiction. tlARRAf l'S Noticeof Removalstated that because Plaintiff s complaintsoughtdamages attorncy's and fbcs"lt is facially apparent that Plaintiff s claims more likely than not exceed$75,000basedon the

'y list of damages."(Exh.A at p. 2 line 27 through 3, line l.) (Bold added.)HARRAH'S p. , madethis statement evenin light of its allegedignorance the numberof calls Plaintiffwas of awareIIARRAH'S had made. When it removed this action.IIARRAII'S invokedthis Court's jurisdictionby allcgingthat DiversityJurisdiction cxistedregardles,s thc numbcrof callsit of made(because, HARRAFI'S now alleges, did not know at the time it removedthis caschow as it many calls were at issueand thus musl have assumed, and is therefbredeemedto haveadmitted, that the numberof calls was irrelevant).

l0 ll

t2
13 14
tJ '<

t6 17 18 l9 20
1 1

Now, apparently "the unhappy with its choiceof forum, IIAI{I{AII'S claimsthat because that" total numberof alleged telephone callsat issueis known and is not in dispute,it is apparent the amount in controversy this case"falls far short of the $75,000amountin controversy in

22 requiredfor this Court to maintaindiversityjurisdiction over this action." (Motion to Remand .'^ + 6 [ D o c u m e n t 6 - 2 ] , p l., l i n e s 7 - 1 2 . )

25 lll

26 ur
2 28 7 ) ( CASE 07CV 21 D M S AJ B) NO. 32

Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB

Document 68

Filed 05/30/2008

Page 3 of 7

I
z
J

HARRAH'S fails to acknowledge explainthe fact that its Notice of Removaladmitted or that the amountin controversy requirement was satisfiedand that it was satisfiedregardlessof the numberof callsit made,because Plaintiff s prayerfor attorney's of fees. HARRAH'S also fails to explainwhy, afterunsuccessfully movingthis Court for a $75,000bond as expected defense costsand attorney's feesin this case, rutv,claimsthal thereis lessthan $75,000 il in controversy.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

HARRAH'S inconectlystates that Plaintiff s FirstAmendedComplaint("F'AC") "did not identifythe total numberof alleged telephone callsthat he claimsviolatedthc T'elephone Consumer Protection Act. ..Now that the total numbero{-alleged tclcphone callsat issucis known and is not in disputeit is apparent that" the amountin controversy this casc"lalls 1ar in

12
1 a I J

1 4 shortof the $75,000 amount controversy in required..."(Motionto Remand, l, lines5-11.) p. l5 l6 This is a startlingstatement HARRAH'S giventhat the FAC specifically by stated that "Defendants havebeencallingPlaintiff s numberassigned a pagingservice...on lcast7 to at periodof the last4 years." (FAC, fl 15.) HARRAH'S explains occasions duringthe statutory awaythis inconsistency claimingthat the I'AC "mentionsscventclcphonccallsthat arc at by

t7
l8 l9

2 0 issue,but doesnot quantifythe total numberof telephone p. calls." (Motion to Remand, 2, lines 2l 22
ZJ

2-4.)

24

in by Thissimplymakes sense. number knowncallsmade HARRAH'Sstated no The of

referenced by of consistent thedeclarations Plaintiffs counsel with 25 theFAC is entirely

26 HARRAH'S. As stated theFAC andthedeclarations by Plaintiffs counsel, Plaintiff has filed in 27 28
N C A S E O .0 7C V 2 I 3 2D M S( A J B )

Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB

Document 68

Filed 05/30/2008

Page 4 of 7

I 2 3 4 ' 5 6 , 8 9 10 1l 12
1 a

recordingsof 7 TCPA-violative callsmadeby HARRAH'S. However,as also stated the FAC, in there may be additionalcalls madeby HARRAH'S and revealedduring discoverywhich are not yet known to Plaintiff because was not able to recordthem. Therefore.the "total numberof he telephone calls" is not yet known, will not be known until Plaintiff propounds discovery and may be far in excess the 7 of which Plaintiff is currentlyaware. of 'fherefore, thcreareaminimumof

7 callsat issueand an as of yet unknownnumberof othercallsmadeby HARRAH'S.

gowever,as already conceded HARRAH'S in its Notice of Removal,it is facially by apparent that Plaintiff s prayers damages, for includingattorney's fees.put the amountin controversy this caseover the required$75,000. in

IJ

14
l <

Even assuming the sakeof argument for that more

'l.CPA-violative callsarenot revealed 'l'he

'J

duringdiscovery, amountin controversy this caseobviouslyexceeds the in $75,000.

16 17 18 19 20
11 LL

penalties statutory Plaintiff may recoverunderthe l'CPA, with trebling,amountto S10,500. While thereare no fixed statutory penalties violationsof Cal. Civ. Code $ 1770(aX22XA). for that statute analogous the TCPA and it is therefbre is to reasonable expcctthat if t'}lainlilf 1o recovers $10,500underthe TCPA he would alsorecoverthe sameor a similar amountunderthe of Civil Code counterpart,This would amountto a statutoryrecoveryof $21,000, exclusive punitive damages and attorney'sfees. Adding a fair estimate attorney'sfeesthat will be of

22

^^ z+ 25 26 21 28

required takethis matterto judgmentto a statutory recovery $21,000 putsthe amountin of to punitivedamages award. without evenconsidering potential a controversy over $75,000, no However, even assumrng arguendothat Plaintiff recovers attorney'sfeesin this case,a single A C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 1 3 2 M S( A J B ) N D

Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB

Document 68

Filed 05/30/2008

Page 5 of 7

, 2

digit multiplierpunitivedamages awardcould put the amountin controversy to $210,000. up StateFarm v. Campbell. 538 U.S. 408 (2003\.

A '

HARRAH'S alsoignores fact that Plaintiff s counsel the stated his declaration, in filed in supportof Plaintiff s Motion to File a First AmendedComplainl,dated December 28,2007 that Plaintiff had taperecordings 7 TCPA-violativecallsmadeby Harrah'sentities. (trxh. B, U 3.) of Plaintifl-scounsel alsostated his declaration, in filed in supportof Plaintifls opposition to Defendant HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss,dated December21, 2 0 0 T t h a l P l a i n t i f f h a d t a p e s o f T c a l l s m a d e b y H a r r a h ' s e n t i(tEe s .. C , f l 3 . ) S u b s e q u e n t t o i xh thosetwo declarations beingfiled and served defbndants. variousl-larrah's on the dcI-endants havefiled 2 motionsto dismissas well as a motion to declare Plaintilf a vexaliouslitigantand requesting $75,000bond. All of thosemotionswereunsuccessful. a HARRAII'S now apparentlywishesto strike the chessboard the groundand startthe gameanew back in state to court.

o , 8 9 l0 ll

12
13 14 't5 'J l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 )A 25
1A

As HARRAH'S acknowledges, determining amountin controvcrsy Courtmay the in the considerPlaintiff s prayerfor punitive damages.This is the caseso long as punitive damages are recoverable a matterof statelaw (which is the casehere)and it cannot be said to a legal as amount(an incredibly the certainty that plaintiff would not be entitledto recover iurisdictional Inc. high burdenHARRAH'S cannotpossiblymeet). Anthon:tv. Securi\t Puc. I"in'l Services, (.10thCir.199q20F3d383.386-387: (7th cir. 1996)75 F3d 311.315: Watsonv. Blankinship

Lv

2
28

(5th St.Paul Reinsurance Ltd. v. Greenburg Cir. 1998\134F3d 1250,1253-1254. Co., 7 )
C A S EN O . 0 7 C V 2 1 3 2D M S ( A J B )

Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB

Document 68

Filed 05/30/2008

Page 6 of 7

1 2 3 4

Further,althoughpunitive damages closely scrutinizedwhere they make up the bulk are of the amountin controversy, suchis not the casein this action. Anthonv v. SecuritJ, Pac. Fin'l Services, Inc.. supra. 5 F3d at 315.Packard v. ProviclenrNat'lB(tnk (.3rdCir. 1993\ 994 F2d 7 1039.1048. As stated above, statutory penalties the underthe l'CPA and CaliforniaCivil Code

5 could well be in the rangeof $21,000, not more,sincepenalties if forviolationsof _ counterpart 6 , 8 9 10 1l 12
t ! I 'J

Cal. Civ. Code $ 1770(a)(22XA) not flxed. Giventhat statutory are penalties and attorney's lees alonemay exceed jurisdictional the punitivedamages not comprise amountin this case, do the bulk of the amountin controversy. HARRAH'S reliance Anthorytv. SecuritJt on Pac. Fin'l Services, Inc. is thercforemisplaced.

Finally,although Courtsmay view punitivedamages claimswith skepticism, they do so particularly when thosedamages asserted the apparent are for purposcof meetingthe minimum. Stateqf Missouri ex rel. Pemiscot Coun\,, Mo. v. Western Sur. Co. .iurisdictional AmericanBank (.SDNY 1996)921 t 8th Cir. I 995) 51 F3d 170. 173: Miller v. European F'.Supp. 1162.1167:H & D Tire & AutomotiveHardware,Inc. v. Pitnq) BowesInc. (5thCir.

t4 15 l6 t jt l l8
lo '/

2000.\ F3d326.329.Thatis obviously thecase 227 prayed punitive not here Plaintiff as fbr damages his initialcomplaint, in filedin statecourI.

20 21

22 ilt 23 ilt 24

ut
t t /

25
26 2 28 7 6 C A S E O . 0 7C V 2 1 3 2 M S( A J B ) N D

Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB

Document 68

Filed 05/30/2008

Page 7 of 7

I

III. CONCLUSION For all ofthe reasons stated above,Plaintiff respectfullyrequests that the Courl deny Defendants' motion to remand. DATED: May 30"2008 By: /s/ ChadAustin CHAD AUSTIN, Esq.,Attorneyfor P l a i n t i f l..I A M E SM . K I N D FR EmaiI : chaclaust i ni?-'tcox. net

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll 12
1 a t-l

14 l5 16 17 18 l9 20 21 22
aa /.J

')A
-T

25 26 2l 28
C A S E O . 0 7 C V 2 I 3 2 D M S( A J B ) N