Free Response to Motion - District Court of California - California

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

Document 55

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 1 of 21

I 2
J

Chad Austin" Bsq. SBN235457 4632Berwick Drive SanDiego, CA92117 (619)992-7 Telephone: 100 (619\295-1401 Facsimilc: Attorney Plaintil'f, for JAMtTS KINDER. an individual M.

4 5 6 7 8 9 It)

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT SOUTHERN DISTRICTOF CALIFORNIA

1 1 J A M E SM . K I N D E R .

t2
l a l-)

L e a dC a s e o . 0 7 C V 2 1 3 2D M S ( A J B ) N with 07c'V2]26 I)MS (A.f I])l [consolidatcd .ludge: I I o n . D a n aM . S a b r a w Magistrate: Hon.Anthony.l.Baltaglia PLAINTIFF JAMES M. KINDER'S O P P O S I T I O NT O D E F E N D A N T ' S MOTION TO DECLARE HIM A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT AND TO REQUIRE HIM TO POST A BONT) Date: Timc: Courtroom:

Plaintifl',

14 1 5 IIARRAH'S ENTER'I'AINMENT, Inc. and ) I)OES I through100,inclusive. ) l6 17 l8
1L)

Defendanls.

) ) )

10

20 21

I. INTRODUCTION TO THE COURT,ALT,PAR.fIESAND THEIR ATTORNEYSOF.RBCORD:PLDASII

22 TAKE NOTICE THAT Plaintiff JAMES M. KINDER herebyopposes Defendant HARRAH'S
/-)

ENTERTAINMENT, Inc.'s motion to declare him a vexatious litigantand to requirehim to post

24 25 26 27 28
C A S EN O . 0 7 C V 2 1 3 2D M S ( A J B )

a bond, for the reasons forth below. set

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

Document 55

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 2 of 21

I
z
a J

II. ARGUMENT A. DEFENDANTHAS SATISFIEDNONE OF THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS REQUESTING IN SECURITYUNDERCCP S 39I et seq. I n o r d e r t o r e q u e s t s e c u r i t y u n d e r C C P s e q .1 D e f e n d a n t m u s t e s t a b l i s h t h a t l ) et $39 , Plaintiffis avexatious litigantand2)thatthere no reasonable is probabilitythathe prevail will in thiscase against Defendant. I391.1. CCP

4 5 6 7 8 9

Here,Def-endant offeredno argument has whatsoever Plaintifl's claintshaveno merit that

probabilitythat he will prevailin this litigation. Defendant simply 1 0 or that thereis no rcasonable

ll

concludes that because many otherTCPA violatorshaveillegallycalledPlaintiff and that

1 2 Plaintiff hassoughtredress the Slale courl. in system thoseviolationsof law, Plaintiffis fbr
IJ

somehowdeprivedof the protcctions the'fCPA. Def-endant of doesso by playingfast and loose

t4 l5
with lederalcaselaw regarding vexatious litigants. which will be discussed dctail below. in

scheme Califbrniais quite clearas regards motion for security in a under 1 6 However,the statutory

t 7 CCP $ 391. I . First, Defendant must provethat Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant by satisfying either 1 8 CCP 391(bX1), (b)(2),(bX3)or (bXa). This,Defendant clearly hasnot done. $ 19 20 21
Def-endant off-ers evidence no preceding that Plaintiff "(1) In the immediately seven-year

prosecuted, maintained propriapersona leastlive litigationsother or in at 22 periodhascommenced,
/.-)

than in a small claimscourtthat havebeen(i) finally determined adversely the personor (ii) to unjustifiably permittedto remain pendingat leasttwo yearswithout having beenbroughtto trial orhearing." CCP $ 391(bx-l).

24 25 26 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 55

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 3 of 21

I 2 3 4 ' ) 6 t 8 9 10 1l 12 rr
l-)

Defendantoffers no evidencethat Plaintiff "(2) After a litigation has beenfinally determinedagainstthe person,repeatedly relitigatesor attemptsto relitigate,in propria persona, either (i) the validity of the determination againstthe samedefendantor defendants to as whom thc litigationwas finally determined (ii) the cause aclion,claim, controversy, any or of or of the issues fact or law, determined concluded thc final detcrntination of or by against same the def-endant dcfbndants to whom the litigationwas linally determined."CCP S 391(bX2). or as

Defendant offersno evidence that Plaintiff "(3) In any Iitigationwhile actingin propria persona, repeatedly fi1es unmeritorious motions.pleadings, otherpapers, or conducts unnecessary discovery, cngages othertacticsthat are frivolousor solelyintendcd cause or in to unncccssary d e l a y . "( ' ( ' l ' $ i 9 l ( h X 3 . ) .

14 15 16 tl it o 6 upon the sameor substantially similar facts,transaction, occurrence."CCP $ 391(b)(4). or Defendant offersno evidence that Plaintiff "(4) Haspreviously beencleclared be a to vexatious litigantby any stateor federalcourtofrecord in any actionor proceeding based

added.] 19 fEmphasis 20
)l

Rather,Defendant simplyattaches inadmissible evidence the form of a list of names in from the .ludicialCouncil,hopingto sidestep obligations its underthe applicable statutes.

22

24 25 26 2 28

Because Defendant madeno showingthat Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant underCCP $ 391(b) and Defendant not evenaddress meritsof Plaintiff s claims,as a matterof law it is not did the entitledto security underCCP I 391.1. 7 3 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 55

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 4 of 21

1

B.

No ORDERwAS EVERENTEREDIN TUNDER o^slcorzEcZloNs z.
FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF'S NUMBER FALLS OUTSIDE THE PROVISIONS OF THE TCPA. Defendant attaches Exhibits3, 4, and 6-14to its Motion numerous as identicalOctober7.

2
J

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 lt 12

2003 rulingsfrom SanDiego Superior Courl JudgeJohn.S. EinhorndenyingPlainliff permission to file new litigationin several TCPA matters.Theseexhibitsarehcarsay and lackins in foundation.Thereare several otherproblemswith them as well. The most glaringproblemwith theserulings is that they are basedon factual inaccuracies which are readily apparentfrom evena cursoryreview of the court file in the casereferenced therein lKinder y. OSI (lollec.tionServiccs, Inc.; SanDiegoSuperior CourtCase No. GIC7895881. courtfile in Kindcr v. Oslclearly The showsthat no ruling was cver entercd OSI's Motion for SummaryJudgment.'l'heoourl lrle on

no of by.ludgeEinhorn. See t 3 hasabsolutely recordwhatsoever any ruling suchas was referenced

1 4 Declarationof attorneyChristopherJ. Reichman,attached heretoand incorporated hereinby l5 l6
17

reference. Also attached heretoand incorporated hereinby reference HxhibitsA, B, fl, D and are E, court documents from the file in that case,showing IhaI Kinder v. OSI Collec'tionServices, 1nc.resolved and neverwent to final iudsment.

l8 19 20 2l 22

judgmentmotion filed by OSI in that casewas takenoff calendar OSI's l'he summary by attorney November20,2003 because casesettled, on the with OSI payingPlaintiff $ 10,000. A copy of the checkis evenin the court file. Attachedheretoand incorporated hereinby reference

/)
^,4 ;a

is Exhibit F, a copy of the $10,000 check,copiedfrom the courtfile.

25 26 27 28
N C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 I 3 2 D M S( A J B )

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

Document 55

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 5 of 21

I 2 3 4 5 , 6 , 8 9 10 ll

Even if the ruling reliedupon by JudgeEinhornexisted, which it did not and doesnot, it would have beenclear legal enor for him to takejudicial notice of any factual determination made by the court in Kinder v. OSL The Octobe 7,2003 rulings (which were all worded exactly r the same)statedthat the court had taken ".ludicial Notice" of thc file in Kincler v. Ofl Collection Services, Inc. However,while the existence a document a court file may bejudicially of in n o t i c e d , t h e t r u t h o f m a t t e r s a s s e r t e d i n s u c h d o c u m e n t s i s n o l s u b j e c t t o j u d i c i a l o s ilnc eE S no i sl . v. Granl. (1992)6 Cal.App.4'r' 1548. "A courtcannottakejudicial noticeof the truthof hearsuy just statements because they arepart of a courtrecordor fiIe." Bach v. Mcl,,lelis (lg}g) 207 Cal.App.3d 852,865[Emphasis original.].The courtmay takciudicialnoticcof the existence in of othercourtrecords and files,but cannotacceptfindingsof fact contained thosefiles as true. in ,Ve 'l'he RutterGroup.Civil Procedure BelbreTrial g 7:12-7:15.10.

t2
l3 14 l5 l6 1l l8 19 20
1 1

Even if, forthe sakeof argument, of the abovewerc nottrue, the October7,2003 all rulings relied upon by Defendant were not final judgments. They only deniedpermissionto.file new litigation. Because "pager"issuewas not actuallylitigatedand thc October7.2003 the judgmenlson the merits,they havcno collateral rulingswerenot./inal esloppclefl-ect whatsoever. Eugene (1996)49 Cal.App Lumokin,Jr. v. Frank M. .Jordan. .4tt'1223.1229. Defendantis ostensiblyawareof this fact, as well as the fact that therewas no summary

22

judgment ruling in Kinder v. OSI, and has inundated court with moundsof unavailinghearsay the documents an attempt prejudice courl against in to the Plaintiff s claims. If the ruling alludedto in Defendant's Exhibits3, 4, and 6-14did in fact exist,which Defendant claimsit doesand asks this court to believe.why hasDefendantnot attached rulins as an exhibit? the

.^ t+ 25 26

27 28
N C A S E O . 0 7C V 2 I 3 2 D M S( A J B )

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

Document 55

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 6 of 21

1 2 3
A

Def-endant no point in its motion arguesthat Plaintiff s claims againstit do not have at merit, impliedly concedingthat they do have merit. Defendantis awarethat it has violated the law without defense believes job of Plaintiff,the court and that if it doesa goodenoughsmear will make its decision based attorney "spin" and not on the law. This is furtherbutlresscd on by

5 o , 8
n

the fact that thereexistbindingFCC inlerpretations the TCPA which hold that uny wireless of numberis protectedby U.S.C.$ 227(b)(1)(AXiii). 47 C. BECAUSE IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT PLAINTIFF'S NUMBER IS A WIRELESS NUMBER,BINDING FCC INT THAT PI?AINTIFF'SNUMBER IS PROTECTED BY THE TCPA. Plaintiff s numberassigned a pagingserviccis a wirelcsstelephone to number. ^S'ec Declaration James Kinder,!12, filed concurrcntly of M. herewithand incorporated hereinby 'l'his reference. lact hasneverbeendisputed, Del.endant any otherentity. 'fherefore, by or any inquiry into whetheror not Plaintiff s numberis "assigned a pagingservice"is lotally to irrelevant determining for Defendant's liabilityunder47 tJ.S.C. 227(bXlXAXiii). ^!ec FCC S Reportand Order03-153, paragraph 165,wherein Commission the held"We alfirm thatunder the TCPA, it is unlawful to makeuny cull usingan automatic telephone dialing systcmor an artificial or prerecorded n'ressage any wirelesstelephonenumber." fltalics in original; to Bolding addedfor emphasisl.This ruling was reaffirmed the FCC in Declaratory by Ruling 07-

" 10 ll 12 13 14 l5 l6 17 18 l9 20
11

232.January 2008(CGDocket 02-278), 4. No. wherein FCCheldthat"thel'CPA...prohibits the dialing technology] dialing from emergency numbers, health carefacilities [automated [and] tefephone numbers assigned wirelessservices" to 14; for added [Paragraph Boldinganditalics

22
aa

"^

25 emphasisl.

26 ur
2 2g 7 6 ( CASE 07CV 2r 32D M S AJ B) NO.

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

Document 55

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 7 of 21

1 2 3 4 ' 5 6 7 8
.r '

I'he above-mentioned FCC rulingsarebindingon all courtsin the United States because the FCC is the regulatoryagencyempowered Congress interpretthe TCPA and enhance by to its effectthroughOrders,Rulingsand Federal Regulations. Pursuant the United States to Supreme Court's decisionin National Cable & Telecommunicutions Associationct ol. v. Ilrand X Inlernet Services al., 545 U.S. 967 (2005),the aboveFCC rulingsmust bc given "Chevrondeference" el unfessfound to be "arbitrary and capricious." As the SupremeCourt held in Brantl X, "the agencyremains the authoritative interpreter" of the TCPA and as long as the implementing agency'sIFCC's] construction the TCPA is reasonable. "Chevron requires a federal court of to defer to an agency'sconstruction lof the statute ('ICPA)|, even if it differs from what thc court believes be the bestinterpretation"[Boldingadded cmphasis]. at 983 and969. to lbr Id. respectively.

10 11 12 13 14
l 5

Unlessand until the FCC rulesdifferentlythantheyhaveconsistently repeatedly and ruled thus far, any and everywireless numberis protectcd the by 'l'ClPn. Ilecause l,laintiff s

lo

17 , t{ Io lg 20 )1 22 Kinder,fl 3. And, finally, Defendant's positiondistortsthe commonsense the law, for of
/.J

numberis a wireless number,any autodialed, artificialor prerecordcd voicc call to samcis a clear,indefensible slricl liability violationof the I'CPA. Del-endanl's and prerecorded voice calls to Plaintiff's wireless numberassigned a pagingservice to therefbre clearlyviolatedthe 'I'CPA.

Moreover,Plaintiff s numberis currentlyconnected a pager. &e Declaration James to of M.

1A 25 26
)'7

Defendantwould havethe Court believe that a numberassigned a cell phone somehowstops to being assigned a cell phonewhen the userturns his or her cell phone off at night to sleep. to Cutting of silly factualarguments suchas this is likely why Congress and the FCC chosethe
'7

2g

C A S E O . 0 7C V 2 13 2 D M S( A J B ) N

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

Document 55

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 8 of 21

,
I

simple "number unambiguous language assigned a paging to service." u.s.c. $ 47

XAXiii). 2 227(bXl 3 p.
/ + ) 6 , $ 9 As was established above,it is a matterof wcll settled law asheld bv the FCC that Plaintiff neednot provethat his numberis a "numberassigned a pagingservice"in orderto recoverfor to damages undertheTCPA. Additionally,Plaintiff s causes actionfor violations Califbrnia of of Civil Cod. QI 770(a)(22XA), California Business Professions and Code8l 7200andtrespass chattel to also do not depend a findingthathis numberis "assigned pagingservice."Nonetheless, on to Dcf-endant asksthis Courtto orderPlaintiffto posta 575,000 bondfor its defensc. spiteof thc lactthatit only in olfers "evidence"that Plaintiffs'l'CPA action is somehowbarred(which constitutes only t/aof Plaintifls case). Also, Def-endant asksfor this bond eventhoush the exhibits(October7"2003 rulingsby JudgeEinhorn)attached its motion aretotallyinaccurate, to havesincebeeninvalidated by the FCC, arehearsay, irrelevant lackingin foundation.Moreover, and evenif thoserulingswere admissible evidence, whichtheyarenot.theconclusions reached thereinhaveno collaleral estoppel effect whatsoever because thcy werebasedon judicial noticetakcn in clearlegalerror,were noI./inul

pLAINTIFF'sNoN-TCpA cAUSESoF ACTIoN ALSo Do Nor REOuIRIT A
FINDING THAT HIS NUMBER IS A NUMBER ASSIGNED TO A PAGING SERVICE.

t0
ll 12 l3 14
l <

'J

l6

t7
l8 lg

20 judgments and were not the result of the "pager" issuebeing actually litigated.
)1

E.

22 23
)4

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AND IS NOT SUBJECTTO A PRE.FILING ORDERIN SA Defendant incorrectly asserts this actionwascommenced violationof a pre-filing that in

orderthat requiredPlaintiffto obtainleaveof the Presiding Judgeof the SanDiego Superior Court prior to commencing new civil actionin saidcourt. The pre-filingorderto which a

25
/b

2 2g

7

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

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

Document 55

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 9 of 21

, 2 3 4 5 6 t 8 9 l0 1i 12 13 14 l5 16

Defendantrefersdid not apply as Plaintiff commenced this action while represented counsel. by Defensecounsel'sunswornstatement that "ln 2003,as a result if his blatantpatternof vexatious litigation,the Superior Courtprecluded KINDER from filing any new litigationbasedon the TelephoneConsumer ProtectionAct" is absolutely falseand totally unsupported any by evidence orthe text of the orderfPage1 of Defendant's Points andAuthorities, Lines 16-18; 'l'he tsoldingaddedlbr emphasisl. pre-filingorderentered JudgeStrauss, by which Defbntlant has not o//bredinto evidence,madeno mention whatsoever the TCPA and De1'endant of has offered no evidencethat that order had anythingto do with Plaintiff s previousTCPA cases. SinceDefendant providedno evidentiary supportfor its statement "KINDITR Iis] precludcd that fiom filing any new litigationbased the Telephone on Clonsumer Prolcction Act," Plaintill'can only assume that Defense counselsimply madethis up, in a furtherattemptto pre.judice court. the

Defense counsel's stringof false,unsupported unswornstatements and continues Page on 2, l,ines20-2l whereinDefendant "KINDI]R is a disbarred states attorncywho was convictcdof

17 I8 19 20
1 1

a fefonyin thc 1980s."As is shownby Defbndant's own Exhibit2T.l'laintiff was not disbarred. He resigned from the bar. Apparently, defense counsel thoughtthat the word "disbarred" had a liltle more zealthanthe word "resigned," shetook the libertyof editorializing public so thc record,in a further attemptto prejudicethe court. Defendantalso offers no proof of any "f'elony

22 conviction"of Plaintiff otherthan Defense counsel's unswornstatement. 24 25 26 2 28 Attachedheretoand incorporated hereinby reference Exhibit G, a ruling from now is federalDistrict JudgeJanisSammartino, which shefound that Plaintiff s action in Kinder v. in 7 e 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 55

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 10 of 21

, 2
a

Adeccct, Diego Superior San Court CaseNo. GIC882000, was not commenced violationof the in pre-filing order in that he was represented counsel. by

A r

This Court noted when it denied Defendant'spreviousMotion to Dismissin this casethat Defendanthad not provided any authority that an allegedviolation of a State court pre-filing order has any legal effect in afederal court. Defendant again offers no authority that Plaintiff s allegedviolation of a pre-filing order in State court has any legal effect in this fetleral action. Nor has Defendantprovidedany authority standingfbr the proposition that a federalplaintiff s previouslitigationhistoryin Statecourt hasany legaleff'cct on a subsequent fbderallitigation.which wasremoved./rom Statacourt. I)cl'cndant alsooflbrsno authoritywhich saysthat a l-ederal plaintiff s previousStatecourt litigationcan be a properbasis for a federaljudge to find that the fbderalplaintiff is a vexatiouslitigant in fbderalcourt, when that plaintiff has fied noneof his cases issuein federalcourt. at

5 6 , 8 9 10 ll 12 l3 14
< 'l J

l6 17 l8 l9 20
1 1

How can Defendant good faith complainin this courtaboutan intcrnalSanDicgo in SuperiorCourt issuewhen it voluntarilytook this caseout of the handsof the SanDiego SuperiorCourt? Defendantwaived the right to litigate any of the Statecourt issuesraisedin this motion when it removedthis caseto federalcourt. Even if Defbndanthad not waived theseState

22 court issues, until Defendantestablishes they have any legal effect in this federalcourt, any that .A ,+ 25 and all evidence offersto supportits positionregarding it is theseStatecourl issues irrelevant. frivolous,improperand solelycalculated prejudice court. to the

26 nr
27 2g l0 CASE 07CV 21 32 M S AJ B) NO. D (

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

Document 55

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 11 of 21

i 2

F.

DEFENDANT'S FEDERAL CASES REGARDING VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. Defendant relieson two cases its allegation for that Plaintiff is a "vcxatiouslitigant" in

J

4 5 6 l 8 I

this court,Molski v. Mandarin T'ouch Restauranr, F.Supp.2d 347 860 (C.D.Ca1.2004) [Hereinafter"Molski.") and Wilsonv. K(+,o Oil Compary dba Circle K #5250,2007 WL 3203035(S.D.Ca1.) "Wilson."]. A brief reviewof thesecases reveals that the facts fHereinafter thereincould hardly be more different from the caseat bar.

'l'he

t0

holdingsin both Molski and Wilsondepended 2 factorspresentin both cases. on

it l 1 F-irst, was obviousto the courtthat the plaintiffsin thosecases aboutwhat happened lied to

1 2 them in orderto contrivestanding underthe Americans with Disabilities Act. Sccond, the
1 a I J

plaintilfs gerrymandered their lawsuitsin sucha way as to gain acccss lederalcourt,which to they othcrwise would not havchad. Neithcrof thosel-actors prcsent this casc. is in

14 l5 l6 17 l8 l9
Defendant's reliance l|/ilson andMolski is misplaced on because courtsin thosecases the 'l'he specifically lbund that the plaintifl-s lied in their allegations had against def'endants. the

I.

Plaintiff Has Not Made Folse Accasations In Order To Contrive Standing.

20 court in Molski notedthat "Most important,however.is the Court's conclusionthat the 21 22
Mandarin TouchRestaurant, F.Supp.2d "The Court simply 347 860,at 865 (C.D.Ca1.2004).
ZJ

allegations contained Plaintiff s complaints contrivedand not credible." Molski v. in are

24

doesnot believethat Molski suffered13 nearlyidenticalinjuries,generally the samepart of to

of 2 5 his body, in the course performingthe sameactivity,over a five-dayperiod. This is nothingto

26 say of the hundredsof other lawsuitsMolski has filed over the last 4 years,many of which make 27 28
ll 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 55

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 12 of 21

1

nearlyidenticalaccusations Id at 865. "Molski hasplainly lied in his filings to this Court. His ."

victim of hundreds physicaland emotionalinjuriesover the last of 2 claimsof beingthe innocent
a J

four yearsdefy belief and commonsense."Id at 867 The Court believes . that Molski's ADA claimsare a sham,usedas a pretextto gain access thc federalcourts,while he pursues to remedies that areavailable-sometimes exclusivelv-under Califbrniastatelaw." .|cl.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l3

ln Wilson, courtfollowedthe reasoningof the Molsftlbecause alsofound that "Wilson's it 'ADA claimsarea sham.usedas a pretextto gain access the federalcourts,while he pursues to

remedies that areavailable-sometimes exclusively-under Californiastatclaw."' Wilsonv.Ka)to Oil Oompanv dba CircleK #5250,2007 "Wilson,nevertheless, WL 3203035 6 (S.D.Cal.). at lails to explainwhy hc nceds travelsucha long distance buy a $.30 gum at Circle Kfi6." Id to to

t 4 at 3. t5 16 17 18
fact that they calledhim (although they disputeliability). That is because they know that they 'l'he def-endants apparently believethat theyareno1responsible complying 1br The defendants Plaintiff s TCPA cases in havenot alleged that Plaintiff is lying aboutthe

1 9 calledPlaintilf.

20 with federallaw. Rather,they posit that it is incumbentupon Plaintiff to "mitigate his damages," 2l 22
It is not Plaintiff s responsibility obligationto affirmativelystopthird partiesfrom breaking or
/,-)

in spiteof the fact that eachviolationof the TCPA is an independent torl, separately actionable.

24

the law. Everytime someone callsa wireless telephone numberwith an automatic telephone

message, is an indefensible, it strict liability violation of 2 5 dialing system,artificial or prerecorded

26 47 U.S.C.$ 227(bX1)(Axiii). Considering Defendant absolutely defenses has no that 27 28

t2
N D C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 1 3 2 M S( A J B )

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

Document 55

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 13 of 21

I

whatsoever, Motion to Dismiss and the instantmotion could have beenfiled lbr no purpose its

Plaintifl needlessly increase costof and delavthis litisation. the 2 otherthan to harass
J

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12

Plaintiff can imagineno bctterexamples vexatious of conductthan filing a frivolous l8 pagcMotion to Dismisswith almost20 pages exhibits[DocketNo. 5], lbllowed by a 12 page of Reply,22 pages worth of objections and motionsto strikeand 59 pages exhibits[DocketNos. of 14, 15l or filing 3 I total pages opposition Plaintiff s Motion to Amend f DocketNo. 181, of to which was filed prior to Defendant.filingil,san,gwer.Defendants Harrah's OperatingCompany, Inc., Harrah'sMarketingServices Corporation, Harrah'sl-aughlin,Inc."I IBR RealtyCompany, lnc. and Ilarrah'sLiccnsc Company, LLC havealsorecently filed Motions1oI)ismiss thatappear to differ in no substantive way fiom the Motion to Dismissliled by Ilarrah's Entertainment, Inc.,

r3

1 4 which was deniedJanuary 22,2008. With nothingnew to offer the court,what properpurpose 1 5 could thesedefendants possiblyhavefor filing the samemotion.with the samesupporting 16 11 18 19
2. Plaintiff Hos Not Availed Himself Of The Federal Court System. declaration? 1

Other than the lact that the plaintiffs in Molski and Wilsonblatantly lied in their

20 allegationsagainstthe defendants, next most importantfactor fbr the court in thosecases the was 2l 22
Court is alsotroubledby the fact that Molski raises federalADA claim in the federalcourts, a
1,-)

that the plaintiffsfalselymanipulated their lawsuitsto havestanding suein federalcourt. "The to

24

while seeking remedy, a moneydamages, exclusively available understatelaw...the ADA claims

25 do not extendMolski any benefit in terms of the litigation itself, or the remedieshe may seek,
zo
I Those Defendants represented the sameattorneyswho represent Harrah's Entertainment, lnc. are by

27 28

13
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 55

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 14 of 21

, I

otherthan allowinghim to proceed the federalcourts. For that reason, Court believes in the that

, 3
A

totrO|s ADA claimsarea sham, usedasa pretext gainaccess the f-ederal to to coults." Molski v. Mandarin Touch Restaurant, F.Supp.2d at 867(C.D.Cal.200a). 347 860,

5 6 7 8
n

"The Court finds that Wilson's 'ADA claimsarc a sham,uscdas a pretextto gain access to the fbderalcourts,while he pursues remedies that areavailable-sometimes exclusively-under Calilbrnia statelaw."' Wilsonv. KaJ,oOil Companydba Circle K #5250.2007 WL 320303 at 6 5 (S.D.Cal.).The plaintiff in Wilson, did the plaintiff in Molski,broughthis complaint"contrary as to the exislinglaw on federaljurisdiction" the casewas therefore and dismisscd lack of for jurisdiction. Id at7. subjectmatter

.'

l0 1l
1)

13 14 I5 l6 17 ,o As conccded Defendant, by eachof Plaintiff s 7 [fbrmerly9] TCPA matters currentlyin this court was removed thereby the respective defendant. fact,at least2 of the 9 cases In were removedfrivolouslybased federalquestioniurisdiction. that thereis no federalqueslion on in jurisdiction subject matter overTCPA claims.SeeMurph:t Lanier,997 F.Supp. 348, 1349 v. I

Iu

Cal.1998), aff'd20aF.3d911(9thCir.2000).On March 4,2008. District IrmaE. Judge 19 (S.D. 20
11

granted Gonzalez Plaintiffs motionto remand Kinderv. ()avalryInveslmenls, 07 CV in LLC
2274IEG (WMC). Plaintiffhasalsofiled a motion to remandin Kinder v. Astra llusiness Services, Inc. 07 CV 2091DMS (AJB). That motion is setto be heardon April 25, 2008 and

22
:) 4 ^ 25 Plaintiff fully expects in that it will be granted, reducing numberof his TCPA cases federal the court to 6.

26 ut
1'7 - t
1 A

28

C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 13 2 D M S( A J B ) N

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

Document 55

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 15 of 21

,t 2 3
4

lt is quite a stretchfor Defendantto requestthat this court deemPlaintiff a vexatious
'

litigant, considering that he has filed none of his TCPA cases hereand has no intention of doine so in the future. If it were not for this Defendantand all of the other defendants removins his cases here,this courtwould havenoneof thosecases beginwith. Additionally,if noneof the to defendants thesecases in had calledPlaintiff of their own volition and in violalion of existinp

o

, 8 9 l0
ll
1)

law.PlaintifTwould never have fileda single TCPAlawsuit.

It is truethatPlaintiff fileda number lawsuits has of under TCPA.some the asainst f-ax blasters, some (like against unlawful telemarketers Defendant) some and against collection
agencies, of whom haveconlucled all him in violationof the desperately wantsthis courtto ignorethat fact. '['o 'I'CI'A. I lowever,l)efendant

r Jr I 14 15 16
1 1

advance witch hunt, Dcl'endant its has

accused Plaintilf of being"vcxatious"because complaints hasliled in thc currcnt'I'CPA the he mattersare similar. With all of the TCPA defendants havingviolatedthe exactsamelaws,why shouldPlaintiff s complaints be similar? The defendants all of Plaintiff s TCPA cases not in

contacted him, not the otherway around. All that thesedefendants to do to avoid beingsued had .. 18 l9 20
)1

was not violatethe T'CPAto beginwith.

F'inally, the costof only $690,Defendant fbr could havepurchased Telcordia@ number a programwhich would havecompletely suppression blockedDefendant from callingall numbers

22

:"^ 24 25

proscribed the TCPA (including assigned a pagingservice, well as all othernumbers to as by hospitalemergency rooms). SeeDec.of ChadAustin; E,x.'sH and L

26 ut 27
28

r\
C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 13 2 D M S( A J B ) N

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

Document 55

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 16 of 21

r I 2 3
A

Defendant'sfailure to employ this commonly known and inexpensive tool constitutes an irresponsible practice. When any companydecidesto cut corners/costs using business by computeroperated autodialer technology, doesso at its own risk. Defendant it madea busincss decisionto useautomatedtelephone equipment, instead the morc cxpensivc of (andlegal) methodof hand-dialing telephonc a number. When Defbndant madethis dccision,it became responsible any and all legalconsequences for flowing from its business activitiesrelated thereto. When a companyengages a particular in activity,it is chargeable with knowledge the laws of relatingto that activityand is solelyresponsible its conductwhen that conductviolates for existinglaw.

'

6 7 8 ' l0 11 12 l3 14
l <

'l'he'l'CI'}A is clearlydesigned put the burdenof usingautomated to telephone equipment on the userand to eliminate their useof tort concepts defenses. as See" e.g."47 U.S.C.Q 227(bX.3lprovidingfor statutory damases an offense for ) that undertort law would be dismissed as de mininas and allowing for trebledamages the violationwas "willful." specificall), if contcmplatins that inadvertent accidental or violationsareaclionablel.

tr

16 11
l o

19 20
11

Plaintiffasks courtto consider followinghypothetical the the whichillustrates example,
Plaintiff s point: Plaintiff A, by somestrokeof purecoincidence, involvedin 30 to 40 motor is vehicleaccidents day.noneof which arehis fault. Someof the defendants thoseaccidents in a

22

:^+ / 25 26 27 2g

(telemarketers fax blasters) someby merenegligence strike PlaintiffA intentionally and and (collection who struckhim (calledhis agencies). Plaintiff A suedall of thosemotorists If telephonenumber),would that make him a "vexatiouslitigant?" Of courseit would not. Would 16 C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 r 3 2D M S( A J B ) N

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

Document 55

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 17 of 21

, 2 3
A

his cases havemore merit if lesspeoplehit his car (calledhis telephone numberf Of course they would not. Would PlaintiffA's claimsbe more "noble" if he only sueda small portionof the peoplewho struckhim (calledhis telephone number)? Of course they would not.

5
Plaintiff haseveryright to own his telephone numberand Defendant had no right to call 7 3 9 10 it. It is absurdfor Defbndant blamePlaintiff for filing valid lawsuitsagainst to companies who broke the law, when all that thosedefendants had to do to avoid being suedwas not illcgally call plaintiff in the first place,especially when they had a varietyof freeand/orincxpensive tools available them which would havestopped to them from makingany callsin violationof the .fCPA. III. CONCLUSION Del'endant madeno showingwhatsoever Plaintifl-sclaimsagainst areanything has that it but meritorious. Defbndant has blatantlyfailed to comply with the statutoryrequirements for requesting security underCCP $ 391.1. Defendant citcd fcdcralcases has with fact pattemsin no way similar to the caseat bar. In fact,all that Defendant done.which is consistent has with every pleadingit hasfiled thusfar, is inundated courtwith f-alsc fiivolous accusations, the and inadmissible evidence and diatribes.

ll 12
1 a I J

14
l' J 5

16 17 18 19 20 2l 22

Defendantbelievesthat if it poundshard enoughon the table,the court will lose focus on :+^ l 25 26 the real issues this caseand requirePlaintiff to posta bondto which Defendant not entitled. is of unfair for Plaintiff hasnot availedhimselfof this court and it would therefore fundamentally be this court to find Plaintiff to be a vexatiouslitigant, especiallygiven that his claims are entirely

27 28

I7
C A S E O .0 7C V 2 I 3 2D M S( A J B ) N

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

Document 55

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 18 of 21

I

meritorious.For thesereasons, well as all of the otherreasons as stated above.Plaintiff respectfullyrequests that the court deny Defendant'smotion in its entirety. D A T E D : A p r i l 1 1 .2 0 0 8 By: /s/ ChadAustin CHAD AUSTIN, Esq.,Attorneyfor Plaintiff. JAMBS M. KINDER EmaiI : chadaustinlri:cox.ner

z

3
A +

5 6 7 8 9 l0 l1 12 13 14 15 16 17 l8 19 20 2l 22
./.J

24 25 26 27 28 l8
C A S EN O . 0 7 C V 2 I 3 2 D M S ( A J B )

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

Document 55

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 19 of 21

TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 3
4

Pase 1. II. INTRoDUCTIoN. ARGUMENT...
A.

.......I ...,.,..,...2

5 6 7 8 9
l0 L'

DEFENDANI'HAS SATISFIED NONE OF'fT]E S'I'A'fU1'ORY R B Q U I R E M E N T S R E Q U E S T I N G E C U R I T Y N D E R C C P $ 3 9 1e t s e q . . . 2 IN S U NO ORDER WAS EVER ENTERED IN K11iDERV O9 COLLEC!'IONS FINDING THAI'PLAIN]'IF'I.'SNUMBER FALLS OTJTSIDE THE P R O V I S I O NO F T I I E T C P A S ..........4

B.

ll

WIRELESS NUMBER. BINDING FCC INTERPRIITATIONS THII OF 'fCPA DICTATE'l'lIA'I PLAINI'IFF'SNUMBER IS PROTECTIID BY T H t sT C P A ..........6 D. PLAIN'I'IFF'S NON-TCPA CAUSITS ACI'ION ALSO DO NO'l' Ot R E Q U I R E F I N D I N GT } I A I . H I S N T J M B I I RS A N U M I ] F , RA S S I G N I ' D A I 1 ' OA P A G I N G E R V I C E . S . . . .. . . . . . 8 PLAINTIFFWAS NOT AND IS NOT SIjBJECTTO A PR[1-1.'ll.lNG ORDER IN SAN DIEGO STJPERIOR COTJRT HE IS RtlPRtlSllNl'ED IF BYCOINSEL.... .......8

13 14 15 16 1l

n L.

18 l9
20 2l 22

F.

DEFENDANI-'S FEDERAL CAStlsREGARDING VEXA]'IOIJS
LITIGANTSARE CI,IlARLY DISTINGLJISHABLE [..ROM THE F'ACT.S OF THISCASE .....11 l. PlaintiffIlas Not Made FalseAccusations Orderl'o Contrivc In Standing. .........1I PlaintiffHasNot AvailedHimselfOf The Federal CourtSystem..........13

2.

23 r[. coNCLUSroN. 24
')<

......r7

26 2l 28

t9
D C A S E N O O T V 2 1 3 2 M S( A J B ) . C

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

Document 55

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 20 of 21

I 2 3 4 ' state cases:

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Paee(s)

Bat'h g - 1 r x v. Mt'Nelis z o 7 a l . A p p .8 5 2 . c 3d 5
^

.............5
........5

A o

EugeneLumpkin,Jr. v. Frank M. Jordan ( 1 9 9 6 4 9 C a l . A p .p ' h1 2 2 3 ) ,7 4 g 9 rn 1I t2 |-) t4 'J 16 17 18 19 B u s .a n dP r o f .C o d e$ 1 7 2 0 0 20
' t I L I

Sosinskvv. Granl ( 1 9 9 26 C a l . A p p . 4 ' n 4 8 . ) 15 FedcralCases: Molski v. Mandarin 1'ouch Restaurant 3 4 7F . S u p p . 28 6 0( C . D . C a 1 . 2 0 0 4 ) . . d Murnhv v. Luniar 9 9 7 F . S u p p1 3 4 8( S . D .C a l . 1 9 9 8 )a f f ' d 2 0 4F . 3 d9 l I ( 9 r hC i r . 2 0 0 0 ) . . ,

.............5

.11.12.13,14

.....14

lValional Cable & Telecommunicalions A,;sociationel ul. v. Ilrund X Intcrnet Serviceset ul. (2005) 5 4 5U . S . 9 6 7 ..........7 Wilson v. Ka:to Oil Compan.v dba Circle K #5250 (5 . D . C a l . ) . S 2 0 0 7W L 3 2 0 3 0 3 Statestatutes: ..........8 ....................8

.17,72,13,14

C i v .C o d e$ 1 7 7 0 ( a ) ( 2 2 X A )

. C 1 2 2 C o d e i v .P r o c$ 3 9 . 1 2 3 C o d e i v .P r o c9 3 9 1 ( . b ) C .
)4,

1 .... . 2 , 3 , 6 ............3 ..........2 ......2,3

. C o d e i v .P r o c$ 3 9 1 ( b X l ) C C o d e i v .P r o c$ 3 9 1 ( b ) ( 2 ) C .

25 26

27
2g

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

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

Document 55

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 21 of 21

U 2 3 4 5 6 , g 9 10 11 t2
1 a I J

C o d e i v .P r o c$ 3 9 1 ( b X 3 ) C . C o d e i v .P r o c9 3 9 1 ( b X 4 ) C . FederalStatutes: 4 7U . S . C$ 2 2 7 ( b X l X A X . i i i ) . Federal Com ( F C CR e p o rt n dOrd e 0 3 -1 53. 3.2003 .CG a r Jul) ' Docket No.02- 278) ( F CCD e cl a ra toR u l i n g 7 -232. ry 0 Januar4.2008 cG Docket y No.02- 278) Other Sources: T h eR u tteGro u pC i vi lP ro cedur e r . Befor e ial$ 7:12- 7:l Tr 5.10

......2,3 .......2.3

.........6,8.12

..........6 ............6

...........5

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2l 22
/.)

24 25 26
1'7

21 D ( CASE 07CV 21 32 M S AJ B) NO.

28