PDA

View Full Version : Peña (Roster): CA DOJ Files Motion to Stay MSJ


hoffmang
09-09-2009, 5:24 PM
CA DOJ filed a motion to stay (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.191444/gov.uscourts.caed.191444.16.1.pdf) our Motion for Summary Judgment in Peña v Cid today. They also filed a motion to shorten time to attempt to keep from responding to our MSJ. We should have some updates on the next calendar event in the next couple of days. We'll obviously be opposing this shortly.

-Gene

dantodd
09-09-2009, 5:55 PM
Do you mean they filed a motion to shorten time in order to force you to respond to their motion to stay before they are required to respond to the MSJ?

Sounds like a good time to file a motion to shorten time for the MSJ to before their request for your response.

HowardW56
09-09-2009, 6:51 PM
Federal Judges don't like Ex-Parte motions. They deny most or set them for the regular course of court business...

They may set both motions for the same day, but filing their motion, looks like they are desperate

elrcastor
09-09-2009, 7:44 PM
CA DOJ filed a motion to stay (https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/doc1/03313553565) our Motion for Summary Judgment in Peña v Cid today. They also filed a motion to shorten time to attempt to keep from responding to our MSJ. We should have some updates on the next calendar event in the next couple of days. We'll obviously be opposing this shortly.

-Gene

the link to the order needs a login

swhatb
09-09-2009, 8:50 PM
need another link. password required.

sorensen440
09-09-2009, 8:51 PM
The link worked earlier

G17GUY
09-09-2009, 9:06 PM
The link worked earlier

Screenshot or I call bs.:p

Librarian
09-09-2009, 9:09 PM
... and RECAP doesn't seem to notice this one; don't know why.

G17GUY
09-09-2009, 10:45 PM
How does a motion to shorten time keep them from having to respond?

hoffmang
09-10-2009, 12:08 AM
... and RECAP doesn't seem to notice this one; don't know why.

Weird... I had recapped it in the first place. I was in a hurry to get out the door so here it is again.

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.191444/gov.uscourts.caed.191444.16.1.pdf

-Gene

freonr22
09-10-2009, 12:16 AM
It is simply unclear at this early stage whether Plaintiffs' individual-capacity claims have any factual basis. Thus, Defendant will need to depose each of the individual Plaintiffs to ascertain what conduct by Cid, if any, links him personally to each of the constitutional violations alleged in the complaint. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating that defendants are liable under section 1983 upon showing of personal participation and that supervisors are liable for the constitutional violations of their subordinates “if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them”).

ke6guj
09-10-2009, 12:20 AM
Plaintiffs will need to prove that each seller is someone actually subject to the Act, such as a licensed firearm dealer, as opposed to someone to whom the Act does not apply, such as a private party (i.e., one who does not hold a dealer's license) seeking to transfer a firearm to another private party. See Cal. Penal Code § 12132(a).

I wonder if any of the specified handguns are possessed by non-resident private parties. Sellers that the Act would apply to since they have to go through an FFL, and CA's DROS system does not allow an out-of-state seller to do a PPT transfer to a CA resident.

hoffmang
09-10-2009, 12:31 AM
I wonder if any of the specified handguns are possessed by non-resident private parties. Sellers that the Act would apply to since they have to go through an FFL, and CA's DROS system does not allow an out-of-state seller to do a PPT transfer to a CA resident.

Hrm... "I'll take all 4 of them for $1000 Alex!" :whistling:

-Gene

ke6guj
09-10-2009, 12:35 AM
Figured you'd have that covered. Either the Act does apply to them and The Roster appies, or it doesn't.... :D

Gray Peterson
09-10-2009, 12:35 AM
I wonder if any of the specified handguns are possessed by non-resident private parties. Sellers that the Act would apply to since they have to go through an FFL, and CA's DROS system does not allow an out-of-state seller to do a PPT transfer to a CA resident.

Thus the trap is set. :43:

hoffmang
09-10-2009, 12:45 AM
It is simply unclear at this early stage whether Plaintiffs' individual-capacity claims have any factual basis. Thus, Defendant will need to depose each of the individual Plaintiffs to ascertain what conduct by Cid, if any, links him personally to each of the constitutional violations alleged in the complaint. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating that defendants are liable under section 1983 upon showing of personal participation and that supervisors are liable for the constitutional violations of their subordinates “if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them”).

The issue is that you can't sue a state so you have to sue a person. We sued the guy who oversees everyone who manages the Roster. The XD-45 BiTone would probably be on the list if his department interpreted the regs correctly. Heck, we'd be able to import Non Rostered Frames if they could read the Penal Code...

-Gene

ivanimal
09-10-2009, 12:57 AM
The issue is that you can't sue a state so you have to sue a person. We sued the guy who oversees everyone who manages the Roster. The XD-45 BiTone would probably be on the list if his department interpreted the regs correctly. Heck, we'd be able to import Non Rostered Frames if they could read the Penal Code...

-Gene

That would depend on them seeing that the people have rights in the first place.:rolleyes:

artherd
09-10-2009, 4:10 AM
It is simply unclear at this early stage whether Plaintiffs' individual-capacity claims have any factual basis. Thus, Defendant will need to depose each of the individual Plaintiffs to ascertain what conduct by Cid, if any, links him personally to each of the constitutional violations alleged in the complaint. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating that defendants are liable under section 1983 upon showing of personal participation and that supervisors are liable for the constitutional violations of their subordinates “if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them”).

If you read this as the SO claiming "Uh, maybe I wasn't aware of our policy..." then you read it right.

artherd
09-10-2009, 4:13 AM
That would depend on them seeing that the people have rights in the first place.:rolleyes:

*shrug* come to my viewpoint - or get a court order compelling you to do so. I really don't care Mr. Cid :)

hoffmang
09-10-2009, 2:47 PM
The court entered this order this morning:


MINUTE ORDER by CRD M. Krueger for Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 9/10/2009: The Court is in receipt of Defendant's Ex Parte Application for Shortening Time 15 and Motion for Relief Under Rule 56(f) 16 . In light of Defendant's pending Motion to Dismiss 8 (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.191444/gov.uscourts.caed.191444.8.1.pdf) set for hearing on October 2, 2009, the Court hereby SETS Defendant's Motion for Relief Under Rule 56(f) (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.191444/gov.uscourts.caed.191444.16.1.pdf) for October 16, 2009 at 10:00 AM, in Courtroom #2, and CONTINUES Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment 14 (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/pena/MSJ-2009-09-02/Memorandum-Points-and-Authorities.pdf) to October 30, 2009 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom #2 before Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. (TEXT ONLY) (Entered: 09/10/2009)

The court is going to hear the motion to dismiss on October 2. The court will then hear the motion to take discovery 10/16 and our MSJ is now set to be heard October 30.

-Gene

hill billy
09-10-2009, 2:58 PM
Again, a big thanks to Gene for keeping us up to date. More funds coming to the fight when I get employed again.

G17GUY
09-10-2009, 3:12 PM
MSJ is now set to be heard October 30.
-Gene

:D.

GoodEyeSniper
09-10-2009, 3:30 PM
wow, I really don't understand really what all this means. But keep up the good work!!! :D

FunkBass
11-04-2009, 1:24 PM
MSJ is now set to be heard October 30.
-Gene

What does this mean?

Please type slowly im a slow reader... ;)

ke6guj
11-04-2009, 1:29 PM
What does this mean?

Please type slowly im a slow reader... ;)
disregard. Case is on hold pending outcome of Nordyke, which is also on hold pending McDonald, which will probably be ruled on around June 2010.

Liberty1
11-04-2009, 3:00 PM
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Pena_v_Cid

Hogxtz
11-04-2009, 4:51 PM
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Pena_v_Cid

Thank you for that. I was having a hard time following all of this also.

yellowfin
11-04-2009, 6:06 PM
Good grief, can they hurry up with McDonald already?!?!? This is like waiting on spinal pain relief to kick in.

dwtt
11-04-2009, 6:24 PM
Good grief, can they hurry up with McDonald already?!?!? This is like waiting on spinal pain relief to kick in.

Since the wise Latina replaced a liberal member who was opposed to Heller and the 5 who supported Heller are still in place, does anyone think McDonald can turn out differently from Heller?

Maestro Pistolero
11-04-2009, 10:55 PM
My gut tells me we are going to be fine. We've got everything on our side, the factual history of the 14th amendment, the clarified individual right, Gura, and the popular belief as well as Scalia's statement in Heller that the second amendment is a 'right that belong to all Americans'.

Where we could get hosed is in then 'sensitive places' issue, and 'common use'. I don't see how the court can avoid offering some guidance in these areas, lest the issue be re-visited annually. We, and the lower courts need clarity and guidance.

hvengel
11-05-2009, 9:15 AM
My gut tells me we are going to be fine. We've got everything on our side, the factual history of the 14th amendment, the clarified individual right, Gura, and the popular belief as well as Scalia's statement in Heller that the second amendment is a 'right that belong to all Americans'.

Where we could get hosed is in then 'sensitive places' issue, and 'common use'. I don't see how the court can avoid offering some guidance in these areas, lest the issue be re-visited annually. We, and the lower courts need clarity and guidance.

'sensitive places' issue, and 'common use' are not issues before the court so these will not be ruled on. So don't expect any clarity on these anytime soon.

timdps
11-05-2009, 9:33 AM
'sensitive places' issue, and 'common use' are not issues before the court so these will not be ruled on. So don't expect any clarity on these anytime soon.

Since Nordyke is waiting on MacDonald, we may get something on sensitive places from Nordyke en banc, perhaps?

Tim

dantodd
11-05-2009, 10:17 AM
Since Nordyke is waiting on MacDonald, we may get something on sensitive places from Nordyke en banc, perhaps?

Tim

Yes. "Sensitive places" is core to the argument in Nordyke. The en banc panel will either rule on it or they will choose to simply affirm the District opinion which would include public fairgrounds as allowable sensitive areas. I don't really see that passing the smell test. This would open the gates to essentially closing down all gun shows. You can't restrict a right based on who owns the property. If anything there is a greater expectation of a freedom to exercise a constitutionally protected right on gov't owned property than on privately owned property.