Free Response to Motion - District Court of California - California

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

Document 23

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 1 of 4

. I
z
1 -

. J . 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 II 12 13 14 r)

(: T e l e p h o n e 6 1 9 )2 9 7 - 8 8 8 8 Facsimile: (619)295-1401

Chad Austin, Esq.SBN235457 : t 2g rndiaSireet SanDieqo. 92103-6014 CA t t

Attorneyfor Plaintifl,JAMES M. KINDER, an individual

SNITED STATES DISTRICT CoT]RT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFoRNIA

J A M E SM . K I N D E R , Plainriff, v' NAI-lONWl I)1,RtiCOVERYSYSTEMS, Ll-D. and DOES I through100,inclusive, Defendants.

N C a s e o . 0 7 C V 2 1 3 2D M S ( A J B ) Judge: Hon. DanaM. Sabraw Mag..ludge: Ilon. Anthony.f. Battaglia PLAINTIFF JAMES M. KINDER'S STATEMENT OF PARTIAL OPPOSITION TO DEFE,NDANT'S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION OF ACTIONS 'I)ate:: fime licbruary8, 2008 1 : 3 0p . m . Courtroom: l0

16 17 18 t9 20

I. INTRODUCTION PI.EASE OF TO THE COURT. At,I, PARTIES AND THEIRATTORNEYS RECORD:

2l 22 in JAMESM. KINDERhereby opposes. part,Defendant TAKE NOTICETHAT Plaintiff

for of Ll-D.'sMotionfbr Consolidation Actions, the SYSTEMS, 23 NAI'IONWIDERECOVERY 24 reasons forth below. set
)5 26 ill ilt D N C A S E O . 0 7C V 2 1 3 2 M S( A J B )

27 28

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

Document 23

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 2 of 4

I 2
a -)

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS With the exceptionof the low number case,eachof the casessoughtto be consolidated by Defendant in the very earlystages litigation. Someof the cases is of havenot yet proceeded to an Early Neutral Evaluation(ENE) lKinder v. Cavalry Investments, LLC. CaseNo. 07 CV 2274IEG (WMc); Kinderv. Harrah'sEntertainment, Case Inc.. No. 07 CY 2226DMS (AJB);

4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 l1

Kintler v. Enhunced Reutvery(lorporalion,CaseNo. 07 CV 2l 52 DMS (AJB); and this casel. Most of the cases that haveproceeded an ENE havebeenscheduled telephonic to fbr case management conferences light of this pendingmotion and the law and motion work pendingin in the cases soughtto be consolidated therein. Kinder v. Aslro Business Inc.,CaseNo. 07 Services, CV 2091 DMS (AJB), is scheduled a telephonic fbr CaseManagcment Clonf-crence February on

t2

Acceptunce, LL(', CascNo. 07 CV 2084DMS (A.f is U). 1 3 29,2008at 10:30a.m. Kinderv. Asset

1 4 scheduled a telephonic lbr CaseManagement Conference April 10,200t1 9:00 a.m. Kincler on at 1 5 v. DiscoverCard Services, Inc., CaseNo. 07 CV 2l 38 DMS (AJB), is setfbr a telephonic Case 16 l7 18
Kinder v. SprintP('S Assets, L.L.C. et al., CaseNo. 07 CV 2049 W (.lMA). rcsolvedon January 2008at an ENE. SeeDocument in thatcase, 15, 72 llled January 2008. 16. LLO. Currently,thereis pendinga Motion to Remand in Kincler t',.Cavalry Investmenls, Case No. 07 CV 2274IEG (WMc), setfor March 17.2008. The low numbercaseherein,Kinder v. Bankfirsl.CaseNo. 07 CV 0877 DMS (AJB), is
ZJ

Management Conference March 28, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. on

r9
20 2l 22

24

has been much furtherinto litigationthanall of the othercases.A Rule 26 (D conf-erence already

2 5 held, written discoveryhasbeenpropoundedby both partiesand dateshave beenset to and
-l'he 26 includingtrial. The discovery for deadline filing cutoff in that caseis March 3, 2008.

27 28

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

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

Document 23

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 3 of 4

I
L

motions May 2,2008. Thepretrial is conference scheduled September is for 5,2008at 10:30 a.m.andtrial is scheduled October 2008at 9:00a.m. for 20" TII.ARGUMENT
Plaintiff agrees with Defendantthat, with the exceptionof Kinder v. Ilank/irsl, thcsccases judicial resourccs shouldbe consolidated "streamline litigationprocess, to prescrvc the and unnecessary duplicationof effort by the parties,and promoteconsistent adjudicationof the claimsand defenses." However, Plaintiff will be greatlyprejudicedwith rcgardI"oKinder v. Bunk/irsl if that caseis consolidated with the othermatters.The defendanl that casehasa deadlinc in o1'Irebruary 6,2008 within which to respond discovery propounded Plaintilf on I)ccembcr28. 2007(a to by

J

4 5 6
-

8 9 10 11 l2

of by 1 3 one week extension time was granted Plaintiff s counsel).Given that trial in that caseis

t4 l5 16 17 18 l9

looming,as arediscovery and law and motion cutoffs,consolidating with the othermatters it could effectivelyreopen casefor new discovery the and law and motion work which would not havebeenpropounded filed by Bankfir,r/ or due to thc approaching cutoff dates. Morcovcr. PlaintifThas reasonable a expectation moving fbrwardto trial in a timely manncrin that case, of given that it was removed this court on May I 5,2007. Includingthat casein any consolidation to

2 0 ordercould resultin it not moving to trial until sometime in late2009. Plaintiff and Defendant 2l 22
shouldproceedforward as scheduled.
ZJ

in that casehave expended considerable attorneytime and resources into the litigation and it

24

Consolidatingthe cases with the exceptionof Kinder v. Bunk/irsl will not frustrateor

goalswhich would be achieved consolidation. is only logical It by 25 impedeany of the laudable

26 that the remainingeight (8) cases, which were removedat approximately sametime and are the 27 28
3 N D C A S E O .0 7C V 2 1 3 2 M S( A J B )

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

Document 23

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 4 of 4

I z

at similar,if not identical, stages litigation,shouldbe heardtogether.This would still cut the of number of cases down from 9 to 2 and, because the low numberrule, there is no dangerof of inconsistent adjudications that this Judgewill hearall law and motion work in the in consolidated matters well as in Kinder v. Bankfirsl[Althoughthe next lowestnumbered as case afler Kinder v. Bankfirst is Kinder v. Sprinl PCSAssels,L.L.(":.el al.. Plaintiff expectsKindcr v. Sprinl PCSAssets, L.L.C. el ul. to be dismissed a joint motion fbr dismissal the very near via in future,which would makethe next lowestnumbered Kinder v. AssetAcceptance, case LLC. That caseis assigned JudgesSabrawand Battaglia,as is this caseand Kinclerv. Ilankfirstl. to IV. CONCLUSION For all of the reasons stated above,Plaintiff respectfully rcqucsts that this Court deny

3
A T

5 6
.| 8 9 l0 ll

12

Motion fbr Consolidation asto Kinder v. Bunk/irsl.CaseNo.07 CV 0877 DMS 1 3 Defendant's

t4 l5 16 t7 18 19 20 2l 22
ZJ

(AJII), only. PlaintifTdoes oppose not consolidation the remaining of cight(8)'l'CPAmatters. DATED: Januarv 25.2008

By:/s/ ChadAustin
CHAD AUSI'IN, [Jsq., Attorncylbr P l a i n t i f lJ A M t r SM . K I N D I i R . Email: chadausti nirr.,cox.net

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