TrippleAAAtruth.com

Are you really being sued by/for kids?

Unlawful Claims?

Did the Tripple AAA Association file 50+ lawsuits with claims the U.S. Supreme Court has twice confirmed are improper?  You decide-- the text below was taken from a motion to designate the Tripple AAA Association a vexatious litigant, and the Association filed an electronic dismissal of claims before all of the moving papers could be uploaded to the Federal Court's website.  If their claims were meritorious and based on well established law, why would Tripple AAA dismiss this lawsuit and not "face the music" by responding to the motion?  After all, if the motion was meritless, Tripple AAA could probably have recovered their attorneys' fees in responding.  The case in which this occurred was Tripple AAA v. Las Olas (United States District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 07cv0303 L RBB).


See the docket in which the Tripple AAA Association dismissed the Las Olas lawsuit, rather than responding to the motion which challenged the legality of its claims => 

For more detailed information about the objections to the claims, and images of many of the lawsuits in question, see below

Document
Tripple AAA v. Las Olas Docket

Section One:

The sole plaintiff, an organization, lacks standing to seek

financial damages based on the claims of its members; such

claims require the individual participation of human plaintiffs

 

            The organization “Tripple AAA Association for Children and Adults with Developmental Disabilities” is the sole plaintiff in this action, which seeks to recover financial damages (purportedly) based on the experiences/knowledge of its members.[1]  Two different U.S. Supreme Court decisions have confirmed that it is generally inappropriate for an association to seek financial damages on behalf of its members or others who are not, themselves, parties to the ligation:

 

(1)  Warth v. Seldin (1975)  422 U.S. 490, 515:

“If in a proper case the association seeks a declaration, injunction, or some other form of prospective relief, it can reasonably be supposed that the remedy, if granted, will inure to the benefit of those members of the association actually injured. Indeed, in all cases in which we have expressly recognized standing in associations to represent their members, the relief sought has been of this kind. E.g., National Motor Freight Assn. v. United States, 372 U.S. 246 (1963). See Data Processing Service v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 (1970). Cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23 (b)(2).

 

 The present case, however, differs significantly as here an association seeks relief in damages for alleged injuries to its members. [Plaintiff Association] alleges no monetary injury to itself, nor any assignment of the damages claims of its members. No award therefore can be made to the association as such. Moreover, in the circumstances of this case, the damages claims are not common to the entire membership, nor shared by all in equal degree. To the contrary, whatever injury may have been suffered is peculiar to the individual member concerned, and both the fact and extent of injury would require individualized proof. Thus, to obtain relief in damages, each member of [Plaintiff Association] who claims injury as a result of respondents' practices must be a party to the suit, and [Plaintiff Association] has no standing to claim damages on his behalf.” [emphasis added]

           

(2)  International Union, United Auto., etc. v. Brock (1986) 477 U.S. 274, 293

 " . . . [w]hether an association has standing to invoke the court's remedial powers on behalf of its members depends in substantial measure on the nature of the relief sought." [citing Warth at 515]. An organization of construction firms, we held, could not seek damages for the profits and business lost by its members because "whatever injury might have been suffered is peculiar to the individual member concerned, and both the fact and extent of injury would require individualized proof." [emphasis added]

 

The importance of the foregoing decisions was underscored in a concurring opinion by Circuit Judge Robert Bork, of the DC Circuit in Telecommunications Research v. Allnet (1986) 257 U.S. App. DC1, 14, 806 F. 2d 1093, 1097:

“I concur in the court's opinion. I write separately to suggest that, though the court properly does not decide the question, there may be good reason in the future to frame a per se rule against an association's standing, absent some specific statutory authorization, to assert damage claims on behalf of its members.

 

“Counsel have cited no case which holds that an association has such standing. The only Supreme Court case to confront the issue is Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 45 L. Ed. 2d 343, 95 S. Ct. 2197 (1975), where the Court's analysis expressly distinguished damage claims from claims for injunctive relief, and denied standing to a trade association that attempted to assert damage claims on behalf of some of its members. Id. at 515-16.  In Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333, 53 L. Ed. 2d 383, 97 S. Ct. 2434 (1977), the plaintiff association sought injunctive and declaratory relief, but not damages. The Supreme Court set out a three-part test for associational standing in such cases, the third part of which requires that "neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit." Id. At 343 (emphasis added). The Court made no suggestion that relief in damages could ever satisfy this part of the test, and indeed reiterated that it has never granted standing to an association seeking to press the damage claims of its members. Id. quoting Warth, 422 U.S. at 515). See also International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers v. Brock, 477 U.S. 274, 106 S. Ct. 2523, 91 L. Ed. 2d 228 (1986) (granting standing where the association sought only injunctive and declaratory relief, but not damages).

 

“The court's opinion in this case correctly recognizes two problems that may arise if an association pursues damage claims on behalf of its members. First, if the damage claims are not "shared by all in equal degree," then "individualized proof" of "the fact and extent of injury" must be offered, which will often necessitate individual participation of the association's members in the suit. Warth, 422 U.S. at 515-16. Second, where the damage claims "are not common to the entire membership," then "whatever injury may have been suffered is peculiar to the individual member concerned," and a question arises about the identity of interests between the association and its members. Id. n1

 

“n1 Of course, this second problem could also arise when an association seeks injunctive or declaratory relief, and Warth offers no clear rationale that distinguishes those forms of relief from damages. Nonetheless, the Court in Warth did assume that there is a distinction. See 422 U.S. at 515.

 

“This second problem gives rise to a third and very important concern. Associational standing to raise damage claims would impose heavy new burdens on the courts.” [emphasis added]

 

 

Based on the foregoing, the complaint should be dismissed per, at least, FRCP 12(B)(1) and 12(B)(6) because it seeks relief which is not authorized by applicable law, and the U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed this at least twice.

 

Section Two:

 

The organizational plaintiff has made improper financial demands,

identical to those in this case, in at least 50 other lawsuits and is

represented by counsel who have filed at least 1,300 nearly identical

lawsuits; this unauthorized claim should be deemed intentional

 

By making financial damage claims for the sole plaintiff, an organization (based solely on alleged claims of non-parties) Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to comply with the certification of merit requirements of FRCP 11(b)(2)&(3) because, as discussed above, such relief is simply not available under applicable law.  As shown below, this has now happened so often that it can only be considered an intentional business practice, and this Court should issue an order to prevent plaintiff and its counsel from repeating it (and to discourage others from doing the same).    Other cases in which the organizational plaintiff Tripple AAA is the sole plaintiff and seeks monetary compensation based on the claims of others include, without limitation (Exhibits “T1” to “T52”):

1.    Tripple AAA v. 2913 Sweetwater Road, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2790 IEG POR

2.    Tripple AAA v. Angel Remigio, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2792 WQH WMc

3.    Tripple AAA v. Antique Row Café, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2216 W POR

4.    Tripple AAA v. Arcana Pharmacy, et. al.; Case No. 07CV0299 W JMA

5.    Tripple AAA v. Calahans, et. al.; Case No. 07CV350 WQH JMA

6.    Tripple AAA v. Canada Steakburger, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2562 DMS JMA

7.    Tripple AAA v. Candyland Mini-Mart, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2564 IEG NLS

8.    Tripple AAA v. Casa De Empeno, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2214 L POR

9.    Tripple AAA v. Casa Drugs, et. al.; Case No. 07CV0300 J JMA

10. Tripple AAA v. Coffees of the World, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2563 W LSP

11. Tripple AAA v. Cost Mart, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2585 JM WMc

12. Tripple AAA v. Costa Joseph, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2794 LAB RBB

13. Tripple AAA v. Courtesy Auto Rentals, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2590 LAB NLS

14. Tripple AAA v. Crocker Drug, et. al.; Case No. 07CV0347 L AJB

15. Tripple AAA v. Dabbs dba Greenfield Pharmacy, et. al.; Case No. 07CV0344 L AJB

16. Tripple AAA v. El Camino Pharmacy, et. al.; Case No. 07CV0305 IEG WMC

17. Tripple AAA v. Fig Hospitality, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2785 BEN BLM

18. Tripple AAA v. GAMK Inc., et. al.; Case No. 07CV0348 BTM POR

19. Tripple AAA v. Georgis Ov Express Subs, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2798 DMS WMc

20. Tripple AAA v. Happy Daze Liquor, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2587 DMS JMA

21. Tripple AAA v. Hirmez Zhouhar, et. al.; Case No. 06 CV 2783 BTM JMA

22. Tripple AAA v. Hisamitsu California, et. al.; Case No. 07CV0307 H JMA

23. Tripple AAA v. Hurmiz Issam, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2791 DMS JMA

24. Tripple AAA v. Jack’s La Jolla, et. al.; Case No. 07CV0349 L BLM

25. Tripple AAA v. Jai Bholenath, et. al.; Case No. 06 CV 2784 DMS JMA

26. Tripple AAA v. Khudar Imad, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2589 DMS WMc

27. Tripple AAA v. La Polular Tortilleria, et. al.; Case No. 06 CV 2786 IEG CAB

28. Tripple AAA v. Leo’s Barber Shop, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2570 JAH NLS

29. Tripple AAA v. Mexican Bakery, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2778 DMS WMc

30. Tripple AAA v. Mission Hair & Nails, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2779 WQH POR

31. Tripple AAA v. Monte De Piedad, et. al.; Case No. 06cv2567 LAB CAB

32. Tripple AAA v. New Euclid Produce, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2593 BTM JMA

33. Tripple AAA v. North American Home & Health, et. al.; Case No. 07CV0345 J JMA

34. Tripple AAA v. Ocean Room, et. al.; Case No. 07CV0306 JAH BLM

35. Tripple AAA v. Ozlem Tezveren, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2797 IEG WMC

36. Tripple AAA v. Palace Enterprises, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2774 BEN NLS

37. Tripple AAA v. Petros, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2782 JM WMC

38. Tripple AAA v. Postal Convenience Center; Case No. 06CV2216 W POR

39. Tripple AAA v. Saavedra Francisco, et. al.; Case No. 07CV2777 BEN BLM

40. Tripple AAA v. Sacos Smoke Shop, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2796 BEN POR

41. Tripple AAA v. Salim Talia, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2780 JAH RBB

42. Tripple AAA v. Santa Clara Beach & Bay Motel, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2793 L BLM

43. Tripple AAA v. Savers 99 Cent Multi Mart, et. al.; Case No. 06 CV 2569  L RBB

44. Tripple AAA v. The Screen Machine, et. al.; Case No. 07CV2588 DMS CAB

45. Tripple AAA v. Scripps Health, et. al.; Case No. 07CV0298 JM NLS

46. Tripple AAA v. Sixth Avenue Pharmacy, et. al.; Case No. 07CV0346 BTM POR

47. Tripple AAA v. SOL Realty, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2566 WQH JMA

48. Tripple AAA v. Stephen Franklin, et. al.; Case No. 07CV2788 WQH WMC

49. Tripple AAA v. The Third Corner, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2775  W AJB

50. Tripple AAA v. The Tire Dudes, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2795 JAH RBB

51. Tripple AAA v. Voltero Alexander, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2789 JM NLS

52. Tripple AAA v. Wing Lee Live Poultry, et. al.; Case No. 06CV2591 H POR

 

While Movant acknowledges that the instant case is filed as a class action, the fact is that there is still no named plaintiff, and the association makes an inappropriate class representative.  Because of the extensive litigation experience of plaintiff’s counsel, this Court should assume that plaintiff intends this litigation to be filed in exactly the form it is; especially because so many of plaintiff’s lawsuits are filed against very small local businesses, this Court should issue orders to prevent plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel from repeating this conduct.

 



[1] Note, this is distinguished from claims an association might make to redress its own harm or detriment, such as when a contract for a convention is breached, etc.