Free Motion to Strike - District Court of California - California

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

Document 52

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 1 of 7

, | 2 , 4

ChadAustin, Esq.SBN235457 4632BerwickDrive SanDieso. CA92117 (619)gg2-7100 Telephoie: Facsimile: (619) 295-1401 Attorney Plaintifl', fbr JAMESM. KINDER,anindividual

6 l 8 9 l0 II 12 .TAMES KINDER. M. plainriff. C a s e o . 0 7 C I V2 1 3 2I ) M S ( A . l B ) N with 07CV2226 DMS (AJB)] [Consolidaled .ludge: IIon. I)anaM. Sabraw Mag.Judge: Hon.Anthony.l.Battaglia v' OBJE,CTIONS AND MOTIONS TO S T R I K E E V I D E , N C ES U B M I T T E D BY DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORTOF T H E , I RM O T I O N T O D I S M I S S Datc: April 25, 2008 Time: l:30p.m. Clourtroom: l0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

t3
14 ,) I. I I A R R A I I ' S I I N T E R T ' A I N M I I N Tn c . ; I, HARRAII's oPERATING coMpANy, I n c . ;I I A I { R A Il ' S M A R K I I T I N G ro SERVTcESoRPoRATIoN; HARRAH's c L I C E N S I jC O M P A N Y ,[ . 1 . C I I A R R A I I ' S ; 1I ' 1 L A U G H L I N ,I n c . ;H B R R H A L T Y , o COMPANY. Inc.and DOES I through100. Io inclusivel9 Defendants.

20
2t 22 23 TO THE COURT,ALL PARTIESAND THEIR ATTORNEYSOF RECORD:Plaintiff JAMES M. KINDER herebvsubmitsthe followins obiections molionsto strikeevidence and submitted Defendants by HARRAH'S LICENSE COMPANY, LLC, HARRAH'S LAUGIILIN, Inc. and HBR REALTY COMPANY, Inc. in supportof their Motion to Dismiss.

24 25 26 27 28

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 52

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 2 of 7

, 2 3 + 5 6 .t 8 9 10 11 12 l3 14 l5

l.

Declaration Of Michael Kostrinsky. Paragraph 2: Paragraph of the Declaration Michael Kostrinskystates: 2 of " speciully Appearing DefendantHarrah's Entertainment, Inc. is a Delawarc corporation, headquartered Las Vegas,Nevada. It doesno1havcofllccs in in California;doesnot own propertyin California;doesnot haveemployees in Califbrnia;and, doesnot conductbusiness Califbrnia. SpeciallyAppearinS1 in Defendant Harrah'sEntertainment, doesnot maketelemarketing other Inc. or telephone callsto individualsin Californiausingan automatic tclcphone dialing system. artificialor prerecorded voicc. or otherwise." Grounds For Obiection: Eachand everyfactualstatement this paragraph in lackslbundationand therefbre this

paragraph shouldbe strickenin its entirety. AlthoughMr. Kostrinskyclaimsin Paragraph of I his Declaration be the "Chief LitigationOfficer for Ilarrah's Operating to Company,Inc.," he doesnot sayhow this fact alonegiveshim any perrcnulknowledge o1'their.rner-workings. propertyholdings, employment records, e1c., eachand everyenlity Plaintill-has of namedas a Def'endant. Moreover, citesto no specificfactsor documents he whatsoever, suchas corporate charterdocuments, phonerecords, Secretary Statefilings. employment of records, contracts with telemarketing firms, or any type of documentary evidence all, from which he allegedly at draws

r6
17 Itt l9 20
11

22 any of this knowledge.Therefore, entireparagraph without foundation this is and conclusory.
1A

25 26 2 2g

lnc. doesnot make Moreover,Mr. Kostrinsky's statement that "Harrah's Entertainment, telemarketingor other telephone calls to individuals in California using an aulomatictelephone 7 ) 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 52

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 3 of 7

, | 2 3 4 ' 5 o 7 8 t l0 1l 12 l3 14 15 l6

dialing system, artificialor prerecorded voice,or otherwise" lbold added]is a legalconclusion " ' and shouldalso be stricken. Finally, given that Mr. Kostrinsky saysthat no one from any of the Harrah'sentities haseverso much as pickedup a handsetand calleda Californiatelephone number, which is entirely ridiculous, credibility highlyquestionable. addition the fact his is In to that this statement so obviouslynot true,it makesno practicalscnse.FIowcould one person is know thc day to dayjob dutiesof everypersonworking fbr thc sundryFlarrah's entities, Possibly which employthousands people? Even if Mr. Kostrinskydoespossess of suchomniscience, he hasnot told the court how he acquired any of this knowledge.All that Plaintiff and the court have1ogo by in evaluating declaration that Mr. Kostrinskyis alawyer.frtrthe Def'endunt, the is whose.iob necessarily depends gettingDe1'endant o1'legaljams, on out suchas the instant acticln. 2. Declaration Michael Kostrinsky.Parasraph3: Of Paragraph of the Declaration Michael Kostrinskystates: 2 of "Harrah'sOperating Company. Inc. is a I)elaware corporation and is not headquartered California. It doesnot haveofficesin California;doesnot own in

t7
lg 19 20 21 22 .a 24 25 26 2 2g headquartered California;It doesnot haveofficesin California;doesnot own in propertyin California;doesnot haveemployees Calilbrnia;and.doesnot in conductbusiness California. Harrah'sLaughlin,Inc. is a foreigncorporation in in and is not headouarlered California. lt doesnot have offices in California: does 7 3 C A S E O . 0 7 C V 2 1 3 2 M S( A J B ) N D propertyin California;doesnot haveemployees Califbrnia;and;doesnot in conductbusiness Califbrnia;llarrah's MarketingServices in Corporation a is foreign;is not headquartered Calilbrnia;and doesnot own propertyin in California; Harrah'sLicenseCompany, l,LC is a fbreigncompanyand is not

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

Document 52

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 4 of 7

I 2
a -)

not own propertyin California;doesnot haveemployees California;and,does in not conductbusiness California. And, HBR RealtyCompany,Inc. is a foreign in corporationand is not headquartered California. It doesnot have offices in in California;doesnot own propertyin California;doesnot havc employees in California; and.doesnot conduct busincss Calilbrnia." in Grounds For Obiection: Each and everyfactual statement this paragraph in lacks fbundationand therefbrethis paragraph shouldbe strickenin its entirety. AlthoughMr. Kostrinsky claimsin Paragraph of I his Declaration be the "Chief LitigationOfficer for Harrah'sOpcrating to flompany,Inc.." hc doesnot sayhow this factalonegivcshim any personulknowledgc o1'thc inncr-workings. propertyholdings, employment records, etc..of eachand everyentity Plaintill-has namedas a

4 5 6 l 8 9 l0 11 12
1 a l-)

1 4 I)efbndant.Moreover, citesto no specitlcfactsor documents he whatsoever, suchas corporate 1 5 charterdocuments, Secretary Statefilings, employment of records, phonerecords. contracts with l6 telemarketing firms. or any type of documentary evidence all. from which he allegedly at draws

t7
l8 19 20 As discussed above,giventhat Mr. Kostrinskysaysin Paragraph of his Dcclaration 2 thal any of this knowledge.Therelbre. this entireparagraph without lbundationand conclusory. is

2 1 no one from any of the Harrah'sentitieshas ever so much as picked up a hand set and calleda 22
Californiatelephone number,which is entirelyridiculous. credibilityis highly questionable. his
/, -)

24

In addition to the fact that this statement so obviously not true, it makesno practicalsense. is

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

2 6 sundryHarrah'sentities, which employthousands people?Even if Mr. Kostrinskydoes of 27 28
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 52

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 5 of 7

1 2
-) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll

possess suchomniscience, hasnot told the courthow he acquired he any of this knowledge.All that Plaintiff and the court have to go by in evaluatingthe declaration that Mr. Kostrinsky is a is lawyer.forthe Defendanl, whoseiob necessarily depends gettingDefendant of legaljams. on out suchas thc instant action.

Moreover,Harrah'sMarketingServices Corporation Ilarrah's Operating and Company, Inc. havedesignated agents service process file with the CaliforniaSecretary State. fbr of on of They have consenled suit in the Stateof California and are thereforesub"iect gencral b Io jurisdiction here. 3. Exhibit 2: Dcf-cndant attached Exhibit 2 a list purportedly has as crealed the JudicialCouncilof by

t2
l-t

1 4 Californiaand purportedly provingthat Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. 15 16
Grounds for Obiection:

17 18
Thesedocuments shouldbe strickenbecause they arehearsay. irrelcvant, lackingin

as 1 9 foundationand have not beenauthenticated.Furthermore, the "fircts" thereinare not properly

2 0 subjectto judicial notice,nor hasany request judicial noticeof thesedocuments for beenmade 2l 22
existence a document a court file may beiudicially noticed. truth of maltersasserted in of in the
./.-)

by Defendant, thesedocuments not goodevidence are and shouldbe stricken. While the

24

1548. v. suchdocuments not subject judicial notice. Sosinslq, Grant. (1992)6 Cal.App.4'h is to

just they are part 2 5 "A court cannol takejudicial notice of the truth of hearsaystatements because

26 of a court recordor fiIe." Bach v. McNelis(1989)207 Cal.App.3d in 852, 865 lEmphasis 2l 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 52

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 6 of 7

, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 l1 12 l3

original.]. The courtmay takejudicial noticeof the existence othercourt 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. -

E x h i b i t3 : Defbndant attached Exhibit 3 a copy of a declaration has as allegedlysubmitted by

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

Grounds for Obiection: 'l'his documcnlshouldbe strickenbecause is hcarsay, it irrclcvant,lackingin foundation

and hasnot bccnauthenticatcd. Irurthermore, the "l-acts" as thcreinare not properlysub-iect to

14 judicial notice,nor hasany request judicial noticeof thesedocuments for beenmadeby
1 <

tr

Defendant, thesedocuments not good evidence are and shouldbe stricken. While the existence of a document a courtfile may bejudicially noticed, truth of matters in the in asserted such documents not subject judicial notice. So.sinslqtGrunt. (1992)6 Clal.App.4'r' is to v. 1548. "A courtcunnotLakejudicial noticeof the truth of hcarsuystatements.just becausc they arepart o1'a court recordor fi1e." Bachv. McNelis(1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 852, 865 [rmphasisin original.]. The court may takejudicial noticeof the existence othercourtrecords of and files, but cannot acceptfindingsof fact contained thosefiles as true.SecThe RutterGroup.Civil Procedure in

l6 17 l8 l9 20
)1
aa

23 B e f o r e r i a l Q7 : 1 2 - 7I:5 .I 0 . T
:a

25 lll

26 ur
21 28 6 C A S E N O TC V2 1 3 2 M S A J B ) D ( 0

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

Document 52

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 7 of 7

.l I

5.

Exhibit 4: Defendanthas attached Exhibit 4 a documentpurportedlyreflectingthe San Diego as

z

3
+
A

SuperiorCourt docketinJamesM. Kinder v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.37-2007-00076114CU-MC-CTL.

5 6 7 8 9 10 ll Grounds for Obiection: This document shouldbe strickenbecause is hearsay, it irrelevant, lackingin fbundation and has not beenauthenticated. Furtherrnore, the "facts" thereinare not properly subiectto as foriudicial noticeof thescdocumenls beenmadeby iudicial notice.nor hasany request Del-endant. thesedocuments not good evidence are and shouldbe slrickcn. While the exislence of adocument acoutl file may bejudiciallynoticed, trutho1'matters in the asserted such in

t2
1 a l-)

t 4 documents not subject iudicialnotice.Sosinsky Grunt.(1992)6 Cal.App.4'r' is to v. 1548. "A l5 t6 t7 t8
court cannot take.iudicialnotice of the truth of hearsaystatementsiust because they are part of a courtrecordor fi|e." Bachv. McNeli,; (1989)207 Cal.App.3d 852,865flrmphasis original.l. in The court may takeiudicialnoticeof the existence othercourl records of and files,but cannot

in 1 9 acceptfindingsof fact contained thosefiles as true.SeeT'heRutterGroup.Civil Procedure

2 0 B e f o r e r i a l$ 7 : 1 2 - 7 : 1 5 . 1 0 . T 2l 22 By:/s/ ChadAustin
z)

D A T E D : A p r i l 1 1 ,2 0 0 8

24 25 26 27 28

CHAD AUSTIN, Iisq.,Attorneyfor Plaintiff. JAMES M. KINDER Email: chadaustin@)cox.net

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