Document 51
Filed 04/11/2008
Page 1 of 25
1
z
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 il
Chad Austin, Esq. SBN235457 4632Berwick Drive SanDiego, CA92117 (619)992-7 Telephone: 100 I;acsimile: (619)295-1 401 Attorney Plaintiff, fbr JAMESM. KINDER. an individual
UNITED STATESDISTRICTCOURT SOUTHERN DISTRICTOF CALIFORNIA
JAMES M. KINDER. Plaintift.
t2
'l . l-)
C a s e o . 0 7 C V 2 1 3 2D M S ( A J B ) N with IConsolidated 07(.V2226DMS (A.lB)l Judge : llon. DanaM. Sabraw Mag. .ludge: Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia 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 I)ate: April 25. 2008 l'imc: l:30p.m. Courtroom: l0
I A
t+
I IARRAII'S ENTERTAINMENT,Inc.; l 5 HARRAH'S OPERATINGCOMPANY. Inc.;IIARRAI I,S MARKETING l 6 SERVICBS CORPORAI.ION: HARRAH,S I , I C E N S E O M P A N Y ,I , I , C ;I I A R R A II ' S C 1 7 LAUGHLIN. Inc.;HBR REALTY COMPANY, Inc.andDOES I through100, l 8 inclusive" l9 20 2l Defendants.
I. INTRODUCTION
T'OTHE COURT, ALL PARTIESAND THEIR A'TTORNEYSOF'RECORD:PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Plaintiff JAMES M. KINDER herebyopposes Defendants HARRAH'S LICENSE COMPANY, LLC, HARRAH'S LAUGHLIN. Inc. and HBR REAI-TY COMPANY.
22
^2, -) 1A -T
25 26 27 28
C A S E O .0 7C V 2 r 3 2D M S( A J B ) N Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss.for the reasons forth below. set
Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB
Document 51
Filed 04/11/2008
Page 2 of 25
I
z
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. Def-endants incorrectlyassertthat this action was commenced violation of a pre-filing in orderthat requiredPlaintiffto obtainleaveof the Presiding Judgeof the San Diego Superior Court prior to commencing new civil actionin saidcourt. The pre-filingorderto which a Defendants referdid not apply as Plaintiffcommenced actionwhilc represented counsel. this by Defendants havenot offeredthis orderinto evidence.
3 4 5 6 l 8 9 1n 1l
Attachedheretoand incorporated hereinby refbrence Exhibit A, a ruling from now is
1 2 federalDistrictJudgeJanisSammartino. which shefoundthat Plaintiff's in aclionin Kintler v.
1 a I J
Adecco,SanDiego Superior Court CaseNo. GIC882000. was not commenoed violationof the in
t4 l5 16 17 l8 l9
an alfegedviolation of a Stutecourt pre-filing order has any legal effect in afederal court. The Court notedwhen it deniedDefendantHARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT,Inc.'s previous Motion to Dismissin this casethat Harrah's had not provided any authority that pre-filingorderin that hc was represented counsel. by
20 21
Defendantsagain offer no authority that Plaintiff s allegedviolation of a pre-filing order in
providedany 22 State court has any legal effect in this federal action. Nor haveDe1-endants
/)
authority standingfor the propositionthat a federalplaintiff s previouslitigation history in State court has any legal elfect on a subsequent federallitigation, which was removed.fiomStatecourt.
25 26 27 28
C A S E O .0 7C V 2 1 3 2 M S( A J B ) N D Defendants also offer no authoritywhich saysthat a federalplaintiff s previous Statecourt
Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB
Document 51
Filed 04/11/2008
Page 3 of 25
,,
t
litigation can be a properbasisfor a federaljudge to find that the federalplaintiff is a vexatious fitig*t in federalcourt,when that plaintiff has fied noneof his cases issuein federalcourt. at Ho* can Defendants good faith complainin this courtaboutan internalSanDiego Superior in Court issuewhen Ilarrah'svoluntarilytook this caseout of the handso1-the SanDicgo Superior Court? Harrah'swaivedthe righl to litigateany of the Statccourt issucs raisedin the instant motion when it removed this caseto federalcourt. Even if Defendants not waivedthese had Statecourt issues. until they establish that theseissueshaveany legalefl'ectin this fbderalcourt, uny and all evidence they offer to supporttheir positionregarding theseStatecourt issues is irrelevant, frivolous,improperand solelycalculated pre.iudice court. to thc B. DEFENDANTS' REPEATED TORTIOUS ACTIVITY WITHIN THE STATE OF SUBJECTSTHEM TO THE GENERAL AND SPECIFIC JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT. l. Auth
2 3 4 ' 5 6 , 8 9 l0 l1 12 13 14
t )
l6 1l
lI o a
19 20 ^1 l l 22 li one.and the Court considers only whetherthe exercise ofjurisdictionover the defendant comports with due process.GlencoreGrain Rotterdum B.V. v. Shivnuth Rui Harnuruin Co.,284 I - ' . 3 d l 1 4 ,l l 2 3 1 9 ' h i r . 2 0 0 l ) . l c
24 ur
25 ilt 26 2 2g 7 ? CASE 07CV21 32 M S AJ B) NO. D (
Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB
Document 51
Filed 04/11/2008
Page 4 of 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 , 8
q '
Dependingon the defendant's contactwith Califomia, the Court may exerciseeither generalor specificjurisdiction. A nonresident defendant may be may be subjectto general jurisdictiononly if its contacts the forum stateare "substantial...continuous systematic." in and Pcrkinsv. BensuetMining Co., 342 U.S. 437 445-446 (1952). If not subjcclto general , jurisdiclion in that state. a may nonetheless subjeclto specific iurisdictionin a state. defendant be 'fhe court applies three-part when assessing jurisdiction: a test specific (1) The nonresident defendant must purposefully directhis activitiesor consummate sometransaction with the forum or resident thereol.or performsomeact by which he purposefully availshimselfof the privilcgeof conducting activitiesin thc forum, thereby invokingthe benefits and protections its laws; of (2) the claim must be one which arises of or relates the def-endant's out to fbrum-related activities; and (3) the exercise justice,i.e.,it ol.jurisdiction must comportwith f air play and substantial ntustbe reasonable. Lake v. Lake,8l7 F.2d 1416,1421 Cir. 1987); lJuncro.fi Mastars, & Inc..223Ir3dat 1086 19tt' If the of burden shilisto 19'r'Cir.2000). the plaintiffsatisfies first 1woprongs the abovetes1,1he the defendant "present compelling"casedemonstrating the exercise to a that of.iurisdiction would be unreasonable. (citing Burser King Corp. v. Rudzev,icz. U.S. 462, 476-78 Id. 471
l0 11 12 I3 14 1. t \ 16 17 18 l9
( 1e 8 s ) .
2. Plaintiff Need Only Allege a Valid Jurisdiction Theory and Make Out a Primu Fucie CaseRegardingJurisdiction to Defeat Defendants'Motion. Defendants' Motion to Dismissapparently testsPlaintiff s jurisdictionaltheory-that Defendants madeprerecorded telemarketing callsto Californiaresident(s).
20
1r 22
., ^ +
25 lll
26 ut
21 2g 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 51
Filed 04/11/2008
Page 5 of 25
1 2
a J
a.
The Court DoesNot Review the Evidenceto Determine the Validity of Plaintiffs Theory of Jurisdiction and Plaintiffs Theory, Basedon Defendants'Unlawful Telemarketingto California Residents, Valid. is
In evaluatingPlaintiff s jurisdictional theory,the Court needonly determinewhetherthe facts alleged,if true, are sufficientto establish jurisdiction. Credit L),onnaissecuritias (USA), Inc. v. Alcantra183t".3d151.153(2"dCir. 1999).Plaintiffs theoryof.jurisdiction, is clearly as set forth in the Complaint.is that Defbndants knowinglymadeprerecorded telemarketing callsto Plaintiff s local SanDiegowireless numberassigned a pagingservice. to b. Defendantsare Liable Basedon Their Unlawful, PrerecordedTelemarketing to a California Resident.
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l1
It is unlawful for any personor entity to disseminate prerecorded a nlessage any to
1 2 numberassigned a pagingservice, to without the calledparty'sexpres!;permission. [J.S.C.$ 47 l3 t4 l5 l6
ultimate responsibility anyviolations. for SccRelease Number95-310of the Fcderal Communications Commission, DocketNo. 92-90,l0 FCC Rcd 12391 CC (1995), pars.34-35. 227 (b)(l XA)(iii). lJnderthe TCPA, the partyon whosebehalfa solicitation madebears is
t 7 Calls placedby an agentare treatedas if the lelemarketer itself placedthe call. Id. Basedon this 1 8 authority.Defendants areresponsible the legalviolationsof their prerecorded for telemarketing 19
calls to Plaintiff. Because Defendants reached to many (but an as of yet unknown number)of out
20 2l
California'sresidents, jurisdictionover includingPlaintiff,Califomiahasgeneral and specific
22 Defendants.
aa L)
c.
24 25
Plaintiff Need Only Make a Prima Facie Showing of Facts to Defeat the Motion to Dismissto the Extent That it ContestsPlaintiff s Alleged Facts.
To the extentthat the instantmotion challenges Plaintiff-sallegedfacts,Plaintiffneed
26 only makea prima Jacieshowingof factsestablishing basisfor personal jurisdictionover a 27 28
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 51
Filed 04/11/2008
Page 6 of 25
i 2
J
a
defendants defeatil. Haryis Rutsky& Co. Ins. Services, to Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd. 328 F.3d 1722, ll29 (9"' Cir. 2003). In decidingwhetherPlaintiff hasmadea prima.facie case,the Court must acceptuncontroverted allegations the Complaint and resolvefactual conflicts in the in parties'declarations Plaintiff s favor. II/NS, in Inc. v. Farron,884 F.2d 200.204 (5thCir. 1989).
4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12
I J
Of course, wherethejurisdictionalfactsare"intertwinedwith the meritso1'the action," determination thejurisdictionalissuemay determine meritsof the action. Data Discoveryt, of the Inc. v. S)tstem,g Technologl Associates, Inc.. 557r^.2d.1285-1286. 2 (9'r'Cir. 1977). In sucha fh. case,it is preferable that this determination madeat trial where a plaintiff may presenthis be casein a coherent, orderlyfashion, and without the risk of prc.judicing cascon thc mcrits. /r/. his
14 l5 16 17 18
For the many reasons fbrth in this Memorandum,Plaintill-makesa prima Jacie set showingof factsestablishing basisfor jurisdictionover Defendants. the very least, a At thereis a factualconflict as to Plaintifl-sand Defendants' evidence. this conf-lict decided and is in Plaintiff s f-avor.Regardless, jurisdictionalf-acts so intertwincdwith thc mcritsthat thc the arc
jurisdictionalissueuntil trial, a/ier I'lainti//'hushud determination o1-the t 9 Court shouldpostpone
20 the bene/itoJproper cliscovery, where Plaintilf will prove that Defendants actively and 2l 22
includingPlaintiff.
z-)
knowingly disseminated unlawful prerecorded telemarketing messages California residents, to
'+
3.
Because Plaintiff s 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 27 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 51
Filed 04/11/2008
Page 7 of 25
, , 3 4 5 6 .t 8 I l0 11 12
1 f
Defendants purposefullydirectedtowardsPlaintiff in California, so this Courl's exerciseof is and O.rronaljurisdiction over Defendants reasonable it comportswith "f'air play and substantialjustice." a. Defendants'ContactsResultedFrom Their Own Actions That Creatcd a "Substantial Connection" BetweenDefendantsand California and Thereby Enabled California to ExercisePersonalJurisdiction Over Defendants. i. Acts Committed Outside California "Causins Effect" llithin Cslifornia Suffice to Establish "Purposeful Direction."
,^ If a nonresident. actingoutsidethe state. intentionally causes injuricswithin thc statc. then he mllst "reasonably anticipate" beinghaledinto court in thc lbrum stale ('aldcr v. ,Jones . ( 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 liability-producing acts have foreseeable consequences the forum state.Ilurger King in ( ' o r p .v . R u d : e w i c ( 1 9 8 5 ) 7 1 U . S .4 6 2 , 4 7 9 - 4 8 01 0 5S . C r . 2 1 7 4 , 2 1 8 6 . z 4 ,
rJ
t4 15 16 ll 18
lo ''
ln ('ald9ry.-,!9a9;supra,the intentional and allegedly tortiousactionso1'Florida residents who wrote and published defamatory a articlein lrloridalbr publicationin a national magazine were expressly aimedat Califbrnia, because article targeteda Califbrnia resident. the Similarly.here,Plaintiff showsthat Defendants' unlawfultelemarketing callswere directed a at (thedissemination a prerecorded SanDiego resident of telemarketing is an intentional call act).
20 2l 22 23 24
?<
As in the Caldercase, wherea writer was deemed havedirected actionsat Califomia to his notwithstanding fact that therewas no showingthat he actuallydistributedthe magazine, the Defendants deemedto havepersonallydirectedtheir actionsat California. Although are Defendants allegethey had no involvementwith the scheme disseminate prerecorded to
26 27 2g telemarketingcalls, Plaintiff has certainlymadeout aprima.facie showingthat Defendants are 1 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 51
Filed 04/11/2008
Page 8 of 25
1 l
not forthrightin this regard.
-
2 3
4 ' 5 6 7 8 9 l0 il
1nSchlussel Schlussel, courtheldthatobscene v. phone the callsfrom New York to
Californiasubjected callerto California's jurisdiction.Schlussel Schlus,sel, the (1983) 141 v. Cal.App.3d 194,198-199. Analogously the Schlussel to case, Defendants' out-of-state conduct (or in-state conduct, depending uponwhat is revealed discovery), in whetherit was actually disseminating prerecorded the telemarketing calls or hiring a third party to do same,subjects Defendants jurisdictionin California. to ii. Even A Sinsle Tortious Act Mav Create Jurisdiction.
rl
13 14 IJ 16 17 18 l9 20 21 22
aa
Even a singleact may supportlimited personaljurisdiction over a nonresidenr. McGeev. Inlernutirtnul Insurance Life Co..(1957) 355 U.S.220,18S.Ct.199.lror cxamplc, single a unlawful prerecorded telemarketing to a fbrum stateresident call may supportthc exercise of specific.iurisdiction the nonresident over telemarkeler. SeeSchwarzer. al. Cal. Prac. Guide: et Federal Civil ProcedureBefore Trial (The Rutter Group 2005). 3:208.90citing Internct Doorway,Inc. v. Parks(SD MS 2001) 138F.Supp.2d773,774 (emailmessages alwaysthe are resultof active,purposcful communications, a singletortiousernailnlessage a fbrum state so 1o jurisdiction). resident may supportthe exercise specific of
In this case. however, was not one tortiousact. Rather. it Defendants madea minimum of
24
7 illegal,prerecorded telemarketing to Plaintiffs number calls assigned a paging to service. ,\'cc
Austin, 3. 25 Dec.of Chad fl 26 2 28 7 8 CASE 07CV 21 32 M S AJ B) NO. D (
Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB
Document 51
Filed 04/11/2008
Page 9 of 25
I
iii.
Out-of-State Electronic Transmissions Mav Be a Bssis for Jurisdiction.
jurisdictionmay be based electronic Personal on transmissions intentionally directed to
J
residentsof the forum stateand causingharm in the forum state.,S'ee Cody v. Ward, (D Ct 1997) 954 F.Supp.43.47 (fraudulent representations email and telephone forum resident). via to The electronic transmission solicitations commonplace the courlsare recognizing of is and that such jurisdictionin the forum whereinjury resultsliom the receipt solicitations subjectthesenderto of thosesolicitations. Internet Doorwa),, Inc. v. Parks,(S.D.Miss.2001) 138F.Supp.2d 773, 779; VerizonOnlineServices, v. Ralsbt,(ED VA 2002)203 F.Supp.2d Inc. 601, 610 (nonresident's sending millions of unsolicited email advertisements throughplaintifls Internet serverin fbrum stateconstituted trespass chaltels, to sub.jecting sender local.lurisdiction). "lly to sending email solicitation the far reaches the earthIbr pecuniary an to of gain,onc doesso at his
+
A
5 6 7 8 9 10
l l
12 l3
1 4 own peril, and cannotthenclaim that it is not reasonably fbreseeable he will bc haledinto that l5 l6 tl 18 19
An advertiser shouldnot be permitted takeadvantage modernlcchnology to of via jurisdictionto answerfor the ramifications that solicitation." court in a distant of lnternel Doorwav,Inc. v. Parks,(S.D.Miss.2001)138F.Supp.2d773.779.
20 electronic means engage a tortiousact with consequences Califbrniaand which harmsa to in in 2l 22
meansto carryout a long-distance tort. SeeEDIAS SoJiware Int'1,L.L.C. v. BASIS Int'l Ltd.,
/)
.\A -a
citizenin Califomia, and escape traditionalnotionsofjurisdiction because usedelectronic he
(D.Ariz.1996) F.Supp.413.Of course, dissemination an unlawfulprerecorded 947 the of
to 2 5 telemarketingcall from outsidethe forum is analogous the sendingof an email, or any other
2 6 electronic jurisdiction. transmission, from outside forum, and the sending the creates 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 51
Filed 04/11/2008
Page 10 of 25
I 2
ir.
Courts Will More Likelv Find Minimum Contocts Based on Commercisl Activitv,
Defendant's telemarketing donefbr commercial was gain,which furthermilitatesin favor
+
,
of finding that minimum contactsare satisfied.Reliancel,lat'l Indem. Co. v. Pinnacle Cas. Assurance Corp.,(M.D. Ala. 2001)160F.Supp.2d (holdingthat"E-mails, 1327.1333 like letters and phonecalls,can constitute minimum contacts, leastif the defendant his asentssendthe at or message pecuniary for gain ratherthan substantially personal purposes.").
5 6
7
8 b. 9 10 1I 12 lt l4 15 l6 17
1 0
Defendants Need Not Have Even Directed Their Own Activities at California to Create Jurisdiction. i. The Acts of Defendants' Third Partv Telemsrketer Suffice to Create Jurisdiction Even Without Defendants'Specific Direction.
A nonresident def'endant be subject specific.iurisdiction Californiabased may to in on local actsby an authorized agent. Mitrano v. Hawes,(4tr, Cir. 2004) 317 F.3d 402.407.
Defendants liablefor the damages are caused unlawfultclemarkeling by doneon their bchall evenif they did not personally conduclthe telemarketing, their aulhorized if agentdid. In otherwords,Plaintiff needonly show that Defendants hireda telemarketing firm who hadtheir authorityto sendthe unlawful messages were sentto Plaintiff. Plaintiff has established that that (or several Harrah'sentities a telemarketing firm actingon their behalf)sentprerecorded telemarketing messages Plaintiff promotingnumerous to Harrah'scasinos, includingl{arrah's LaughlinCasino(ownedby moving defendant HARRAH'S LAUGHLIN, Inc.) and Harrah's
Io
l9 20 2l 22 23
1A La Council BluffsCasino(owned movingdefendant by HBR REALTYCOMPANY,lnc.). See 25 Dec.of Chad Austin, !J3, 4, 5,I and andEx.'sB, C, D, F, G andH. 8 fl 26
27 2g
lo CASE 07CV21 32 M S AJ B) NO. D (
Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB
Document 51
Filed 04/11/2008
Page 11 of 25
I 2 3
A r
Notably, and perhaps dispositively,Defendants not claim that they did not hire an do independent third party telemarketer engage telemarketing the Stateof California. They to in in merelyclaim that neitherthey nor their employees did. However,as notedabove,the partyon whosebehalfunlawfultelemarketing doneultimatelybearsresponsibility damagcs is fbr flowing from the unlawfultelemarketins. " c. DefendantsAre Subject to Jurisdiction in California Simply Because They PlacedTheir Unlawful PrerecordedTelemarketingCalls in the Stream of Commerce.
5 6 7 8 9 l0 lt 12 l3 14
.t<
The requisite "substantial connection" personaliurisdiction for purposes will alsousually be found wherea nonresident manulacturer sellsgoodsor scrvices the forum statc,cvenif it in doesn'thavean office,plant or personnel locally,as long as it has"placedproclucls the stream in of interstate commerce with the expectation thcy will bc sold to consumcrs the forum that in state."World-Wide Volkswaqen Corp. v. Woodson (1980)444 U.S. 286,297-298,100 S.Ct.559. 567; seea1,co Schwarzer, al.. Cal. Prac. Guide; Fed. Civ. Pro. Ile/bre Triat (TRG 2005). et 3:156-3 . (a nonresident :157 engaging commercial in activities the forum state in may be subiect to.iurisdiction it purposefully if availeditself of the benefits and prolections statelaw, for of exampleby salessolicitation)."lt is only reasonablc companies distribute. . . products fbr that through regionaldistributorsin this country to anticipatebeing haled into court by plaintiffs in
'J
l6 17
Iu
19 20
)1
theirhomestates." Bqrone Brothers Interstate v. (8rn Displq)Fireworks Cir. 1gg4) F.3d610, 25 614.
22
1A
25
Indeed, an adequate if basis jurisdiction for exists, non-resident be haledinto court a may
26 anywhere the UnitedStates, in because generally courts conclude it wouldbe unfairto allow that
)'l
1l CASE 07CV2132 M S AJ B) NO. D (
2g
Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB
Document 51
Filed 04/11/2008
Page 12 of 25
, I
2 3 4 ' 5 6 j g 9 10 11 12 13 14
't<
jurisdiction him to remain subject personal to onlyin hishomestate. requiring those with claims
againsthim to go to that statein order to litigate suchclaims. SeeCoolsavings.com, Inc. v. IQ Commerce Corp.0,{D IL 1999)53 F.Supp.2d 1000,1003(nonresident websiteownermay be haledinto courtanywhere the lJnited States). in
Because Def-endants placedtheir unlawfulprerecorded telemarketing calls in the stream of commerce callinga SanDiego,Calilbrniatelephone by number,theyhavesubjected themselves suit in Californiafor any matters to relatinsto the dissemination their unlawful of telemarketing messages. d. A Hotel's Out of StateAdvertisementsSubject it to Spccific.furisdiction in the Statein Which it Advertises,Even if the Injury is Suffered in the State Where the Hotel and ForeignCorporationReside.
No more thanadvertisins calculated reachCaliforniais reouiredto constitute to purposeful availmentof the privileges doing business California. of in SeeLlnitedStates SEC v. C a r r i l l o , l l 5 F . 3 d1 5 4 0 , 5 4 5( 1 1 t r ' C i r1 9 9 7 ) .l n S n o w n e y vH a r r a h ' sE n l e r l a i n m e n t , c . 3 5 . 1 . In C a l . 4 ' n 0 5 4 ,1 1 2P . 3 d2 8 , 2 9C a l . R p r r . 33 3 ( j u n e6 , 2 0 0 5 ) , C a l i f o r n i ae s i d e nfti l e da c l a s s 1 d a r actionsuit in Los AngelesSuperior Court against variousNevadahotels,includingIlarrah's Entertainment, (Defendant lnc. herein), allegingcauses actionfor California'sunfair of competitionlaw, breachof contract,unjust enrichmentand false advertising. The Plaintiff, Mr. Snowney, alleged that the hotelhad failedto providenoticeof an energysurcharge imposed on
'J
16 17 18 19 20
)1
22
LO 25 26
hotel guests.The Los AngelesSuperior for a Courl granted motion to quashserviceof summons lack of personaljurisdiction. The Court of Appealreversed, which holdingwas alfirmedby the California SupremeCourt.
2
2g
7
n
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 51
Filed 04/11/2008
Page 13 of 25
The Califomia SupremeCourt noted.
2
J
4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 il 12 13 t4 l5 l6 l7 18 19
"By purposefully and successfully solicitingthe business Californiaresidents, of defendants could reasonably anticipate beingsubject litigationin Californiain to the eventtheir solicitations caused injury to a Californiaresident.(SceBurger an King, supra.47l U.S.at pp. 475-4j6.) Cases holdingthat claimsfor injuriessuffcred during a plaintilf s stayat a hotel or resortarenot related and do not arisefrom that hotel'sor resort'sadvertising to in thc forum stateare inapposite.[Citations footnoteomitted]. As an initial matter, in most,if not all, of thesecases not applythe substantial did connection test established Vons. In any event,evenif we agree in with the holdingsin these cases, in footnote omitted]thcyaredistinguishable. Unlikethe iniuries [Citations sufferedby the plaintiffs in thosecases, injury allegedlysufleredby plaintiff in the this caserelates directlyto the conlentof dcl'endants' advertising Calilbrnia. in As such,the connection plaintiff's claimsand defendants' between contacts far is closerthanthe connection between claimsand contacts the allegedin the cases citedabove. Indeed, somecourtsthat haverefused exercise.lurisdiclion to where a plaintiff suf-fered injury during a stayat a hotel or resorl acknowleclge an that theywould havereached differenlconclusion that plaintilf had allegedl-alse a if advertising liaud. (SeeSmith,supra,1997Wl.162156 at p. *6 Jsuggesting or that claimsof lalseadvertising fraudulent or misreprcsentation would meetthe relatedness requiremenl); Oberlies. supra.633N.W.2d at p. 417 ["A foreign corporation that advertises Michigancanreasonably in cxpectto be calledto def-end suitsin Michiganchargingunlawfuladvcrtising allcgingthat the or advertising, itself"directlyinjureda Michiganresident"].)Accordingly,we conclude that plaintiff hasmet the relatedness requirernent." ut 37-38. Id
The CaliforniaSupreme Court also stated a footnote in that "severalcourtshavereached
during a stayat a holel or resortare relaledto andrJo 20 the.. .conclusion-that inj uries suff'ered
2l 22
ZJ 1A -'+
arisefiom that hotel'sor resort'sadvertising the forum state. (See,e.g.,Nowakv. !'ak How in Investments, (1st Cir. 1996)94 F.3d 708,715-716 Mallonv. Iilalt Disney l4torldCo. Ltd. (D.Conn.1998)42 F.Supp.2d 143,147;O'Brienv. Okemo Mountain, Inc. (D.Conn.1998)17 F.Supp.2d 101l' 98, Rooney l4/alt v. Disney World Co. (D.Mass. 2003)2003 WL 22937728,p.*4;
25
.2d Food 26 Sigrosv. WaltDisney llorld Co. (D.Mass.2001) 129 F.Supp 56,67; Shoppers
27 28
13
C A S E N OO T V 2 I 3 2D M S( A J B ) . C
Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB
Document 51
Filed 04/11/2008
Page 14 of 25
, 2
Warehouse, supru,746A.2d at p. 336; Talro v. Manor Care,Inc. (Mass. 1994)625 N.E.2d 549, 553-554;Radiganv. Innisbrook Resort& Golf Club Q.,l.J.Sup.Ct.App.Div . 1977)375A.2d 1229,
3
4 5 6 , 8 9 l0 ll 12 l3 l4 IJ 16
lzzl)" Id.
It is thereforc well settledin the Stateof Californiathat a foreigncorporation hotel advertising Californiaresidents to subjects itself to specific.iurisdiction the Stateof Calilbrnia, in particularly the advertising unlawful. Because if is Plaintiff-sclaimsrelateto an illegal advertising method.unlawfulprerecorded telemarketing, directed Californiaresidents, at Defendants thc otherFlarrah's and entitiesareabsolutely subjcctto specific.iurisdiction thc in State California. of 4. This Litigation ArisesFrom Defendants' Contacts. Because litigalionis one to recoverdamages violationo1'1he this lbr TCPA related to unlawful prerecorded telemarketing callsmadeby def'endants Plaintifl'in violationof the to jurisdiction. TCPA, PlaintifT meetsthis prerequisite the establishment personal for of 5. DefendantsFail to Meet Their Burden of Showing That California's Exerciseof PersonalJurisdiction Over DefendantsIs Unreasonable. The burdenis on the nonresident provethat the forum's exercise to ofiurisdiction would
t7
ru Ie l9 20 2l 22 23
.A
not comportwith "fair play and substantialjustice." AmocoEgypt Oil ('o. t,. LeonisNavigution C o . ( 9 t C i r . 1 9 9 3 )1 F . 3 d8 4 8 ,8 5 1 . a. The Extent of Defendants'PurposefulInterjection.
-'t
"Where a defendant who purposefullyhas directedhis activitiesat forum residents seeks
25
26
'1t1
jurisdiction, mustpresent compelling to defeat he of other a case the presence some that
14
2g
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 51
Filed 04/11/2008
Page 15 of 25
I 2 3 4 ' ) o 7 8 9 l0 l1 12 l3 11 15 l6 17 18 t9 20
1 1
considerations would renderjurisdiction unreasonable." Burger King,47l U.S. at477. As set forth above,Defendants, eitherdirectly or through an agent,purposefullydirectedprerecorded telemarketinginto California. Defendants'purposefulinterjectionis particularlyoffensive, hecause electronically it trespassed onto Plaintiff s privateproperty. Senator Hollingscalled automated calls"telephone terrorism."I 37 Cong.Rec. I 6.205(daily ed. Nov. 7, lggl) S (statement Sen.Hollings)("lt is telephone of terrorism, and it hasgo1to stop.")Defendants' unilateral interjection into Californiais a form of electronic trespass Califbrniapropertyand on shouldbe addressed a Californiacourt. This factorweighsin favor ofjurisdiction. in b. The Burden on Defendantsin Defendingin the Forum.
In the contextof the "fbir play" analysis, tJ.S.Supreme the Clourt hasnoledthat "modern transportation communicalion and havemadeit much lessburdensome a pafty suedto defbnd fbr himself in a Statewherehe engages economic in activity." McGeev. InternationalLi_fb Insurance Co.,355 U.S. 220,223(1957). Progress communications transportation in and has madethe defense a suit in a foreigntribunallessburdensome. of Ilanson v. Dcnckla,357U.S. 2 3 5 , 2 5 0 - 2 5( 1 9 5 8 ) . 1
Further,Defendants must demonstrate that litigating this disputein California would be so "gravely difficult and inconvenient"that they would be at a severedisadvantage in comparison Plaintiff. Burger King 471U.S. at 4TT.Defendants to" havenot evenattempted to
22
/^ + " 25 26
do so. Defendants not arguethat Califbrnia litigation would be more inconvenientthan do litigation elsewhere.Defendants not suggest do that the burdenon them would be substantially different for them in California as opposedto Nevadaor Delaware. In the absence an of
27
2g
rs
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 51
Filed 04/11/2008
Page 16 of 25
I 2 3
4 '
expectedtrial of somelength,there seems be little difl'erence to whetherDef-endants retain counselin Califomia 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 stateof Nevada.
6 7 8 9 10 il 12 l3 14 l5 l6 d.
1 1 t t
Further,Plaintiff expectsto prove that Defendants and the other Harrah'sentitiesnamed u, def'endants madea lot of moneyfrom their illegalactivities and that the costof defending this lawsuitis a relativelysmallpercentage that profit. This factorwcighsin favor ofjurisdiction. of c. The E,xtentof Conflict With the Sovereigntyof the Defendantso State.
'l'elephone In this case,Plaintiffhasbroughta cause actionlbr violationo1-the of f'ederal Consumer Prolection Act. As this federallaw applies everywhere the United States, factor in this is irrelevant.This l-actor weishsin f-avor iurisdiction. of The Forum State'sInterestin Adjudicatingthe Dispute.
18 l9 20
11 L'
generally a "manifest A state has interest" providing residenls a convenient in its with lbrumfbr redressing injuries inflictcd out-of-state by actors. Burger King,471U.S.al473. WhentheTCPA'sprohibitions violated, injuryis visited are the upontherecipient thecallin of
Califomia, and Califomia hasan interestin protectingits citizensfrom suchharms in an efficient and meaningful manner.The effectiveness the TCPA, in particular, would be severely of
22
^. t/L 25 26 27 28
undercut defendants if could controlthe choiceof forum to the detriment their victims. of Virtually no TCPA cases would be prosecuted the defendants if werenot liable wherethey their causedtheir damage. Creativedefendants could safelyavoid responsibilityby secreting 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 51
Filed 04/11/2008
Page 17 of 25
1 I
2
operationsfar away from the locationsto which they are bombardingpersonswith illegal faxes
and phone calls. California has a strong interest in protecting its citizens from such machinations.
4
Therefore, both the State's and Plaintiff s interest in this fbrum is substantial.and the
5
f)
.
"interstate judicialsystem's interest" enforcing uniform in the federal is furthered finding law by
jurisdictionover a TCPA cause actionwherethe call to the consumer proper of was received. Defendant doesnot evenarguethat Californiahasno interest protecting citizensfrom its in its unlawful conduct. This factorweighsin f-avor ofjurisdiction. e. The Most Efficient Judicial Resolutionof the Controversv.
7 3 9 10
1t
12 13 14 t5 16 17
1o Ia
The most efficientjudicial resolution this controversy of would bc fbr Califbrniacourtsto try this matterratherthanhavingthe partiesgo throughthe routineof rc-filing in Delaware. f. The Importance of the Forum to Plaintiff s Interest in Convenientand Effective Relief.
For the samereasons the forum hasan interesl adjudicating dispute, hasan that in the it interest providingconvenient effectiverelief. For all of the abovereasons. exercise in and the of
personal.jurisdiction befair andreasonable would under circumstancesthiscase. the of 6. FewerMinimum Contacts Are Required WhenReasonableness Dictates. Personal may with showing minimum of iurisdiction beestablishcd a lesser contacts if
19 20 2l
of dictate. Ochou .l.l]. Marlin & Son,s v. (9rr' l|arxl!-_!l4!,, Cir. 22 considerations reasonableness 23 24 25
,o
2oo2)287F.3d l 182,I 188, 2. fn.
Plaintiffhasdemonstrated six of the seven that factors courts consider determinine in
1'7 C A S E o . 0 7C V 2 1 3 2 M S( A J B ) N D
27 2g
Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB
Document 51
Filed 04/11/2008
Page 18 of 25
, 2 3
A
"reasonableness" weigh in favor of California'sexercise ofjurisdiction. Seellurger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, U.S. 462,476-77(1985). So,although 471 purposeful Defendants' aiming of their unlawful telemarketing callsto a SanDiegotelephone numbersulficesfor the exercise of jurisdiction,evenan attenuated showingof "purposeful availment"would sufficegiven the reasonableness Californiaexerci of singj urisdiction.
'
6 .7 C' , 8 9 l0 II 12 13 14 ( s D c A 2 0 0 1 )1 9 8F . R . D . 7 0 .6 7 2 - 6 7 3 . 6
l )
IF PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO MAKE A SHOWING OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION. THN,COURT MAY POSTPONEITS RIJLING ON THE INSTANT MOTION TO ALLOW HIM TO CONDUCT JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY. If Plaintiff s evidence doesnot sufficeto convince Court that the instantMotion the
shouldbe denied, Plaintiff requests permission conductlimited discovery to ofjurisdictional facts. Wherethe motion to dismissis madeat the outsetof the case. court mav continue the the hearingin orderto permitsuchdiscovery.SeeOrchid Bioscienccs, v. St.Louis tlnivcrsi\t Inc.
l6 1l
1()
Plaintiff is entitledto this discovery makinga"primu.facieshowingof personal by jurisdiction." ()entralStates, Soulheust Southwest & AreasPensionFundv. ReimerExpress World Corp.,230 F-.3d 934,946 (7rr, Cir. 2000). In this case, the Courl is inclinedto grantthe if
ro
19 20 2l 22 23 )4 25 Motion to Dismiss,Plaintiff requests the Court ordera reasonablc periodof time for that jurisdictionaldiscovery be conducted.Alternatively, to Plaintiff requcsts lcaveto amendhis Complaint. ///
t// 26 27 28 18 CASE 07CV21 32 M S AJ B) NO. D (
Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB
Document 51
Filed 04/11/2008
Page 19 of 25
I
z
III. CONCLUSION Plaintiff hasmore than amply made out a prima.facie case that Defendants were involved
3 with the illegal telemarketingscheme. Plaintiff has offereduncontroverted evidencethat hc
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 l3
named"Harrah lr RinconCasino"). Finally,Del-endants off-ercd evidcncc havc no that they did not hire a third partytelemarketer engagc telemarkcting the Stateof Ualifbrnia. Given to in in by moving defendant HARRAH'S LAUGHLIN, Inc. and an unlawfulprcrecorded tclemarkcting call promotingFlanah'sCouncilBluffs Casino,ownedby moving defbndant IIBI{ RHALTY COMPANY, Inc. Moreover, Plaintiff hasprovideduncontroverted evidence that he received an unlawful prerecorded telemarketing promotingHarrah'sRinconCasinoand that one or more call Harrah'sentities operates Harrah'sRinconCasino(which is obvious,givcn that the casinois received unlawfulprerecorded an telemarketing promotingHarrah'sLaughlinCasino, call owned
t 4 that Plaintilf hasas of yet beendeniedany right to discovery, prima.f'acie his showingmore than 1 5 amply demonstrates factssufficientto call Defendants into California to answerfor their 16 17 l8 19
Defendants cannotcomplainthat thcy havebeensuedin Calilbrnia--they targeted their unlawful conduct.
2 0 illegal telemarketing scheme California, causedactionable at harmsto Califbrnia residents. and 2L 22
DATED: April 11, 2008
1, -)
areresponsible their own actions.Defendants' for Motion to Dismissmust therefore denied. be
24 25 26 2l 28 l9
By:/s/ ChadAustin CHAD AUSTIN,Esq., Attorney for Plaintiff. JAMESM. KINDER Email chadaustin(iicox.net :
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 51
Filed 04/11/2008
Page 20 of 25
I
,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
.
I.
INTRODUCTION. ARGUMENT... 4.
. . . . . . . .I. .............2
4lI. 5 6 1 8 I 10 1l 12
1 a I J 1 A IT
Plaintiff WasNot and is Not Subiect a Pre-FilingOrderin SanDiego to S u p e r i oC o u r ti f H e i s R e p r e s e n t e d C o u n s e l . . . . . r by
.......2
B.
Defendants'Repeated Tortious Activity Within the Stateof California Over the Course More Than ThreeYearsSubjects of Them to the Gcneral 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 L 2. A u t h o r i t y n J u r i s d i c t i o . .. o n ..........3
I'laintiff Necd Only Allege a Valid Jurisdiction l'l-reory and Makc Out a Prima f'acie CaseRegarding Jurisdiction Dcfcat to D e f - e n d a nM o t i o n . ts' . . . .. . . . . . . . 4 a. The Court DoesNot Reviewthe Evidence Determine to the Validity of Plaintiff s Theoryof .lurisdiction and Plaintiff s Theory,Basedon Defendants' [Jnlawful 'l'elemarketine to California Rcsidents. Valid. is
15 16 17 18 19 20 2l 22
a.
./.J
.......5
b.
Defbndants Liable Based Thcir Unlawful"I'rerccorded are on
c.
PlaintiffNeed Only Make a Primu F.acie Showingof Iiacts to Defeatthe Motion to Dismissto the ExtentThat it C o n t e s tP l a i n t i f fs A l l e e e d a c t s . s F .........5
3.
Because Plaintifl's ClaimsArise Out of Def'endants' Unlawful Telemarketing Within the Stateof California,CaliforniaHas J u r i s d i c t i oO v e rD e f e n d a n t s . n
........6
24 25 26 27
Defendants' Contacts Resulted From Their Own ActionsThat and Createda "SubstantialConnection"BetweenDefendants Californiato Exercise Californiaand l'herebyEnabled Defendants. ...........7 Personal Jurisdiction Over i. Acts CommittedOutsideCalifornia"Causing Effect" Within Califbrnia Suffice to Establish
20
N C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 I 3 2 D M S( A J B )
28
Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB
Document 51
Filed 04/11/2008
Page 21 of 25
"Purposefulirection D
L
........7
ll.
EvenA SingleTortious Act May Create Jurisdiction........8 Out-of-State Electronic Transmissions Mav Be a Basis forJurisdiction... ........ ...........9 CourtsWill More Likely Find Minimum Contacts B a s e d n C o m m e r c i a lc t i v i t y . . . . . o A .....10
J A
iii.
+
5 6 7 b.
iv.
'l'heir Def-endants NeedNot HaveIrvenDirected Own Activities California Create at to .Iurisdiction
...... . . . ..10
9 l0 1l 12
l-)
The Acts of Defendants' Third l)artyTelentarkcter Sufficeto Create Jurisdiction Even Without D e f e n d a n t s 'p e c i f i c i r e c t i o n . S D . . . . . . . .l 0 c. Defendants Subject .lurisdiction CalifbrniaSimply are to in Because They Placed Their Unlawful Prerecorded 'felemarketine C a l l i n t h eS t r e a m 1 ' C o m m e r c e . . . . . o ........1I A Hotel's Out of StateAdvertisements Subiectit to Specific Jurisdiction the State Which it Advcrtises, in in Even if the Injury is Suffcredin the StatcWherethc IIotcl a n dF o r e i g n o r p o r a t i oR e s i d e . C n ..........12 ............14
d.
14
t5
16 17
5. 4.
T h i sL i t i g a t i o n r i s e s r o mD e f e n d a n t s ' C o n t a c t s . A F
18 19 20
Defendants to Meet Their Burdenof ShowingThat California's Fail Exercise Personal of Jurisdiction Over De1'endants Unreasonable. Is ......14
a.
l'he Extentof Defendants' Purposeful Inleriection.
.. ... ...14
21 22
L)
b.
T h eB u r d e n n D e f e n d a n t n D e f e n d i n g t h e F o r u m . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 is o in The Extentof Conflict With the Sovcreicntv the of Defbndants'State. ..."'.
...........16
24 25 26 27
d.
The ForumState's Interest Adiudicating Dispute. in the ............16 The Most EfficientJudicial Resolution the Controversy........17 of
f.
The Importanceof the Forum to Plaintiff s Interestin C o n v e n i e n tn dE f f e c t i v e e l i e f R a
...........17
2\
N C A S E O . 0 7C V 2 I 3 2 D M S( A J B )
28
Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB
Document 51
Filed 04/11/2008
Page 22 of 25
I 2
C.
J
6.
FewerMinimum ContactsAre RequiredWhen R e a s o n a b l e nD sc t a t e s . . . . . ei s
........17
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l1 12
1 a
If Plaintiff hasFailedto Make a Showingof Personal Jurisdiction, Court the May Postpone Ruling on the InstantMotion to Allow Him to Conduct its Jurisdictional Discoverv .. .....1 8 ..........19
III.
CONCLUSION..
t-)
14 15 16
1 1
I I
l8 19 20 2l 22
z)
24 25 26 27 28
22
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 51
Filed 04/11/2008
Page 23 of 25
1 2 " n Cases
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Paee(s)
Amoco EWpt Oil Co. v. LeonisJ,{uvigation Co. ( 9 1 ' C i r1 9 9 3 1 F . 3 d 4 8 . . . . ) 8 Bancrqfi & Masters, Inc. c 1 9 ' h i r . 2 0 0 0 )2 2 3 l . 3 d a t 1 0 8 6 .
.....14
6
7
..........4
Barone Brolhers Inlerslate v. Displa), Fireworks ( 8 r n C i1 .9 9 42 5F . 3 d 1 0 . . . r ) 6 S
u ' l0 II 11
I L
............11
^ IJurgarKing ('orp. v. Rudzawicz ( 1 9 8 54 7 1t J . S4 6 2 , 1 0 5 . C t 2 1 7 4 . ) . S . Calder v. Jones ( 1 9 8 44 6 5U . S . 7 8 31 0 4S . C t 1 4 8 2 . . ) , . ('odv v. Wurd ( D C t 1 9 9 7 9 5 4F . S u p.p 3. . . ) 4 (loolSavings.cttm, v. I() CommerceCorp. Inc. ) 10 N D I L 1 9 9 95 3 F . S u p p . 2 d 0 0 .
. 4 . 7 . 1 3 ,1 5 ,1 6 ,l g
.............7
|-) t-) 14 r) l6
. . . .. . .. .. . 9
..........12
Credil L)tonnaisSecurities(USAI,Inc. v. Alcantara 17 ( 2 n a C i1 9 9 9 ) 1 8 3 F . 3 d 1 5 1 . . . r.
1u I a
.........5
Data Discoverv, Inc. v. S),stemsTechnoloqy Associates. Inc.
19 20 2I 22
( r . C t r . 1 9 7 7 )5 5 7 . 2 d1 2 8 5 . . F EDIAS Sqliware Int'1, L.L.C. v. BASISInr'l Ltd. (D.Ariz.1996)947F.Supp.413. GlencoreGrain RotterdamB.V. v. ShivnuthRai Harnurain Co. C 2 1 9 ' n i r . 2 0 0 2 ) 8 4F . 3 d1 1 1 4 . . Hansonv. Denc'klu
.........6
......9
.......3
^. t/L
0 9 5 83 s 7 . S . 2 3 5 . . . ) U
Harris Rutslq,& Co. Ins. Services,Inc. v. Bell & ClementsLtd. ( 9 t r ' i r .2 0 0 3 ) 2 8F . 3 d1 1 2 2 . . C 3 ??
..........15
........6
25
26 27 2g
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 51
Filed 04/11/2008
Page 24 of 25
, '
l
-
Internel Doorwu.v, Inc. v. Parks
( S DM S 2 0 0 11 3 8 . S u p p . 2 d 7 7 3 ) F Lakev. Lake ) 1 9 ' c i r . 1 9 8 7 g t 7F . 2 d , 1 4 1 6 . . h
Mallon v. Walt Disne), World Co.
..........8,9
2 3
4
............4
5
o t g
q
(D.Conn. 1998) F.Supp.2d 42 143
McGee v. InternationalLife InsuranceCo. ( 1 9 5 73 5 5U . S . 2 0 . . . ) 2 Mitrarut v. Hawes ( 4 t r ' C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) 3F .7 d 4 0 2 . . . 73 Nowuk v. T'ukHow Investments, Ltd. ( l s t C i r .1 9 9 69 4 F . 3 d 7 0 8 . . . ) O'Brienv. OkemoMountain.Inc. ( D . C o n n1 9 9 8 1 7F . S u p p . 2 d . . . ) 98 Ochoa v. .1.8.Martin & Son.g F-arms, Inc. ( 9 r n C i r .0 0 2 2 8 7F . 3 d1 1 8 2 . . 2 )
1 a . . . . . I J
. .. . . . . 8 , 5 I
..........10
In tU il t: l3 14 l5
.........13
............13
........17
Perkins v. BenguetMining Co. ( 1 9 s 23 4 2U . S 4 3 7 . . . ) . 16 17 l8 19 20 ') ^,| 22 23
)4
............4
Radisanv. InnisbrookResort& GoU'Club A Q ' . l . J . S u p . C t . A p p . 1 9v .7 ) 3 7 5 . 2 d 1 2 2 9 . . Di 7 RelianceNsl'l Indem.Co. v. Pinnacle Oas.AssuranceCorp. ( M . D .A l a .2 0 0 1 )1 6 0F . S u p p . 2Id 2 7 . . 3 . Roont'-v Wult Di.snt,_v v. World ('o. ( D . M a s s . 2 0 02 0 0 3 L 2 2 9 3 7 7 2 8 . 3) W Schlussel Schlussel v. ( 1 9 8 3 l)4 l C a l . A p p . 3 d 4 . . . . 19
......14
....10
.........13
..........8
25
Sigros WaltDisnqt WorldCo. v. ( D . M a s s . 2 0 0 1 )9 . S u p p . 2 d 5 6 . 12 F
.....13
26 nt
27 28
24
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 51
Filed 04/11/2008
Page 25 of 25
1 2
J
Snowneyv. Harrah's Enterlainment, Inc. 3 5 C a l . 4 '1 0 5 4 1 1 2p . 3 d2 9 . 2 9C a l . R p t r . 3 d ( J u n e , 2 0 0 5 ) . n , 33 6 Tatro v. Manor Oare, Inc. ( M a s s 1 9 9 4 6 2 5N . E . 2 d5 4 9 . . . . ) United StatesSEC v. Carrillo ( 1l t r C i r . 1 9 9 7 I 1 5F . 3 d1 5 4 0 . . ' ) Verizon Online Services,Inc. v. Ralslq, ( E D V A 2 0 0 2 ) 0 3 F . S u p p . 26 0 1 2 d WNS,Inc. v. F'aruon ( 5 r r ' C i 1.9 8 9 8 8 4F . 2 d 0 0 . . . r ) 2
.....12,13,14
........14
4 5 6 l 8 9
......12
..............9
..........6
1 0 World-Wicle VolkswagenCorp. v. I4toodson
( 1 9 8 04 4 4U . S . 2 8 6 . . . ) .........1I
t1 12
1 a IJ
Statutes 4 7 U . S . C{. 2 2 7 ( b x l X a X i i i ) . .............5 ........3
t 4 C a l .C o d e i v .P r o .{ 4 1 0 . 0 1 0 . . . . . . C 1 5 Other Authoritv 16
1'7 t t
Release Number95-310of the Federal Communications Commission. C C D o c k e t o . 9 2 - 9 0 ,1 0 F C C R c d 1 2 3 9 1 1 9 9 5 )p a r s . 4 - 3 5 ( , N 3
..........5
Schwarzer" al. Oal. Prac. Guide: Federal Civil ProcedureBefbre Trial et ( l ' h eR u t t e G r o u p 0 0 5 ) , 3 : 2 0 8 . 9 0 . r 2 19 Schwarzer, al..Cal. Prac. Guide: Fed. Civ. Pro. Be.fbre et Trial 20 ( T R G2 0 0 5 ) , 3 : 1 5 6 - 3 : 1 5 1 . . .
l8
...........8 ............1I ........15
2l 22
L)
i 3 7 C o n g . R e c .1 6 , 2 0 5 d a i l y d .N o v . 7 , 1 9 9 1 ) . ( 5 e
24 25 26 27 28 25
C A S EN O . 0 7 C V 2 I 3 2 D M S ( A J B )
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms