1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS
SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP
DAVID C. SCHEPER (State Bar No. 120174) dscheper@scheperkim.com WILLIAM H. FORMAN (State Bar No. 150477) wforman@scheperkim.com 601 West Fifth Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2025 Telephone: (213) 613-4655 Facsimile: (213) 613-4656
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Clark Carr on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION
CLARK CARR, on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FORENSIC COUNSELORS, INC., a Nevada Corporation; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FORENSIC COUNSELORS; AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CERTIFIED FORENSIC COUNSELORS, INC. dba AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CERTIFIED FORENSIC COUNSELORS; a Nevada Corporation, KARLA DEISLER TAYLOR; FRANCIS DEISLER, aka FRANK JOHN PALANI; and DOES 1-10, Defendants. Case No. 2:14 cv 8761-JFW-JCx
PLAINTIFF’S CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS JUDGE: Hon. John. F. Walter Hearing Date: January 5, 2014 Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom: 16
Case 2:14-cv-08761-JFW-JC Document 19 Filed 12/15/14 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:278
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES...........................................1 I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND...................................2 A. Substantive Allegations Against Defendants......................................2 B. Allegations from the So-Called “Related Case” in Oklahoma.............................................................................................4 C. Jurisdictional Allegations Against the Individual Defendants............5 III. DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS LACK MERIT..........................6 A. Overview of Defendants’ Motions and Summary of Argument..............................................................................................6 B. Specific Jurisdiction Exists Over All Defendants................................7 1. The Individual Defendants Are “Guiding Spirits,” and Therefore Subject to Personal Jurisdiction.....................................8 2. The Standard
Schwarzenegger
Formulation Also Supports a Finding of Personal Jurisdiction.................................9 C. This Complaint Is Not a Compulsory Counterclaim.........................11 1. The Claims in this Case Are Completely Unrelated to the Oklahoma Action...................................................................12 2. Neither the Individual Defendants nor the Class Could be Joined to the Oklahoma Action.............................................15 D. The Complaint Adequately States Claims Against All Defendants........................................................................................17 1. Legal Standards Under Rule 12(b)(6)........................................17 2. Legal Standards Under Rule 9(b)..............................................19 IV. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................20
Case 2:14-cv-08761-JFW-JC Document 19 Filed 12/15/14 Page 2 of 25 Page ID #:279
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES PAGE(S)
Allstar Mktg. Grp., LLC v. Your Store Online, LLC
, 666 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (C.D. Cal. 2009).......................................................8, 9
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)......................................................................................17
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't
, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990).........................................................................17
Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat. Inc
., 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000).......................................................................10
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544 (2007).......................................................................................17
Berrey v. Asarco Inc
., 439 F.3d 636 (10th Cir. 2006).......................................................................15
Chloe SAS v. Sawabeh Info. Servs. Co
., 2012 WL 7679386, at *20 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2012).......................................8
Colt Studio, Inc. v. Badpuppy Enter
., 75 F. Supp. 2d 1104, 1110 (C.D. Cal. 1999)...........................................10, 11
Davis v. Metro Prods., Inc
., 885 F.2d 515 n.10 (9th Cir. 1989)...................................................................8
Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. & Power Dist
., 276 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 2002).............................................................16
F.D.I.C. v. Hulsey,
22 F.3d 1472 (10th Cir. 1994).......................................................................15
Figi Graphics, Inc. v. Dollar General Corp
., 33 F.Supp. 2d 1263, 1268 (S.D. Cal. 1998)............................................10, 11
IO Grp., Inc. v. Pivotal, Inc
., 2004 WL 838164, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2004).......................................10
Lake v. Lake
, 817 F.2d 1416 (9th Cir. 1987).........................................................................7
Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm't, Inc
., 705 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2013)...........................................................12, 13, 14
Miscellaneous Serv. Workers, Drivers & Helpers, Teamsters Local No. 427 v. Philco-Ford Corp
., 661 F.2d 776 (9th Cir. 1981)...................................................................19, 20
Mitchell v. CB Richard Ellis Long Term Disability Plan
, 611 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2010).......................................................................12
Case 2:14-cv-08761-JFW-JC Document 19 Filed 12/15/14 Page 3 of 25 Page ID #:280
