Free Motion to Strike - District Court of California - California

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

Document 56

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 1 of 5

. |
2 " . 4 5 6 7 It 9 l0
I1 12 l3

Chad Austin, SBN235457 Esq. +ezzBerwick Drive
San Dieso.CA92l17 Telepho-n.' t D 992-7100 1e (61 Facsimile: 9) 295-1401 Attorney Plaintiff, for JAMESM. KINDER,an individual

UNITED STATESDISTRICTCoURT SoUTHERNDISTRICToF CALIFoRNIA

J A M E SM . K I N D E R , Plaintifl.

L e a dC a s e o . 0 7 C V 2 1 3 2D M S ( A J B ) N with 07CV2226DMS (AJB)] [Consolidatcd .ludgc: Ilon. DanaM. Sabraw Magistrate: Flon.Anlhony.l. Battaglia O B J E C T I O N ST O A N D M O T I O N S TO STRIKE EVIDENCE SUBMITTET) BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORTOF ITS MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT AND REQUIRE HIM TO POST A BONT) April 25. 200tt l:30 p.m. Courtroom: l0 'Date: : l'ime

14 v. l5 16 HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT, Inc. and DOES I through100,inclusive, Defendants.

17 18 l9 )o 21

Plaintiff TO THE COURT. ALL PARTIES AND THEIRATTORNEYS RBCORD: OF

evidence JAMESM. KINDERhereby to submits following the objections andmotions strike to 22 t-itigant to and Plaintiff Vexatious a by in of ^.: submitted Defendant support its Motionto Declare )
24 RequireHim to Posta Bond.

2s ur
26
)'7 L t

,t
I

28

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

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

Document 56

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 2 of 5

,' 2 " r 4 ' ) 6 , 8 9 l0 li
1 a t1-

l.

Exhibits I and 2 lSan Dieso SuperiorCourt websiteprintoutsl: Defendanthas attached Exhibits I and 2 printoutsfrom the San Diego SuperiorCourt as

) websiteallegedlylisting lawsuitsfiled thereinby Plaintiff. Theseexhibitsshouldbe strickenin theirentiretv. thc same for reasons.

Grounds For Obiection: 'fhese documents shouldbe strickenbecause they are hearsay, irrelevant,lacking in

fbundationand have not beenauthenticated.Furthermore, the "f-acts"thereinare not properly as subiect to.judicialnotice,nor hasany request foriudicial noticeof thcsedocuments beenmade by Defcndant. thesedocuments not goodevidence arc and shouldbe strickcn. Whilc thc cxistence a document a court file may bejudicially noticed, truth of matters of in thc assertcd in suchdocuments not subject judicial notice.Sosinskj,v. is to Grunt, (1992)6 Cal.App.4"'1548. "A court cannoltakeiudicial noticeof the truth of hearsuystalementsiust because they are part of a courtrecord fi1e." Bachv. McNelis(1989)207 Cal.App.3d or 852.865flrmphasis in original.l. The courtmay take.judicial noticeof the existence othercourt records of and 1lles, but cannotacceptfindingsof fact contained thosefiles as true.See'l'heRutterGroup.Civil in 'l'rial Procedure Befbre Q7:12-7:15.10.

l3 l4 15 l6 17 l8 l9 20 21 22

2. 24 25 26 2 28

Exhibits 3. 4. 6-14 [October7. 2003rulines bv JudeeJohn S. Einhornl: The Octobe 7,2003rulingsby JudgeJohn.S. Einhorn,which differ in lext only by party r

name,shouldall be strickenfor the sarnereasons.

7

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

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

Document 56

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 3 of 5

I 2
a J

Grounds For Obiection: Thesedocuments shouldbe strickenbecause they are hearsay, irrelevant,lacking in foundationand havenot beenauthenticated.Furthermore, the "facts" therein are not properly as subject judicial notice,nor hasany request judicial noticeof thcscdocuments to for becnmade by Defendant, thesedocuments not good evidence are and shouldbe stricken. While thc existence a document a court file may bejudicially noticed, truth of matters of in the asserted in suchdocuments not subject judicial notice. Sosinslqt Grant. (1992)6 Cal.App.4'r' is to v. 1548. "A court canrutltakeiudicial notice of the truth of hearsaystatements because they are part iust o f a c o u r t r e c o r d o r f i l e .B a c h v .M c N e l i s 1 9 S 9 ) 2 0 7 C a \ . A p p . 3 d 8 5 2 . f E m p h a s i s i n " ( 865 original.]. The court may takejudicial noticeof the existence o1'other court records and files,bu1 cannotacceptfindings of fact containedin thosefiles as true. Scc The Rqtter GfqUp,lfytl

+

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l3 14 t5 16 17 l8 Defendant attached Exhibit5 a completely has as illegible purportedly document nolicing 3. Exhibit5:

that for priorto filing a TCPAsuit. a order 1 9 I'>laintiff it wasnecessary him to obtain pre-filing )o 2l 22
In additionto the fact that thereis apparently handwriting this document that is on
z-)

Grounds for Obiection:

24

entirelyillegible,Defendant not given Plaintiff any noticeof the purported has contents this of

lackingin irrelevant, shouldbe strickenbecause theyarehearsay, 2 5 document.Thesedocuments

26 foundationand have not beenauthenticated.F'urthermore, the "facts" thereinare not properly as 27 28
3 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 56

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 4 of 5

1 t Z 3
4 '

subject judicialnotice,nor hasany request judicial noticeof thesedocuments to for beenmade
-

by Defendant, thesedocuments not good evidence are and shouldbe stricken. While the existence a document a courtfile may beiudicially noticed, truth of matters of in the asserted in suchdocuments not subject judicial notice. Sosinskv Grant. (1992)6 Cal.App.4th is to v. 1548. "A court cannol takejudicial notice of the truth of hear.ray j statementsust because they are part of a court recordor fiIe." IJachv. McNelis(1989)207 Cal.App.3d 852, 865 [Bmphasis in original.]. The courtmay takejudicial noticeof the existence othercourt records of and files, but cannotacceptfindingsof fact contained thosefiles as true.Sce'fhe RutterGroup.Civil in P r o c e d u rB e f o r c r i a l $ 7 : 1 2 - 7 : 1 5 . 1 0 . e T

5 6 , $ o v

t0
ll 12 13 l4 I5 16 17 I8 19 20
)1

4.

Exhibit 16: Defendant attached Exhibit 16 a list purportedly has as created the JudicialCouncilo1by

Californiaand purportedly showingthat Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant.

G r o u n d sf o r O b i e c t i o n : Thesedocuments shouldbe strickenbecause they arehearsay, irrelevant, lackingin foundationand have not beenauthenticated.Furthermore, the "f-acts"therein are not properly as subject iudicial notice,nor hasany request iudicial noticeof thesedocuments to for beenmade by Defendant, thesedocuments not good evidence are and shouldbe stricken. While the

22

^^ l+

existence a document a courtfile may bejudicially noticed, truth of matters of in asserted in the

(1992) Cal.App.4'h documents not subject judicialnotice.Sosinslq,v. is 1548. to Grant" 6 25 such 26 "A courtconnot just takejudicialnoticeof the trulhof hearsay they statements because arepart 2 2g 7 4 CASE 07CV 21 32 M S AJ B) NO. D (

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

Document 56

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 5 of 5

,
t

of a courtrecord fi1e."Bachv. McJ,'/elis or (1989) 207Cal.App.3d 865[Emphasis 852, in
-

2 3
A r

orrgrnal.]. The court may takejudicial notice of the existence other court recordsand files, but of cannotaccept findingsof fact contained thosefiles as true.SeeThe RutterGroup.Civil in
ProcedureBefore Trial $ 7:12-7:1 0. 5.1

)

6 8 'y 10 ll 12 l3 14
l' J <

5.

Exhibit 28: Del'endant attached Exhibit 28 "an articlein SanDiegoReader.com has as entitled'City

Lights'dated January 17.2008.

qrculds for Obiection: l'his document shouldbe strickenbecause is hearsay, it irrelevant, lackingin lbundation and hasnot beenauthenticated. D A T E D :A p r i l I l . 2 0 0 8 By: /s/ ChadAustin CIIAD AI.JSTIN, [rsq.,Attorneylbr Plaintiff, JAMES M. KINDER EmaiI : chadausti n(r)cox. net

l6 17 I ti l9 20

2\ 22
L) 1A
LA

25 26
)'7

5 CASE 07CV21 32 M S AJ B) NO. D (

2g