Free Motion to Strike - District Court of California - California

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

Document 54

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 1 of 7

. ChadAustin,Esq.SBN235457 1 qeZZ Berwick Drive SanDiego, CA92117 ^ z Telephone: (619)992-7100 (61 lracsimile: 9) 295-1401 . J 4 5 6 7 8
9

Attorney Plaintift, fbr JAMESM. KINDER,anindividual

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT S OUTHERN DISTRICT CALIFORNIA OF

10 II 12 l3 14 I) IO |1 'I ,o Io 19 20 2t 22 TO TIIE COURT,ALL PARTIESAND THEIR ATI-ORNIIYSOF RBCORD:Plaintiff JAMES M. KINDER herebysubmitsthe following objections and motionsto strikeevidence v' I I A R R A T' S t r N T I l R ' l ' A I N M I I N T n c . ; l I. IIARRAH's oPERATING coMpANy. I n c . I; I A R R A I I ' S A R K I : l N ( i M l SERVICES ORPORATION; ARRAH'S C H I - I C E N S E O M P A N Y ,L L C : I I A R R A I I ' S C L A U G H L I N ,l n c . ;H B R R E A L T Y COMPANY. Inc.andDOES I through100,
inclusive-

.TAMES KINDER. M. Plaintiff.

C a s e o . 0 7 C V 2 1 3 2D M S ( A . l B ) N with I)MS (A.lB)] IConsolidated 07CY222(t .ludge: Hon. I)anaM. Sabraw Mag. Judge: Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia OBJECTIONS AND MOTIONS TO STRI KE, EVI DE,NCESTJ ITTEI) I}M BY DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORTOF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS Date: April 25,2008 p Time: 1:30 .m. Courtroom: l0

Defbndants.

:r

11

submitted Defendants support theirMotionto Dismiss. by in of ilt ut

24 25
,o

27 28
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 54

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 2 of 7

1 2
a -)

l.

DeclarationOf Michael Kostrinskv. Parasraph 2: Paragraph of the Declarationof Michael Kostrinsky states: 2 "SpeciallyAppearing DefendantHarrah'sEntertainment. Inc. is a Delaware corporation, headquartered Las Vegas.Nevada. It doesnot haveolficesin in California;doesnot own propertyin California,doesnot haveemployees in Califbrnia;and,doesnot conductbusiness Califbrnia. Specially in Appeuring Defendant Harrah'sEntertainment, doesnot maketelemarketing other Inc. or telephone callsto individualsin Californiausingan automatic telephone dialing system, artificialor prerecordcd voice.or otherwise." Grounds For Obiection: lrachand everyf'actual statemcnl this paragraph in lackslbundationand therelore this

4 5 6 7 8 9 l0
ll

t2 13

1 4 paragraph shouldbe strickenin its entirety. AlthoughMr. Kostrinskyclaimsin Paragraph of I t 5 his Declaration be the "Chief LitigationOfficer for Harrah'sOperating to Company. Iltc.," he
l6 17 l8
propertyholdings, employment records, etc.,of eachand evcryentity Plaintiff hasnamedas a doesnot sayhow this fact alonegiveshim anypersonaiknowledge the inner-wclrkings, of

whatsoever, suchas corporate 1 9 Defendant.Moreover,he citesto no specificfactsor documents

2 0 charterdocuments, phonerecords, Secretary Statefilings, employment of records, contracts with 21 22
any of this knowledge.Therefore, entireparagraph without foundation is and conclusory. this
aa

telemarketingfirms, or any type of documentary evidenceat all. from which he allegedlydraws

/)

A A

Z+

25

lnc. Moreover.Mr. Kostrinskv'sstatement "Harrah'sEntertainment. doesnot make that

26 telemarketingor other telephonecalls to individuals in California using an automatictelephone 27 28
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 54

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 3 of 7

,
|

dialing system, artificialor prerecorded voice.or otherwise" lbold added]is a legalconclusion
" J

2 3 4 ' 5 6 z 8 t l0 ll
1 1

and should also be stricken. Finally, given that Mr. Kostrinsky saysthat no one fiom any of the Hanah's entitieshaseverso much as pickedup a handsetand calleda Califbrniatelephone number,which is entirelyridiculous, credibilityis highly questionable. additionto the fact his In that this statement so obviouslynot truc. it makesno practical is sense.I low could one pcrson know the day to dayjob dutieso1'every personworking lbr the sundryI larrah'sentities, Possibly which employthousands people?Even if Mr. Kostrinskydoespossess of suchomniscience, he hasnot told the courthow he acquired any of this knowledge.All that Plaintiff and the court haveto go by in evaluating declaration that Mr. Kostrinskyis alau,yer.fitrthc Dc.fbndant, the is whosejob necessarily depends gettingDefendant o1'legal on out suchas the instantaction. .jams. 2. Declaration Michael Kostrinsky.Paragraph3: Of Paragraph of the Declaration Michael Kostrinskystates: 2 of "Harrah'sOperating Inc. is a Delaware Company, corporation and is not headquartered California. It doesnot haveolficesin California:doesnot own in property California; in doesnot haveemployees Calilbrnia; in and;doesno1 conduct business Califbrnia; in Harrah's MarkclingScrviccs Clorporation a is foreign;is not headquartered California;and doesnot own propertyin in California; Harrah'sLicenseCompany, LLC is a fbreigncompanyand is not headquartered California;It doesnot haveofficesin California;doesnot own in propertyin Califbrnia;doesnot haveemployees Calilbrnia;and.doesnot in in conductbusiness California. Ilarrah's Laughlin,lnc. is a fbrcign corporation in and is not headquartered California. lt doesnot have olllces in Califbrnia; does 7 ? D C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 1 3 2 M S( A J B ) N

,, l4 15 l6

t7
lg 19 20 21 22 1. 24 25 26 2 2g

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

Document 54

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 4 of 7

1 I

not own propertyin California; doesnot have employees California; and, does in not conductbusiness California. And, HBR RealtyCompany,Inc. is a foreign in corporation is not headquarlered California. It doesnot haveofficesin and in California;doesnot own propertyin California;doesnot haveemployees in Califbmia;and,doesnot conductbusiness Califbrnia." in Grounds For Obiection: Eachand every factual statement this paragraph in lacks fbundationand therelbrethis paragraph shouldbe strickenin its entirety. AlthoughMr. Kostrinskyclaimsin Paragraph of I his Dcclaration be the "Chief Litigation to Officerfor Harrah's Operating Company. Inc.."he doesnot sayhowthis lact alonegiveshim anypersonulknowledge o1'thcinncr-workings, propertyholdings, employment records, etc.,of eachand everyentity Plaintiff hasnamcdas a

L a J A {

5 6 7 ti 9 l0 ll 12
IJ

1 4 Defendant. Moreover,he citesto no specificf-acts documents or whatsoever, suchas corporate 1 5 charterdocuments, Secretary Statefilings. employment phonerecords. of records. contracts with l6
1 1 t l

telemarkcting firms. or any type of documentary evidence all. liom which he allegedly at draws any of this knowledgc.Therefore, entireparagraph without lbundationand conclusory. this is

18 19 20 2l 22

As discussed above,given that Mr. Kostrinsky saysin Paragraph of his Declarationthat 2 no one fiom any of the Harrah'sentitieshaseverso much as pickedup a hand setand calleda Californiatelephone number, which is entirelyridiculous, crcdibilityis highly questionable. his

LJ

24

In additionto the fact that this statement so obviouslynot true,it makesno praclicalsense. is

possiblyknow the day to dayjob dutiesof everypersonworking fbr the 2 5 Ilow could one person

26 sundryHarrah's entities,which employ thousands people? Even if Mr. Kostrinsky does of 27 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 54

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 5 of 7

1 2 3 4 ' 5 6 j g 9 t0 il

possess suchomniscience, hasnot told the courthow he acquired he any of this knowledge.All that Plaintiff and the court haveto go by in evaluatingthe declaration that Mr. Kostrinsky is a is job necessarily lawyer.forthe Defenclant, whose depends gettingDefendant of legaljams, on out suchas the instanl action.

Moreover,Ilamah'sMarketingServices Corporation and Harrah'sOperating Company, Inc. havedesignated for agents serviceof process file with the CalifbrniaSecretary on o1-State. Th"y haveconsenletJ suil inthe Stateof California and are therelbresubjectro generul lr,t here. .jurisdiction 3. E x h i b i t2 : Defendant attached Ilxhibit 2 a list purportedly has as created the.fudicialCouncilo1' by Calilbrniaand purportedly provingthat PlaintifI is a vexatious litigant.

12
13 14 l5 l6

Grounds for Obiection:

t7
18 l9 20
)1

Thesedocuments shouldbe strickenbccause theyarehearsay, irrelevant, lackingin lbundation and havenot beenauthenticaled. Furthermore, thc "1-ac1s" as thc'rc-in not properly arc. subject judicial notice,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 court file may bejudicially noticed. truth of matters in of in the asserted 1548. suchdocuments not subject iudicial notice. Sosinslqt Grant. (1992)6 Cal.App.4'h is v. to j "A court cannol takej udicial notice of the trulh of hearsayslalementsust because they are part (1989)207 Cal.App.3d in of a court recordor file." Bach v. MclVelis 852, 865 [Emphasis 7 s C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 r 3 2D M S( A J B ) N

22

:4 ^ J 25 26 2 2g

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

Document 54

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 6 of 7

, ? 3 4 5

original.]. The courtmay takejudicial noticeof the existence othercouft records of and flles, but cannotacceptfindings of fact containedin thosefiles as true. S'ee The Rutter Group. Civil Procedure BeforeTrial Q7:12-7:1 5.10.

4. 6 I 8 I l0 ll 12 l3

Exhibit 3: Def-endant attached Exhibit 3 a copy of a declaration has as allegedlysubmitted by

Plaintiff in a'l'elephone Consumer Protection Act filing in SanDiego SuperiorClourl.

Grounds for Obiection: This document should stricken be because is hearsay. it irrelevant. lackingin lbundalion and hasnot beenauthenticated. Furthermore, the "facts" thereinarenot properlysub.ject as 1o

14 .ludicialnotice,norhas any request fbriudicial noticeof thesedocuments beenmadeby
1 <

tJ

Defendant, thesedocuments not goodevidence are and shouldbe stricken. While the existence of a document a courtfile may beiudicially noticed. truth of matters in the in assefted such documents not subject iudicialnotice.Sosin,;ky Grant.(1992)6 Cal.App.4'h is to v. 1548. "A just courtcannolIakejudicialnoticeo1-the truth o1' hearsuystatements because they areparl ol-a (1989)207 Cal.App.3d court recordor fiIe." Bach v. MclVelis in 852, 865 [Emphasis original.l. The court may takeiudicialnoticeof the existence othercourtrecords of and files, but cannot acceptfindingsof fact contained thosefiles as true.SeeThe RutterGroup.Civil Procedure in

l6 1l 18 lg 20
)1

22
aa

^.
-T

B e f o r e r i a lN 7 : 1 2 - 7 : 1 5 . 1 0 . T

25 lll

26 ut 21
28

6
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 54

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 7 of 7

, 2 3
4

5.

Exhibit 4: Defendanthasattached Exhibit 4 a documentpurportedlyreflectingthe SanDiego as

SuperiorCourt docket in.lames Kinder v. Harrah's Entertainment, M. Inc.37-2007-00076114CU-MC-CTL.

5 6 , 8 9 10 1l Grounds for Obiection: This document shouldbe strickenbecause is hearsay, it irrelevant, lackingin lbundation and has not beenauthenticated. Furthermore, the "facts" thereinare not properly sub.ject as to foriudicial noticeof thesedocuments beennradeby .iudicialnoticc,nor hasany request Defendant, thesedocuments not good evidencc are and shouldbe strickcn. Whilc the cxistcnce of adocumenl acourt lilc may bejudiciallynoticed. trulh ol'matters in the asserled such in documents not subject judicial notice.Sosinsk), Grant. (1992)6 Cal.App.4"'1548. "A is to v. courtcannol takejudicial notice ofthe Iruthof hearsay slatementsjust bccause they are part ofa court recordor fi|e." Bachv. McNelis(1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 852. 865 [Emphasis original.l. in

t2
l3 14 l5 l6

t7
t8

Thecourtmaytakcjudicialnotice theexistence olhercourlrecords files,butcannot of of and

findings factcontained those of in filesastrue. l-heRutter Scc Group. Civil Procedure 1g accept 2 0 B e l b re ri a lg 7 :1 2 -7 :1 5 .1 0. T
a l /' '

DAfED:AprilI l, 2008
By: /s/ ChadAustin CHAD AUS'l'lN, Esq.,Attorney1br Plaintiff,JAMES M. KINDER Email: [email protected]

22
23 24 25 26 2 2g 7 7 C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 t 3 2 D M S( A J B ) N