Free Motion to Strike - District Court of California - California

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

Document 63-2

Filed 04/22/2008

Page 1 of 6

Austin, Esq.SBN235457 . Chad 1 +eZZ Berwick Drive SanDieso. CA92l17 2 Telephoi", t , gg2-7100 1e (619) Iracsimile: 295-1401 , Attorney Plaintiff, for JAMESM. KINDER,anindividual O 5 6 7 8 9 l0
II .TAMES KINDER, M. Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) N C a s e o . 0 7 C V 2 1 3 2D M S ( A J B ) with 07CV2226DMS (A.ll])l [Consolidalcd Judgc: IIon. DanaM. Sabraw Mag. .ludge: Hon. Anthony.l. Battaglia P O I N T SA N D A U T H O R I T I E S I N

UNITEDSTATES DISTRICTCOURT SOUTHERN DISTRICTOF CALIFORNIA

t2 l3 14 I5
IO t1 I I ,o Io 19 20

v' HARRAH'S EN'I'BR'I'AINMENT. INC.:

) )

suPPoRTOF PLAINTIFF' S OT T ON M TO STRIKEEVIDENCESIJBMITTED
BY DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORTOF TUEIR REPLY RESPONSETO P L A I N T I F F ' S O P P O S I T I O NT O nfl\.nr^Llria\f) MOTION FOR C i n r \ r r l ) r r r t \ / SECURITY 'Date: : l'ime April 25, 2008 1 : 3 0p . m . Courtroom: 10

HARRNH'S OPERA'I'ING COMPANY. ) INC.; HARRAH'S MARKETING J S E R V I C E S O R P O R A T I O N ; A R R A H ' S) C H T IrrD\lCD rr\I\fDANT\./ LICENSErCOMPANY. T T r : . IHARRAH'S \) LLC; I A I ) I ) A r r l c l LAUGHLIN. lnc.; HBR REALTY ) COMPANY, lnc. andDOES 1 through100,) inclusive, Def-endants.

21 22
/.)

ut
ut

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

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

Document 63-2

Filed 04/22/2008

Page 2 of 6

I 2
a J

l.

Declarationof Michael E. Kostrinsky. in its entirety (Exhibit A): judicial noticeof a declaration MichaelE. Kostrinsky. Defendants haverequested by Grounds for obiection: This document shouldbe stricken because is hearsay, it irrelevant, lackingin foundation

4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13

and has not beenauthenticated. Furthermore, the "f'acts"thereinare not properly subjectto as judicial notice,this document not goodevidence is and shouldbe stricken. While the existence of a document a courtfile may bejudicially noticed, truth of matters in the in asserted such documents not subject iudicial notice. Sosinslqt Grant.(1992)6 Cal.App.4'h is to v. 1548. "A courtcannol take.judicialnotice of the truth of hear.ray statements.iust because they are part of a court recordor fiIe." Bach v. McNelis(1989)207 Cal.App.3d 852, 865 frmphasisin original.]. 'l'he court may takejudicial noticeol'the existence othercourtrecords of and liles, but cannot

1 4 accept findingsof fact contained thosefiles as true.^S'ee-l-he in RutterGroup.Civil Procedure l5 l6 l7 18 l9 20 2l 22
aa ./,)

BeforeTrial $ 7:12-7:15.10. Furthermore, evidence was submitted this after Plaintiff flled his opposition Defendants' to motion and therefore constitutes impropernewly submitted an matter, which shouldhavebeenofferedwith Defbndants'original moving papcrs, at all. if 2. Order from the Court of Appeal. Fourth Appellate District Division One. Stateof California, CaseNo. D004862. The People v. Jomes Michsel Kinder. Dated September 1987(Exhibit B): 1. GroundsFor Obiection: This exhibit is inadmissible its entiretypursuant CaliforniaEvid. Code $ 788, in that in to Plaintiff was granted dismissal the casewhich was the subiect the appealin CaseNo. in of a

24

without is to 25 D004862,pursuant PenalCode$ 1203.4.Moreover,this evidence irrelevant,

26 foundation,hasnot beenauthenticated is hearsay.l-inally, this evidencewas submittedafter and 27 28
N C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 I 3 2D M S( A J B )

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

Document 63-2

Filed 04/22/2008

Page 3 of 6

, I 3
4

Plaintiff filed his oppositionto Defendants'motion and thereforeconstitutes impropernewly an submittedmatter,which shouldhave beenofferedwith Defendants'original moving papers,if at all. Furthermore, the "facts" thereinarenot properlysubject iudicial notice,this document as to is not goodevidence and shouldbe stricken.Whilc thc existence a documcntin a courtfile of may bejudicially noticed, truth of matters the asserted suchdocuments not sub.ject in is to

^ '

6 7 $ 9 l0 ll 12 . ,J I 14
1J ' <

judicial notice.SosinslE Grant. (1992)6 Cal.App.4'r' v. 1548. "A court cannottakejudicial just notice of the truth of hearsaystatements because they are part of a coun recordor fi1e." (1 Bach v. McNeli,s 989) 207 Cal.App.3d 852, 865 [Emphasis original.l. The courtmay take in of and liles, but cannotacccptlindingsof lact .judicialnoticcof the existence othercourtrecords contained thosefiles as true.^\'ee RutterGroup.Civil Procedure in The Ilefbre 7:1 .1 . 5 0 3. Loshonkohl v. Kinder,l0g C^l.App.4th 510(20031(Exhibit C\l Grounds For Obiection: Defendants havenot laid a properfoundation this evidence hasthis evidence for nor been authenticated. l'his evidence irrelevant is hearsav was submitted and after Plaintill-filedhis matter, opposition Defbndants' to motion and therelbre constitutes impropernewly submitted an which shouldhavebeenofferedwith Defendants'original moving papers, at all. Furthermore, if is as the "facts" thereinarenot properlysubject judicial notice,this document not good to in evidence and shouldbe stricken.While the existence a document a court file may be of 'l'rial { 7:12-

16 17 l8 l9 20
a1

LL 22

;^ 25 26 2 28

judicially noticed, truth of matters to in is the asserted suchdocuments not subiect judicial notice. 1548. "A courtcannottakejudicial noticeof the truth of Sosinslqt Grant. (1992)6 Cal.App.4'n v. arepartofacourtrecordorfile." Bachv. McNelis(1989) hearsay statementsjustbecausethey 7 3 D N C A S E O . 0 7C V 2 1 3 2 M S( A J B )

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

Document 63-2

Filed 04/22/2008

Page 4 of 6

I
1, a -)
A

207 Cal.App.3d 852, 865 [Emphasis original.]. The courtmay takejudicial noticeof the in existence ofother court recordsand files, but cannotacceptfindings offact containedin those filesas true. SeeThe RutterGroup.Civil Procedure BeforeTrial $ 7:12-7:15.10. 4. Declarationof Ronald R. Giusso.in its entiretv: Defendants havefiled a Declaration RonaldR. GiussodatedApril 18,2008. by Grounds for obiection: Mr. Giusso'sdeclaration doesnot statethat the mattersattested thereinare basedupon to Mr. Giusso'spersonal knowledge, alonelay any properfoundation any personal let for knowledge uponwhich he makeshis declaration. Mr. Giussomerelystates that "l could and would compctently testifyto all factswithin my personal knowledge exceptwherestated on inlbrmationand bclief." (tl 1) 'l'his is insuflicientfor the courtto conclude that all o1'the matters

+

5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12
1 a I J

l4 l5 l6 17 l8

stated Mr. Giusso'sdeclaration based in are uponpersonal knowledgc. ln 1act, appears it that Mr. Giussois attemptingto statethat he would be willing to testify to thoselbcts that are within his personal knowledge, doesnot saywhich matters but stated the declaration actually in are within his personal knowledge.Finally,this new evidence was submitted after Plaintiff filed his

to motion andtherefore constitutes impropernewly submitted an matter, 1 9 opposition Defendants'

2 0 which shouldhave beenofferedwith Defendants'original moving papers,if at all. 'l'herefore, 2l 22
5.
aa

the entiretyof Mr. Giusso's declaration shouldbe stricken. Declarationof Ronald R. Giusso.Parasraph 3: Paragraph of the Declaration RonaldR. Giussostates: 3 of pager "KINDER's profession the filing of lawsuitsbased his (619) 999-9999 on is in lawsuitsfiled bv KINDER discussed this number. A review of the numerous 4 D N C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 1 3 2 M S( A J B )

z-)

24 25 26 2l 28

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

Document 63-2

Filed 04/22/2008

Page 5 of 6

I 2 3 ^

motion reveals a singlecasewas tried on the meritsin SanDiego County." not GroundsFor Obiection: pach and everyfactualstatement this paragraph in lacks foundationand thereforethis paragraph shouldbe stricken its entirety. Moreover,Mr. Giusso'scomments in herestate

o , 8 9 10 ll 12 II 14 15

misleading and inaccurate legalconclusions ["not a singlecasewas tried on the merits"] and offer inappropriate "opinion" testimony non-expert aboutthe natureof I'laintiff s previous lawsuitsand Defbndants' allegation that Plaintiff s "prolbssion" filing lawsuits. Finally,this is n.rv evidence irrelevant is and was submitted afterPlaintiff filed his opposition Defendants' to motion and therefore constitutes impropernewly submitted an matter,which shouldhavebcen off-ered with Defendants' originalmoving papers, at all. if 6. Declaration Ronald R. Giusso, of Paragraph5: Paragraph of the Declaration RonaldR. Giussostates: 5 of "l am awarethat Mr. Kinder hasbeenrecently incarcerated SanDiegoCounty in for an undetermined periodof time." Grounds For Obiection: 'l'his evidence shouldbe stricken because is without foundation it and irrelevant. Finally, this new evidence was submittedafter Plaintiff filed his oppositionto Def-endants' motion and thereforeconstitutes impropernewly submittedmatter,which shouldhavebeen an offeredwith Defendants' originalmoving papers, at all. if
t tt tt

t6
t7 l8 l9 20
1't

L'

22

t

2 4

25 lll

26 ur
1'7 1

28

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

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

Document 63-2

Filed 04/22/2008

Page 6 of 6

,, 2 3 4 5
A o

7.

Exhibit 29 ("a true and correct copy of the Union-Tribune article regarding JAMES M. KINDER. datedFebruarv 12.2007"): Grounds For Obiection: This document shouldbe strickenbecause is irrelevant it hearsay, without foundation is

and has not beenauthenticated. Also, this new evidencewas submittedafter Plaintiff filed his opposition Defendants' to motion and therefore constitutes impropernewly submitted an matter, which shouldhavebeenofferedwith Defendants'original moving papers. at all. Finally,this if cvidence misleading that.ludge I. Goldsmith is judgmentin tliat in Jan thrcwout the $900,000 case, grounds insufficienc),of evidence juror misconduct. on of the and 8. Exhibit 30 ("a true and correctcopy of the want-ad postedbv KINDER in the San Diego Daily Transcript. from May 2006"): Grounds For Obiection: This document shouldbe strickenbecause is irrelevant it hearsav- without foundation is and hasnot beenauthenticated. Also. this new evidence was submitted atter Plaintifffiled his opposition Defendants' to motion andtherefore constitutes impropernewly submitted an matter,

' 8 9 1n I 1,, II
1 a I L

I -I) t 14 l5 l6

t7
18 whichshould have been offered with Defendants' papers. at all. original moving if 19 DATED:April 22,2008 20 2l 22
aa L-)

By: /s/ ChadAustin CHAD AUSTIN, Esq.,Atlorneyfor Plaintiff. .IAMESM. KINDER Email: [email protected]

aA
LA

25
,o

27 28
C A S E N OO T V 2 I 3 2D M S( A J B ) . C