Free Response to Motion - District Court of California - California

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

Document 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 1 of 27

, | 2 , a.
5 6 7 8 () 10 l1 12 l3 14 ,. I)

ChadAustin,Esq.SBN235457 4632Berwick Drive SanDieso. CA92117 (619)gg2-7100 Telephoie: Iracsimile: (619)295-1401 Attorney Plaintifl, for JAMESM. KINDER,an individual

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT SOUTHERN DISTRICTOF CALIFORNIA

J A M E SM . K I N D E R " plaintifl.

C a s e o . 0 7 C V 2 1 3 2D M S ( A . l B ) N with 07CV2226 DMS (A.rB)] [Consolidated .fudge: IIon. DanaM. Sabraw Mag.Judge: Hon.Anthony.l.Battaglia

v' I I A R R A H ' SE N T E R I ' A I N M t s N T n c . ; I, HARRAH's opERATING coMpANy. I n c . ;I I A R R A H ' SM A R K L T I N G 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 DISMISS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF Date: April 25, 2008 Time: l:30p.m. Courtroom: l0

ro SHRVtcES coRPoRATIoN; HARRAH's
t1 't rd Io L I C E N S I :C ' O M P A N YL L C ; H A R R A I I ' S , L A U G H L I N ,l n c . ;H B R R E A L T Y COMPANY, Inc.and DOES 1 through100,) inclusive. ) Defbndants.

19 20 21 22
l't ;J

r . TNTROpUCTION TO'fHE COUR].. ALL PARTIES AND THEIRATTORNEYS RECORD: OF PLEASE TAKE NOTICETHAT PlaintiffJAMESM. KINDERhereby opposes Def-endants HARRAH'S OPERATING COMPANY. andHARRAH'SMARKETINGSERVICES Inc.
CORPORATION'sMotion to Dismiss.for the reasons forth below. set

24 25 26 27 28

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

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

Document 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 2 of 27

1 2
J A +

II. ARGUMENT A. PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO A PRE-FILING ORDER IN SAN DIEGO SUPERIOR COURT IF HE IS REPRESENTEDBY COUNSEL. Defendants incorrectly asseflthat this actionwas commenced violationof a pre-filing in orderthat requiredPlaintiffto obtainleaveof the Presiding Judgeof the SanDiego Superior

6 7 8 9 10 il

Court prior to commencing new civil actionin saidcour1.The pre-filingorderto which a Defendants referdid not applyas Plaintiff commenced actionwhile represented counsel. this by I)efendants havenot ollbredthis ordcr into evidencc.

Attachedheretoand incorporated hereinby reference Irxhibit A, a ruling liom now is

1 2 federalDistrictJudgeJanisSammartino, in which shefoundthat Plaintiff s actionin Kinder v.
1 a I J

Adecc:o, DiegoSuperior San CourtCase No. GIC882000, not conrmenced violationof the was in

t4 l5 t6 17
The Court notedwhen it deniedDefendantHARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT, Inc.'s pre-filingclrder thal he was represented counsel. in by

1 8 previous Motion to Dismissin this casethat Harrah's had not provided any authority that 19
an allegedviolation of a Stutecourt pre-filing order has any legal effect in afederal court.

20 21
Defendantsagain offer no authority that Plaintiff s allegedviolation of a pre-filing ordcr in

providedany 22 State court has any legal effect in this federal action. Nor haveDefendants
/)
1A ;a

authority standingfor the propositionthat a f-ederal plaintifl's previouslitigation history in State court has any legal effect on a subsequent federallitigation, which was removed./iomStatecourl. Defendants also offer no authoritywhich saysthat a federalplaintiff s previous Statecourt

25 26 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 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 3 of 27

I 2
-) 4

litigationcanbe a properbasisfor a l-ederal judge to find that the f'ederal plaintiff is a vexatious litigant in federalcourt, when that plaintiff has frled none of his cases issuein federalcourl. at How can Defendants good faith complain in this court aboutan internal San Diego Superior in Court issuewhen Harrah'svoluntarilytook this caseout of the handsof the SanDiego Superior Court? Ilarrah's waivedthe right to litigatcany of thc Statecourt issucs raisedin the instant motion when it removed this caseto f'ederal court. Evenif Defendants nol waivedthese had Statecourt issues, untilthey establish that theseissues haveany legalellect in this f'ederal court, any and all evidence theyoffer to supporttheir positionregarding theseStatecourt issues is irrelevant, frivolous,improperand solelycalculated pre.judice courl. to the B. DEFENDANTS' REPEATED TORTIOUS ACTIVITY WITHIN THFJ, STATE OF CALIFORNIA OVER THE COURSE OF MORE THAN THREE YEARS SUI}JECTS HEM TO THE GENERAL AND SPECIFIC.ITJRISDICTIOOF T N THIS COURT. Authority on Jurisdiction. "A coult of this state jurisdiction anybasisnot inconsistent thc may exercise on with Constitution this state of the UnitedStates."Cal. CodeCiv. I'ro. (.CCP) 410.010. of g or jurisdictionalstatute co-extensive California's is with federaldue process requirements; therefbre,.iurisdictional inquiriesunderstatelaw and federaldue process standards collapse into

5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll 12 l3 14 l5 l6 l7 l8 19 20 2l
one,and the Court considers only whetherthe exercise ofjurisdictionover the del'endant l.

22 comportswith due process.GlencoreGrain RollerdumB.V. v. ShivnuthRui tturnurain (.'o.,284
/.J

( C F ' . 3 d 1 1 4 , 1 1 2 39 t h i r . 2 0 0 2 ) . I

24 25 26 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 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 4 of 27

I 2 3 4 5 , 6 , 8 r) ' l0 II 12 l3 t4 15 I6 17 18 19

Depending the defbndant's on contactwith California, Court may exercise the either generulor specificjurisdiction. A nonresident defendant may be may be subjectto general jurisdictiononly if its contacts the forum stateare "substantial...continuous systematic." in and Perkin.s Benguet v. Mining Co.. 342 U.S. 437.445-446 (1952). If not sub.iect gcneral to in a may nonethclcss subjcctto spccific.lurisdiclion that state. be in .iurisdiction a state, defendant -l'hc jurisdiction: Court applies three-part when assessing a test specilic ( I ) The nonresident def'endant must purposefully directhis activitiesor consummate sometransaction with the forum or rcsident thereof, perlbrmsomeac1by which he or purposefully availshimselfof the privilegeof conducting activiticsin the forum,thereby invokingthc benefits and protections its laws; of (2) thc claim mustbe one which arises of or relates the def-endant's out to lbrurn-relaled activitics: and (3) thc cxcrcise ofjurisdiction mustcompoftwith fair play and substantial.iusticc. i.e.,ir must be reasonablc. L a k ev . L a k e , 8 l 7 F . 2 d1 4 1 6 , 1 4 2 1 9 t r ' C i r1 9 8 7 )B u n c r o -&i M a s t c r s\,n c . . 2 2 3l r . 3 da t 1 0 8 6 1 ; f . Cir. 2000). I1-the plaintiff satisfies first two prongsof the abovetest,thc burdenshiftsto the 19'n the defbndant "present compelling"casedemonstrating the exercise to a that ofjurisdiction would be unreasonable. (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz. U.S. 462.476-78 Id. 471

( te 8 5 ) .
2. Plaintiff Need Only Allege a Valid Jurisdiction Theory and Make Out a Primo Facie CaseRegardingJurisdiction to Defeat Defendants'Motion. Defendants' Motion to Dismissapparently testsPlaintiff s jurisdictionaltheory-that Defendants madeprerecorded telemarketing callsto Californiarcsidcnt(s).

20
)t 22

24

25 lll

26 ur
1'7
- t A

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 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 5 of 27

I 2 3
A

a.

The Court DoesNot Review the Evidenceto Determine the Validify of Plaintiffs Theory of Jurisdiction and Plaintiffs Theory, Basedon Defendants'Unlawful Telemarketingto California Residents, Valid. is

1nevaluating Plaintiff s jurisdictionaltheory,the Court needonly determine whetherthe jurisdiclion. Credit L)tonnai,; factsalleged.if true, are sufficientto cstablish Sccuritie,;(L\SA.),

'

5 Inc. v. Alcantra183F.3d 151,15312''d Cir. 1999;. Plaintiffs theoryofjurisdiction. is clearly as 6 - , 8 9 l0 II
.ta

setforth in the Complaint,is that Defendants knowinglymadeprerecorded telemarketing callsto Plaintiff s local SanDiegowireless numberassigned a pagingservice. to b. Defendantsare Liable Basedon Their Unlawful, PrerecordedTelemarkcting to a California Resident.

lt is unlawfulfor any person entityto disseminate prcrecorded or a mcssagc any to numberassigned a pagingservice, to without the calledparty'sexpress permission.47 tJ.S.C.$ 227 (bXl XAXiii). llnder the TCPA, the partyon whosebehalfa solicitation madebears is ultimate responsibility anyviolations.S'ec for Releasc Number95-3I 0 o1'thc licdcral

t:

1 a

I J

14
l)

Co C N ( , . 1 6 C o m m u n i c a t i o n s m m i s s i o n ,C D o c k e t o . 9 2 - 9 0 .1 0 t i ( l ( l R c d 1 2 3 9 1 1 9 9 5 ) p a r s 3 4 - 3 5 . 17
1o I a

Calls placedby an agentaretreated if the telemarketer as itsell'placed call. Id. Basedon this the
authority. Defendantsare responsiblefor the legal violations of their prerecordedtelemarketing

19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 21 28

callsto Plaintiff. Because Defendants reached to many(but an as of yct unknownnumber)of out California'sresidents, includingPlaintiff,Californiahasgencral and spccific.iurisdiclion ovcr Defcndants. c. Plaintiff Need Only Make a Prima Facie Showing of Facts to Defeatthe Motion to Dismissto the Extent That it ContestsPlaintiffls Alleged Facts.

To the extentthat the instantmotion challenges Plaintiff-sallegedfacts,Plaintiffneed jurisdictionover only makea prima facie showingof factsestablishing basisfor personal a 5 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 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 6 of 27

, ) 3
A r

defendants defeatit. Ilarris Rulslgt& Co. Ins. Services, to Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd.328 F.3d 1122,ll29 (9"' Cir. 2003). In decidingwhetherPlaintiffhasmadea prima./aclecase, Court the must acceptuncontroverted allegations the Complaintandresolvefactualconflictsin the in parties'declarations Plaintifls favor. WI{S,Inc. v. Farron, 884 F.2d 200.204(5'hCir. I 989). in

6 j 8
0 Y

Of course, wherethejurisdictionalf-acts "intertwincdwith the mcrits ot'the action," are determination thejurisdictionalissuemay determine meritsof the action. Data Disunery,, of the Inc. v. Systcms Technologtt Associates, lnc..557 F-.2d, 1285-1286. fn.2 (gthCir.1977).In sucha case, ts prefbrablethatthis determination madeat trial wherea plaintiff may preserrt it be his cascin a cohcrcnt. ordcrlyfashion. and without the risk o1'prciudicing cascon the rlerits. 1cl. his

10 1l 12
l l

14
lJ ti

For the manyreasons fbrth in this Memorandum, set PlaintifJ'makes prima l'ucia a s h o w i n g o f f a c t s e s t a b l i s h i n g a b a s i s f o r j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r l ) e f e n dtah es .e r y l e a s t . t h e r e i s a A t nt v factualconflict as to Plaintiff s and Defcndants' cvidence. this conf'lictis decidedin and

lo

t7 l8 l9 20
,)!

Plaintiff s favor. Regardless, iurisdictionalfactsare so intertwined the with the meritsthat the Court shouldpostpone determination thejurisdictionalissueuntil trial, a/ier I'luinti// hus hud of the bene/ito/ proper discovery, wherePlaintiffwill provethat Defendants activelyand

LL 22

knowingly prerecorded disseminated unlawful telemarketing messages California residents, to including Plaintiff.

aa

;^

3.

Because Plaintiffls Claims Arise Out of Defendants'Unlawful Telemarketing Within the Stateof California. California Has Jurisdiction Over Defendants. Plaintiff s claims ariseout of Defendants'forum-related unlawful telemarketinsthat

25
26 2 2g 7 6 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 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 7 of 27

1 2
a J

Def-endants purposefully directed towardsPlaintiff in California,so this Court's exercise of personaljurisdiction over Defendants reasonable it comports is and with "fair play and substantialustice." .i a. Defendants'ContactsResultedFrom Their Own Actions That Created a BetweenDefendantsand California and Thereby "Substantial Connection'o Enabled California to ExercisePersonalJurisdiction Over Defendants. i. Acts Committed Outside Cslifornia "Csusins Effect" Within California i "Prroottfrl Dirr"tioi: mbiit

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll

If a nonresident. actingoutside state, the intcntionally causes injuricswithin the slate, then he must "reasonably anticipate"being haled into court in thc forum statc.Calder v. ,lones ( 1 9 8 4 ) 6 5 u . S . 7 8 3 . 7 9 0 , 1 0 4 . C t .1 4 8 2 . 1 4 8 7 . l l t h a t m a t t e r si s t h a t t h e n o n r e s i d e n t ' s 4 S A

1 2 fiabifity-producing acts have foreseeable consequences the forum state.llurger King in
IJ

( l o r p .v . R u d z e w i c(z 9 8 5 ) 7 1 t l . S .4 6 2 , 4 7 9 - 4 8 01 0 5S . C t . 1 7 4 , 2 1 8 6 . 1 4 , 2

14 l5 16
ln Calderv. Jones, supra,the inlentional and allegedly tortiousacliorrs Florida o1-

who wrote andpublished defamatory a articlein Floridalbr publicationin a national 1 7 residents

l8

magazine wereexpressly aimedat California,because arlicletargeted Calilbrniaresident. the a

1 9 Similarly,here. Plaintiff showsthat Defendants'unlawful telemarketing callswere directed a at 20
(thedissemination a prerecorded SanDiego resident of telemarketing is an intentional call act).

2T 22
z)

As in the Caldercase. wherea writer was deemed havedirected actionsat California to his nolwithstandingthe lact that therewas no showingthat he aclually distributedthe magazine,

24 Defbndants deemed havepersonally are to directed their actions Califbrnia. Although at 25 26
telemarketing are calls, Plaintiff hascertainlymadeout a prima.facie showingthat Defendants Defendants prerecorded allegethey had no involvementwith the scheme disseminate to

27 28

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

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

Document 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 8 of 27

1 l

nol forthrightin this regard.
-

2
3
4'

1nSchlussel Schlussel, court held that obscene v. the phonecalls from New York to California subf ected callerto California's.iurisdicLion. the (1983)l4l Schlussel Schlu,sscl, v. Cal.App.3d 194,198-199. Analogously the Schlussel to case, Defendants'out-o1--statc cclnduct (or in-state conduct, depending upon what is revealed discovery), in whetherit was actually disseminating prerecorded the telemarketing callsor hiring a third partyto do same,sub.jects D.Lndants to jurisdictionin California. ii. Even A Single Tortious Act Mav Create Jurisdiction.

6

5 -

7 8 9 10 il

t2
l1 l-) 14
lJ ';

F.ven singleactmay support a limitedpersonal.jurisdiction a nonresident. ovcr McGccv. lnlernurionul Li-fb Insurance Co..(1957)355 U.S.220,78 S.Ct.199. For example, single a unlawful prerecorded telemarketing to a forum stateresident call may supportthe cxercise of

specific.jurisdiction thenonresident over telemarketer. Schwarzer, al. Cul.Prac.Guide; S'cc et ()ivil Pntcedure Federal (TheRutter Be.fitre T-rial Group 2005),3:208.90 c'iting Interncl (SDMS 2001)138 F.Supp 773.774 Doorway, v. Parks (enailmcssages always Inc. .2d arc thc result active, purposeful of communications,a single so tortious emailmessage a forumstate to

16 17 l8 lg

20 resident support exercise specific jurisdiction). may the of 2l 22 In thiscase, however. wasnot onetortious it act. Rather, Defendants made minimum a of 7 tllegal,prerecorded telemarketing to Plaintiff s number calls service. ,\'ee assigned a paging to

;^

Austin, 3. 25 Dec.of Chad fl 26 2 2g 7 8 ( CASE 07CV2r 32D M S AJ B) NO.

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

Document 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 9 of 27

1 2
a J

iii.

Out-of-State Electronic Transmissions May Be a Basisfor Jurisdiction.

jurisdictionmay be based electronic Personal on transmissions intentionally directed to residentsof the forum stateand causingharm in the forum state.Seecod), t,. ward. (D Ct lggT) 954 F.Supp.43,47 (fraudulent representations email andtelephonc fbrum resident). via to The electronic transmission solicitations commonplace the courtsarerecognizing of is and that such jurisdictionin the fbrum whereinjury resultsliom the receipt solicitations subjectthesenderto of thosesolicitations. Internet Dooru,aJ,, v. Parks,(S.D.Miss.2001)138Ir.Supp.2d773, Inc. 779; VerizonOnlineServices, Inc. t,. RalslE,(ED VA 2002)203 F.Supp.2d 601. 610 (nonresident's sending millionsof unsolicited emailadvertisements throughplaintilf s Internet servcrin fbrum stateconstituted trcspass chattcls, to "By subjccting sender local.lurisdiction). to sending email solicitation thc lar reaches thc carthfbr pccuniary an to of gain.onc doesso at his own peril, and cannotthenclaim that it is not reasonably lbresecable he will be haledinto that court in a distant.jurisdiction answerfbr the ramifications that solicitation." to of Internel Doorwr4t, Inc. v. Parks,(S.D.Miss.2001)138F.Supp.2d 773.779.

4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 t2

r3
t4 l5 l6 11 18 l9 20

An advertiser shouldnot be permitted takeadvantage moderntechnology to of via electronic meansto engage an illegal act with consequences Califbrniaand which harmsa in in

2 1 citizenin California,andescape traditionalnotionsof.lurisdiction because usedelectronic he 22
meansto carryout a long-distance Lort.SeeEDIASSoJiware Int'1,L.L.('. v. BASISInt'l Ltd.,
L)

24

(D.Ariz.1996) F.Supp.413.Of course, dissemination an unlawfulprerecorded 947 the of

call to 25 telemarketing from outsidethe forum is analogous the sendingof an email,or any other
,a.o

jurisdiction. electronic transmission, from outsidethe forum, and the sending creates 9 C A S E O .0 7C V 2 I 3 2D M S( A J B ) N

27 28

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

Document 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 10 of 27

I I

iv.

Courts Will More Likelv Find Minimum Contocts Based on Commercial Activitv.

2
a J

Defendant's telemarketing donefor commercial was gain,which furthermilitatesin favor of finding that minimum contactsare satisfied.Refunce llat'l Indem. Co. v. Pinnucle Oas. Assurance Corp.,(M.D. Ala. 2001) 160F.Supp.2d 1327,1333(holding that "E-mails,like letters and phonecalls,canconstitute minimum contacts, leastif the defendant his agents at or sendthe message pecuniary for gainratherthan substantially personal purposes."). b. DefendantsNeed Not Have Even DirectedTheir Own Activitics at California to Create Jurisdiction. i. The Acts of Defendants' Third Partv Telemarketer Suffice to Create Jurisdiction Even Without Defendants' Specific Direction.

4 5 6 7 8
()

l0
ll

12
1 a

A nonresident defendant may be sub.ject specific.iurisdiction Califbrniabased to in on local actsby an authorized agent. Milrano v. Huwes,(4rr, flir. 2004)377 b.3d 402,407.

I J

14 l5 16 Defendants liablefor the damages are caused unlawfultelemarketing by doneon their

t 7 behalf,eveni1'theydid not personally conductthe telemarketing, i1-their authorized agentdid. In l 8 otherwords,Plaintiff needonly showthat Def'endants a telemarketing who hadtheir hired lirm
19 20 2l
established several that Hanah'sentities(or a telemarketing firm actingon their behalf)sent authorityto sendthe unlawfulmessages were sentto Plaintiff. PlaintifThas that clearly

telemarketing messages Plaintiff promotingnumerous to Harrah'scasinos, including 22 prerecorded
/)
'\i L+

Harrah'sRinconCasinoand Harrah'sLas VegasCasinoand thut movingde./endunl HARRAH'S OPERATIM COMPAIVY, Inc. owns Haruah's Las VegasCasino. S'ee Dec. of Chad Austin, fl tl 4. 5 and 10 and ExhibitsB" C" D" E and H.

25 26 27 28 10
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 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 11 of 27

1

Notably,and perhaps dispositively. Defendants not claim that they did not hire an do

third party telemarketer engage telemarketing the Stateof California. They to in in 2 independent
a -)

merelyclaim that neithertheynor their employees did. However,as notedabove.the partyon whosebehalfunlawfultelemarketing doneultimatelybears is responsibility damages for flowing fiom the unlawfultelemarketins.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

c.

Defendants Are Subject to Jurisdiction in California Simply Because They PlacedTheir Unlawful PrerecordedTelemarketingCalls in the Stream of Commerce.

The requisite "substantial connection" personaljurisdiction for purposes will alsousually be found wherea nonresident manufacturer sellsgoodsor scrvices thc fbrum stalc,cvcn if it in doesn'thavean offlcc, plantor pcrsonnel locally,as long as i1has"placedproducts the strcam in

t2

commerce with the expectation they will be sold 1oconsumcrs the lbrum thal in l 3 ol'interstate 1 4 state."World-Wide Volkswugen (1980)444 U.S. 286.297-298,100 S.Ct.559, L'nrp.v. I4/oodson l5 t6 (a 3:156-3:157. nonresident engaging commercial in activities the forum statcmay be subiect in to jurisdictionif it purposefully availeditself of the benelltsand protcctions o1-state law. for exampleby salessolicitation)."lt is only rcasonable companies distribute. . . products for that

t7 18
l9

20 through regionaldistributorsin this country to anticipatebeing haled into court by plaintiffs in 2l 22
614.
1, -) a i

their home states." BaroneBrothersv. Interstate (81, Displa),Fireu,orks Cir. 1994)25 F.3d610,

:+

25

Indeed, an adequate if may be haledinto court basisfor jurisdictionexists,a non-resident

2 6 anywhere the United States, in because courtsgenerally conclude that it would be unfair to allow 27 28 11
C A S EN O . 0 7 C V 2 I 3 2 D M S ( A J I ] )

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

Document 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 12 of 27

, ? 3 4 ' 5 6 j 8 9 l0 l1

jurisdictiononly in his homestate, him to remainsubject personal to requiringthosewith claims againsthim to go to that statein order to litigate suchclaims. SeeCoolsavings.com, Inc. v. IQ Commerce Corp.Q'JDIL 1999)53 F.Supp.2d 1000,1003(nonresident websiteownermay be haledinto courtanywhere the United States). in

Because placedtheir unlawful prerecorded Def-endants telemarketing calls in the stream of commerce callinga SanDiego,Californiatelephone by number.they havesub.iected themselves suit in Californiafor any matters to relatingto the dissemination their unlawful of lelemarketing messages. d. A Hotel'sOut of StateAdvertisements Subjectit to SpecificJurisdictionin the Statein Which it Advertises,Even if the Injury is Suffered in the State Where the Hotel and Foreign Corporation Reside.

t2 l3
14 'J t6 17 lft l9 20
11

No more thanadvertising calculated reachCalilbrniais required constitute to to purposeful availment the privileges doing business California. of of in SeeLlnitedStates SE(l v. C a r r i l l o , 1 l 5 F . 3 d1 5 4 0 , 5 4 5( 1 1 r r ' C i r1 9 9 7 ) .l n S n o w n e v vH a r y a h ' . s ' I ' , n l c r t a i n m n n . 3 5 . 1 . Icct, C a l . 4 ' h 0 5 4 , 1 2P . 3 d2 8 . 2 9C a l . R p t r . 33 3 ( J u n e . 2 0 0 5 ) . C a l i f o r n i ae s i d e n r l e da c l a s s 1 1 d 6 a r fi actionsuit in Los AngelesSuperior Court against variousNevadahotels,includingIlarrah's Entertainment, (Defendant lnc. herein), allegingcauses actionlbr Califbrnia'sunfair of competition law, breach contract. of unjustenrichment falseadvertising.The Plaintifl, Mr. and Snowney, alleged that the hotel had failed to providenoticeof an energysurcharge imposed on

22

^4^ t 25 26 27 2g

hotel guests.The Los AngelesSuperior Court granted motion to quashserviceof summons a for jurisdiction. The Court of Appealreversed, lack of personal which holdingwas alfirmedby the California SupremeCourt. 1) 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 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 13 of 27

1 2
a J

The CaliforniaSupreme Court noted. "By purposefully and successfully solicitingthe business Californiaresidents, of defendants could reasonably anticipate beingsubiect litigationin Californiain to the eventtheir solicitations caused injury to a Califbrniaresident.(Seellurger an King,sltpre,471 tl.S. at pp. 475-476.) Cases holdingthat claimsfor injuriessuffered duringa plaintiff s stayat a hotel or resortarenot related and do not arisefiom that hotel'sor resort'sadvertising to in the lbrum stateare inapposite.[Citations lbotnotcomitted]. As an initial matter, in most.if not all. of thcsccases not applythe substantial did connection test established Vons. In any event,evcn if we agrcewith the holdingsin these in cases, in omittedltheyaredistinguishable. t]nlikc the injuries fCitations footnote suffered the plaintiffsin thosecases, injury allegedlysuflbredby plaintiff in by the this caserelates directlyto the contentof defendants' advertising California. in As such,thc connection plaintiff s claimsand defendants' between contacts far is closerthanthe connection between claimsand contacts the allegedin the cases citedabovc. Indeed, somccourtsthat havcrcfused exercise.jurisdictiorr to where a plaintiff sufTered injury during a stayat a hotel or resortacknowledge an that thcy would havcreached diff-crent a conclusion il-thatplaintifl-had allegcd lalse advcrtising fraud. (SeeSmith. or supra.1997 WL 162156 p. *6 [suggesting at that claimsof lalseadvertising liaudulentmisreprcscntation or would meetthc rclatedness rcquirementl: Oberlias, supra.633N.W.2dat p. 417 l"A fbrcign corporation that advertises Michigancan reasonably in expectto be calledto dcfendsuitsin Michigancharging unlawfuladvertising allcgingthat the or advertising, itself,directlyiniureda Michiganresident"l.) Accordingly,we conclude that plaintiff hasmet the relatedness requircmenl."Id at 37-38.

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 a l-)

I A
I T

l5
l6

t7
18 l9

The CaliforniaSupreme Court also stated a lbotnolethal "Scvcralcourtshavereached in

Io 2 0 the...conclusion-thatiniuriessullereddurins a stayat a hotel or resortare related anddo

2l 22
ZJ .\A
:T

arisefrom that hotel'sor resort'sadvertising the forum state. (See,e.g.,Nowak v. T'akHow in Investments, (1st Cir. 1996)94 F.3d 708,715-716;' Ltd. Mallon v. WaltDisney WorldCo. (D.Conn.1998) 42 F.Supp.2d 143. 147;O'Brien v. OkemoMountain,Inc. (D.Conn.1998) 17 F.Supp.2d 101;' 98, Rooney I(alt DisneyWorldC'o (D.Mass. v. 2003)2003WI- 22937728,p.*4, l"ood Sigrosv. WaltDisneyWorld Co. (D.Mass.200l)129F.Supp.2d56,67;Shoppers 13 C A S E O .0 7C V 2 I 3 2D M S( A J B ) N

25
26 21

28

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

Document 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 14 of 27

U 2 3 4

Warehouse, supra,746A.2d at p. 336; Tatro v. Manor Oare,Inc. (Mass. 1994)625 N.E.2d549, 553-554; Radiganv. InnisbrookResort& Golf Club (N.J.Sup.Ct.App.Div. 1977)375A.2d 1229, tzzl.),, Id.

o , 8 o 7 10 ll 12 l3 l4
1 <

It is thercfore well settled the Statcof Californiathat a forcigncorporation in hotcl advertising California jurisdiction the State Calilbrnia, to residents subjects itselfto specilrc in of particularly the advertising unlawful. Because if is Plaintiff"sclaimsrelateto an illegal , advertising method,unlawfulprerecorded telemarketing. directed Califbrniaresidents, at Defendants the otherHarrah'sentitiesareabsolutely and sub.iect spccific.jurisdiction thc to in State f California. o 4. This Litigation ArisesFrom Defendants' Contacts. Because litigation oneto recover this is damages violationo1-the'I'CPA Ibr relaled to unlawful prerecorded telemarketing callsmadeby defendants Plaintiff in violationof the to TCPA, Plaintiffmeets thisprerequisite the establishment personaljurisdiction. for of 5. Defendants Fail to Meet Their Burden of ShowingThat California's Exercise of Personal JurisdictionOver Defendants Unreasonable. Is The burdenis on the nonresident provethat the forum's exercise to of.iurisdiction would

'J

l6 17 rR l9 20 2l 22 23 )4

justice." AmocoEgypt Oil (lo. v. LeonisNuvigation not comportwith "fair play and substantial C o .( 9 t C i r . 1 9 9 3 ) F . 3 d8 4 8 , 8 5 1 . I a. The Extent of Defendants'PurposefulInterjection.

"Where a defendant who purposefullyhas directedhis activitiesat fbrum residents seeks

25
26

jurisdiction, mustpresent compelling thatthepresence some to defeat he a case of other

2
2g

7

r

u
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 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 15 of 27

1 2 3 4 ' 5 6 7 8 9 10 il 12 l3 14 15 l6 17 18 19 20
)1 'L

jurisdictionunreasonable." considerations would render Burger King, 471 U.S. at 417. As set forth above,Defendants, eitherdirectly or through an agent,purposefullydirectedprerecorded telemarketing into California. Defendants' purposeful interjection particularly is offensive, bccause clcctronically it trespassed onto Plaintiff s privateproperty. Senator tlollings called automated calls"telephone terrorism."I 37 Cong.Rec. 16.205(daily ed.Nov. 7, 1991) S (statement Sen.Hollings)("lt is telephone of terrorism, and it hasgot to slop.") Del-endants' unilateral interjection into Californiais a form of electronic trespass Californiapropertyand on shouldbe addressed a Californiacourt. This factorweighsin favor of.iurisdiction. in b. The Burden on Defendants Defendingin the Forum. in

In thc contcxtof the "fair play" analysis, [J.S.Suprenre the C]ourt notedthat "modern has transportation communication and havemadeit much lessburdensonte a party sued1odelbnd lbr himselfin a Statewherehe engages economic in activity." McGeev. Internutional Li/b Insurance Co.,355tl.S. 220.223(1957). Progress communications transporlation in and has madethe defense a suit in a forciqntribunallessburdensomc. of Ilanson v. I)ant'klct357 ti.S. 235.250-25rfl958).

Further, Defendants must demonstrate litigatingthis disputein Californiawould be that so "gravelydifficult and inconvenient" that theywould be at a severe disadvantage in

22

comparison Plaintiff. BurgerKing 471U.S.at 477 Defendants not evenattempted to" . have to do so. Defendants not argue do thatCalifornia litigationwouldbe moreinconvenient than litigationelsewhere. Defendants not suggest theburden themwouldbe substantially that on do

24 25

26 different themin California opposed Nevada Delaware. the absence an for In of as to or
)1 t \

2g

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

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

Document 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 16 of 27

I 2 3
A '

expectedtrial of somelength,there seemsto be little diff-erence whetherDetbndants retain counselin California or in Nevadaor Delawareto appearon their behalf. Regardless, Defendants can not be heardto complain of inconvenience when it was they that madethe decisionto sendillegaladvertising into Californiaratherthan limit that illegal advertising their to home statcof Nevada.

5 6

8 9 10 ll

F'uflher, Plaintiff expects provethat Defendants the otherIlarrah's entities to and named u, defendants madea lot of moneyfrom their illegal activities andthat the costof defending this lawsuitis a relativelysmallpercentage that profit. This factorweighsin favor ofjurisdiction. of c. The Extent of Conflict With the Sovereigntyof the Defendants'State.

t2
l3 14 15 l6

'l'elephone In this case, Plaintiff hasbroughta cause actionfor violationo1'the1-ederal of ConsumcrProtection Act. As this federallaw applies cverywhere thc lJnitedStates, factor in this is irrelevant.This f-actor weiqhsin f-avor iurisdiction. of d. The Forum State'sInterestin Adjudicatingthe Dispute.

17 l8 l9 20
a1 L'

A stategenerally a "manifestinterest"in providingits residcnls has with a convenient fbrum for redressing injuricsinflictedby out-of'-state actors. BurgerKing,471 tJ.S.al473. When the TCPA's prohibitions violated.the injury is visiteduponthc rccipicntof thc call in are California, and California has an interestin protectingits citizensfrom suchharmsin an efficient and meaningful manner.The effectiveness the TCPA, in particular. would be severely of

22

24 25 26 2l 2g

undercut defendants if of could controlthe choiceof forum to the detriment their victims. if werc not liablewherethey Virtually no TCPA cases would be prosecuted the defendanls their avoid responsibilityby secreting causedtheir damage. Creativedefendants could saf-ely 16 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 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 17 of 27

, t 2

operationsfar away from the locationsto which they are bombardingpersonswith illegal faxes ' andphone calls. Califomia has a stronginterestin protectingits citizensfrom suchmachinations.

A '

Therefore, both the State'sand Plaintiff s interest this forum is substantial. the in and judicial system's "interstate interest"in enforcingthe uniform l-ederal is lurthered finding law by over a TCPA cause actionwherethe call to the consumcr of was received. ProPeriurisdiction Defendants not evenarguethat Californiahasno interest protecting citizensfrom their do in its unlawful conduct. l'his factorweighsin favor ofjurisdiction. c. The Most Efficient Judicial Resolutionof the Controversv.

, o z 8 9 l0 1l 12 13 14 l5 16 17

judicial resolution this controversy Thc most efTlcicnt of would bc for Calilbrniacourlsto try this matterratherthanhavingthe particsgo throughthe routincof rc-filing in I)elawarc. f. The Importance of the Forum to Plaintiff s Interest in Convenientand Effective Relief.

For the samereasons the lbrum hasan interest adjudicating dispute, hasan that in it thc interest providingconvenient effectiverelief. For all of the abovereasons, exercise in and the of

Iu R personal.jurisdiction would be fair and reasonable underthe circumstances this case. of 19 6. 20 ^,I , Personaljurisdiction be established a lesser may with showing minimumcontacts of ilFewer Minimum ContactsAre RequiredWhen Reasonableness Dictates.

of Martin& Sons'I'arms, (9tr,Cir. Inc., dictate. Ochoav.,J.B. 22 considerationsreasonableness 23 24 25 factors in Plaintiffhasdemonstrated six of the seven courts consider determinine that 26
27 28 1'7 C A S EN O . 0 7 C V 2 13 2 D M S ( A J B )

2oo2) b.3dI 182,1188, 2. 287 fn.

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

Document 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 18 of 27

r
I

"reasonableness" weigh in favor of California'sexercise ofjurisdiction. SeeBurger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz. U.S. 462,476-77(19S5). So,althoughDef'endants' 471 purposeful aiming of their unlawful telemarketing to a SanDiegotelephone call numbersuffices the exercise for of evenan attenuated showingof "purposeful availment"would sufficegiventhe .iurisdiction, reasonableness Califomia exercisingurisdiction. of .j

2 3
A

'

6

7 8 9
l0 11 12 13 14

7.

DefendantsHARRAH'S MARKETING SERVICES CORPORATION and HARRAH'S OPERATING COMPANY. INC. Have Consented Suit in California. to Defendants HARRAH' S MARKIi'l'lNG SERVICIlS CORPORA'I'ION I tARRAH'S and

OPERATING COMPANY, Inc. arethe only Harrah'scntitiesnamedas moving dcl-cndants in this Motion to Dismiss. Both of thoseentities havedesignated agents scrvicco1'process lbr on 'l'hey file with the CalifbrniaSecretary State(See, ExhibitsG and F, respectively). of have consenled suit in the Stateof Californiaand aretherefore to subicctlo generaliurisdiction here. "Appointmentof a rcgistcred agentfbr servicc.. a traditionally .is rccognizcd and wcll acccptcd

l)

t6 17 18 19

species gencral of consent." Knowltonv.Allied VunLincs,Inc'.(8'l'Cir. 1990)900 li2d I196, ll99 - lbderal statuterequiredinterstate carrierto designate local agent;Ilane v. lletlink, Inc. (3'u Cir. I 991) g25 F2d,637 640-641 foreigncorporations authorizedro do business state in , process. statutorily designate Secretary Commonwealth accept of to

20 2T 22
z)

C.

I F P L A I N T I F FH A S F A I L E D T O M A K E A S H O W I N GO F P E R S O N A I ,

JURISDICTION. THE COURTMAY POSTPONE RIJLINGON THE ITS INSTANTMOTION TO ALLOW HIM TO CONDUCTJURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY.
If Plaintiff-sevidence doesnot sufficeto convince Courtthal the instantMotion the ofjurisdictional permission conductlimited discovery Plaintiff requests to shouldbe denied, facts. Wherethe motion to dismissis madeat the outsetof the case,the court may continuethe 18 D C A S E O . 0 7 C V 2 1 3 2 M S( A J B ) N

/+ 25 26 27 2g

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

Document 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 19 of 27

, 2
a

hearing orderto permitsuchdiscovery. OrchidBiosciences, v. St. in S.ee Inc. Louis l.Jniversit! ( S DC A 2 0 0 1 1 9 8 . R . D . 6 7 0 , 6 7 2 - 6 7 3 . ) F

4 '

Plaintiff is entitledto this discovery making a'"prima.facie by showingof personal jurisdiction." (lentral Stutes, Soulheasl Southwest & AreasPension fiund v. ReimcrExpress Iltorld Oorp.,230 F.3d 934,946 (7rr, Cir. 2000). In this case, the (lourt is inclinedto grantthe i1Motion to Dismiss,Plaintiffrequests the Court ordera reasonable that periodof time fbr jurisdictionaldiscovery be conducted.Alternatively, to Plaintiff requesls leaveto amendhis Complaint. III. CONCLUSION l)laintiff hasmorethanamply madeout aprimu.fucigcasethat l)e1'endants were involved with the illegaltelcmarketing scheme.Specilically, Plaintiffhasofl-ered uncontrovcrtcd evidence that he received unlawful prerecorded an telemarketing promotingHarrah'sLas call VegasCasino,ownedby moving defendant HARRAH'S OPERATINGCOMPANY, Inc.

5 , 6 , 8 o ? 10 11 12 13 14 l5 l6

t7
l8 l9 20
1 L1'

Moreover,Plaintiff hasprovideduncontroverted evidence that he received unlawlul an prerecorded telemarketing promotingHarrah'sRinconCasinoand that one or more I larrah's call entitiesoperates Ilarrah'sRinconCasino(which is obvious,given that the casinois named " Harrah ',r RinconCasino"). Finally,Defendants haveofferedno evidence that they did not hire

22 a third party telemarketer engagein telemarketing the Stateof California. Given that to in :^+ , 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff hasas of yet beendeniedany right to discovery.hisprima./acieshowingmore than amply demonstrates lacts sufficientto call Defendants into California to answerfor their unlawful conduct. 19 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 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 20 of 27

I

Defendants cannotcomplainthat they have beensuedin Califbrnia--Defbndants targeted

scheme California,caused at actionable harmsto Californiaresidents. 2 their illegal telemarketing
J

and areresponsible their own actions.Defendants' for Motion to Dismissmust therefore be denied. D A T E D :A p r i l 1 1 , 2 0 0 8

4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 1l 12
ti

Bv: /s/ ChadAustin CHAD AtJS'l'lN.Ilsq.,Attorney 1or Plaintifl. .IAMBSM. KINDIIR lrmai : chadaLrstinlrr)cox.nct I

14 15 16
l /

18 19 20 2l 22
at

a)

24 25 26 27 28

20
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 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 21 of 27

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

3

I.

INI'RODUCTION. ARGUMENT... 4.

...... 1 ............2

4ll. 5

Plaintiff WasNot andis Not Subject a Pre-Filing to Orderin SanDiego Superior Courtif IIe is Represented Counsel. by ..
Defendants' Repeated TortiousActivitv Within the Stateof California Overthe Course More l'han ThreeYearsSubiects of Them to thc General a n dS p e c i f i c u r i s d i c t i oo f t h i sC o u r t . . . J n ............3 1. 2. Authorityon Jurisdiction. PlaintiffNeedOnly Allegea Valid .lurisdiction'l-hcory Makc and Out a Prima Fucie CaseRegarding Jurisdiction Defeat to Defendants'Motion. ..........4 a. 'l-he Court DoesNot Reviewthe Bvidence l)etermine to the Validity of Plaintifl-sTheoryof .lurisdiction and Plaintiff s Theory,Basedon Defendants' Unlawful T e l e m a r k e t i n o C a l i l b r n i a e s i d c n t ss V a l i d . ts R i.

7

B.

8 9 t0 1l 12
l-i

14 l5 l6 b.

.......5

t7 18 19 20 2l 22
a.
L)

Defendants LiableBasedon l'heir Unlawful. Prerecorded are T e l e m a r k e t i no a C a l i f o r n i a e s i d e n l . tq R . . . .. . . . . . . 5 PlaintiffNeedOnly Make a l)rimu l;acia Showingol-liacts to Defealthe Motion to Dismissto the Extent]-hat it C o n t e s tP l a i n t i f fs A l l e g e d a c l s . s F ........5

c.

3.

Because PlaintifflsClaimsArise Out of Defendants'Unlawful Telemarketing Within the Stateof Califbrnia, Califbrnia[]as Jurisdiction OverDefendants.

........6

Resulted From Their Own ActionsThat Defendants' Contacts and Createda "SubstantialConnection"BetweenDefbndants TherebyBnabled Clalifornia Bxercise to Californiaand ...........7 P e r s o n a lu r i s d i c t i oO v e rD e f e n d a n t s . J n i. Acts CommittedOutsideCalifornia"Causing Effect" Within Califbrnia Suffice to Establish

25
/o

27 28

21
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 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 22 of 27

"Purposeful irection".... D

.......1

ii.
J

'l'ortious EvenA Single Act May Create.lurisdiction...... .8 . Out-of-State Electronic Transmissions Mav Be a Rasis f b r J u r i s d i c t i o.n . . . . . . .. . . . . . 9 CourtsWill More Likely }rindMinimum Contacts B a s e d n C o m m e r c i a lc t i v i t v . . . . . o A .....10

lll.

4 ) 6 7 8 9 b.
lv.

'l'heir Defendants NeedNot Havelrven Directed Own ActivitiesatCaliforniatreate.lurisdiction Co

..........10

l0
ll

The Acts of Defendants' Third I'}arly-l-elernarkctcr Sufficeto Create Jurisdiction lrven Without D e l - e n d a n lS p e c i f i c i r e c l i o n . s' D . . . . . . . . .l 0 Def-endants Subject .lurisdiction CaliforniaSimply are to in 'l'heir Because They Placed [JnlawfulPrerecordcd T e l e m a r k e t i n ga l l i n t h e S t r e a m f C o m m e r c e . . . . C o ..........1I d. A Flotel'sOut of StateAdvcrtisements Subiectit to Specific Jurisdiction the State Which il Adverlises, in in frvenif the Inluryis Sulfcrcd thc StatcWhcrcthc Ilotel in a n dF o r e i g n o r p o r a t i o ne s i d e . C R .........12

t2
l3 t4 l5 16 t7 18 l9 20 2l
))
L-) A T.

This LitigationArisesFrom Defendants' Contacts Defendants to Meet Their Burdeno1'Showing Fail l'ha1Clalifornia's Bxercise Personal of Jurisdiction OverDefendants LJnreasonable. Is ......14 T h e E x t e n t f D e f e n d a n t P'u r p o s e f un t e r i e c t i o n . s o Il b. .........14

5.

T h e B u r d e n n D e f e n d a n t n D e l ' e n d i nig t h e l i o r u m . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 o is n The Extcntof Conflict With the Sovereisntv o1'thc Defbndants'State. ......".

..........16

24

d.

T h e F o r u mS t a t e ' sn t e r e si t A d j u d i c a t i ntg eD i s p u t e . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 I n h The Most EfficientJudicial Resolution the Controversy........17 of

25 26
27
f.

28

The Importance the Forumto Plaintiff s Interest in of a R ..........17 C o n v e n i e n tn dE f f e c t i v e e l i e f 22 C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 I 3 2 D M S( A J B ) N

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

Document 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 23 of 27

I 2

6.

FewerMinimum Contacts Are Required When R e a s o n a b l e nD sc t a t e s . . . . . ci s

......17

7.
J

4

DefendantsIARRAH'S MARKB'|ING SERVICItTS I CORPORATIONand HARRAH'S OPERATING COMPANY. I n c .H a v eC o n s e n t e o S u i ti n C a l i f b r n r a . . . . . td ..........18

5
6 7 8 I l0 ll 12
IJ

C.

If Plaintiff hasFailedto Make a Showingof Personal Jurisdiction, Court the May Postponc Rulingon thc Instant its Motionto Allow I lim to Conduct . l u r i s d i c t i o nD il s c o v e r y a .......18 ........19

III.

CONCLUSION..

14 15 16 17 l8 t9

20 21 22
/.J

24 25 26 27
z)
aa

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 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 24 of 27

I , . n r Cases

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES paee(s)

AmocttEgtpt Oil Co. v. LeonisNavigation Co. ( 9 l , C i r 1 9 9 3 1 F . 3 d8 4 8 . . . . ) Bancro_fi Musters, Inc. & t 1 9 ' c i r . 2 0 0 0 )2 2 3 F . 3 d a 1 0 8 6 . h
Bane v. Netlink, Inc.

......14

6
,7

.......4

8 9 l0 l1 1. ,: 14 'J 16 17
lru a

( 3 ' u i r .1 9 9 1 9 2 5 F 2 d 6 3 7 . . . C ) Barone Brothersv. InlerstateDi,splqt F.ireworks ( 8 r n C i 1.9 9 42 5 F . 3 d 1 0 . . . r ) 6 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz ( 1 9 8 54 7 1t J . S4 6 2 . 1 0 5 . C r2 1 7 4 . ) . S . Cahler v. .Jones ( 1 9 8 44 6 5t 1 . S . 7 8 3 ,0 4S . C t . 4 8 2 . . ) 1 1

...........18

......1I

. . . . . . . 4 . 71 3 - 1 6l , , g

...........7

Centrul Slates,Southea.sl Soulhwesl & Areas Perl;ion l|und v. Reimerlixprass lforld ('orp. ( 7 t r ' C i r . 2 0 02 3 0F . 3 d9 3 4 . . . 0) .......19 Coclvv. Ward ( D C t 1 9 9 7 9 5 4l r . S u p.p 3. . . ) 4
('oolSuvings.com, Inc. v. I() Commerce Corp.

. . .. . .. .. . 9

l9 20 21 22

( N D I L 1 9 9 95 3 F . S u p p . 2 d 0 0 . ) 10 Credit L),onnaisSecurities(LISA), Inc. v. Alcantara ( 2 " a C i 1 .9 9 9 ) 1 8 3 F . 3 d 1 5 1 . . . r Data Discover),,Inc. v. S),slems TechnoloKt Associutes, Inc. ( 9 t rC i r . 1 9 7 7 )5 5 7F . 2 d 12 8 5 . , EDIAS SqfiwareInt't, L.L.C. t,. BASIS Int't Lrd. (D.Ariz.1996)947F.Supp.413. GlencoreGrain RotterdamB.V. v. ShivnathRai Harnarain Co. 2 c . 1 9 ' h i r . 2 0 0 2 ) 8 4F . 3 d 1 1 1 4. 24

......12

.........5

. . . .. . . . . . 6

:^ 25 26 27 2g

.........9

. . . . . . 3 ,4

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 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 25 of 27

-

'
t

Hanson v. Denckla
-

( 1 e s 8 )s 7 . S . 2 3 s . 3 U
) 1 9 tC i r.2 0 0 3 3 2 8F .3d1122.

. . . .5 1

z

3 4
5 6 7 8
q

Harris Rutsly & Co. Ins. Services. Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ll!|.

InlernelDortrwav, v. Parks Inc.
( S D M S 2 0 0 1 )1 3 8F . S u p p . 2 d 7 7 3 Knowlron v. AllierJ VanLines, Inc. ( 8 ' r ' c i r 1 9 9 09 0 0F 2 d1 1 9 6 . . . ) Lake v. Lake ) 1 9 ' c i r . 1 9 8 7 8 1 7F . 2 d1 4 1 6 . . h Mullon v. trlult Disnt'.vtr(orld('o. ( D . C o n nI.9 9 8 )4 2 F . S u p p . 21 4 3 d McGeev. International Life Insurance('o. ( l 9 5 7 )3 5 5t l . S .2 2 0 . .. Mitrano v. Ilawes ( 4 l C i r .2 0 0 4 ) 7 7F . 3 d4 0 2 . . . 3 Nowak v. \'ak IJou,Investments, Ltd. ( l s t C i r .1 9 9 69 4 F . 3 d 0 8 . . . ) 7 0'Brienv. )kemo Mountain,Inc. ( D . C o n n1 9 9 8 1 7F . S u p p . 2 d . . . ) 98 Ochoa v. ,1.8.Marlin & SonsFarm.s, Inc. ( 9 t t ' C i 2.0 0 2 ) 2 8 F . 3 d1 1 8 2 . . r 7 Orc'hidBiostiences, Inc. v. St.Louis LJniver,si0, . . . . 89 ,

.........18

..........4

I(n l , ll t! l3 14 15 t6 17 l8 l9 20 ^il )

. . . . .. . . . . . 1 3

. . .. . .. . 8 .I 5

..........10

.......13

..........13

.........17

(SDCA200198F.R.D.670... ) Perkins Benquet v. MiningCo.

............19

22

23
)A -r

o g s z3 4 2 . s .4 3 7 . . . ) u
Radiganv. InnisbrookResort& Gol-fClub 3 . Q \ . J . S u p . C t . A p p . D1v .7 7 ) 75 A . 2 d 1 2 2 9. i9

.........4
.....14

25

26 ur
1'7 ,)<

2g

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 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 26 of 27

, ' 2 3
4 '

('us.A.:.surunt'e ('orn. Rcliunc'c l{at'l Indcn.('o. v. Pinnut'le (M.D .A l a .2 0 0 1 ) 6 0 1 F.Supp 1327 .2d . Roonq,v. WaltDisnq,WorldCo. 20 ) WL 22937728. 1 D .Ma ss. 0 3 2 0 0 3
.\chlus,telv. Schlu.ssel

. . ... ...1 0

.....I 3

5 6 7 $ 9 rt,.., I , 1l t'' l3 14 IJ 16 17 ltl l9

( 1 9 8 3 l)4 l C " l . A p p . 31 g 4 . . . d Sigrosv. Walt Disnev World Co. ( D . M a s s . 2 0 01 2 9F . S u p p . 2 d 5 6 . 1) Snownqt v. Harruh's Enlertainment, Inc. p . 3 d2 8 . 2 9C a l . R p r r . 3 d ( J u n e . 2 0 0 5 ) . 3 5 C a l . 4 '1 0 5 4 l l 2 h , 33 6 'l-ulro v. Munor ('ura, lnc'. ( M a s s 1 9 9 4 6 2 5N . E . 2 d5 4 9 . . . . )

.............8

..........13

.13,14

......14

Ilniled Stute,;SC(' v. Caryilkt ( l l t r , C i r1 9 9 7 ) 1 1 5 F . 3 d 1 5 4 0 . . . VerizonOnline Services, Inc. v. Rulslqt ( l r D V A 2 0 0 2 ) 0 3F . S u p p . 26 0 1 2 d WNS.Inc. v. Furron ( s . ' C t t .l % r ) 8 8 4F . 2 d 0 0 . . . 1 World-Wide Volk.swugen Corp. v. Woodson ( I 9 8 0 )4 4 4U . 5 . 2 8 6 . . . Statutes

.....12

..............9

........6

. .. . .. . . . 1 I

2 0 4 7u . S . C . 2 2 7 ( b x l X a X i i i ) . $
1 1

.............s
......3

C a lC o d e i v . r oS 4 1 0 . 0 1 0 . . . . . . . C P . Other Authority

22 Release Number 95-310 theFederal of Communications Commission, ) C C D o c k e t N o . 9 2 - 90 , C CR c d1 2 3 9 ( 1 9 9 5 p.a r s . 3 4 - 3 5 l 0F 1 Schwarzer, al. Cal.Prac.Guide.FederalCivil Procedure et BefbreTrial ( T h e u r t eG r o u p 0 0 5 ) , 3 : 2 0 8 . 9 0 . R r 2 26 CASE 07CV 21 32 M S AJ B) NO. D (

:^ 25 26 27 2g

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

..........8

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

Document 53

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 27 of 27

I 2

()iv Pro. Befbre Trial Schwarzer, ul.,Cal. Prac. Guide; F'etJ. el

(T R G2 0 0 5 ). :1 6 -3 :157 3 5 .
I 37 Cong.Rec. 16,205 (dailyed.Nov. 7, S

...1 I

J

4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 il 12
1 a I J

14 l5

r6
t7 18 19 20 2l 22
/.J .\A

/-+

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