PDA

View Full Version : Richards (Carry): Peruta plaintiffs oppose same day/panel


hoffmang
06-08-2011, 9:03 PM
A few days ago SAF & CGF filed a motion to align oral argument (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/Richards-Motion-to-Relate-2011-05-31.pdf) in Richards v Prieto as it is related to Peruta which would request hearing by the same panel. Note that we specifically did not ask to change the schedule in Peruta.

For some reason plaintiffs in Peruta are opposed to Richards being heard the same day as they filed this motion (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/Peruta-Richards-MotionToDenyRelation-2011-06-08.pdf) earlier today...

-Gene

gunsmith
06-08-2011, 9:10 PM
A few days ago SAF & CGF filed a motion to align oral argument (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/Richards-Motion-to-Relate-2011-05-31.pdf) in Richards v Prieto as it is related to Peruta which would request hearing by the same panel. Note that we specifically did not ask to change the schedule in Peruta.

For some reason plaintiffs in Peruta are opposed to Richards being heard the same day as they filed this motion (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/Peruta-Richards-MotionToDenyRelation-2011-06-08.pdf) earlier today...

-Gene

OK, could you, like, translate what a motion to deny relationship means to us gunnies who A: cant get pdf's on their old worn out pc & B: only a slim grasp of legalese

Window_Seat
06-08-2011, 9:10 PM
I read both briefs. I'm not sure what the issue is, and which one to agree with just yet.

Erik.

taperxz
06-08-2011, 9:11 PM
Lay mans pleez??? What are the pros and cons? Thanks

gunsmith
06-08-2011, 9:18 PM
cool, both of the above posters are smarter than I am & they need translation too.

Window_Seat
06-08-2011, 9:25 PM
But contrary to Richards Appellants’
assertions in their “motion to align,” the cases raise decidedly different issues, take
different approaches, and call for dramatically different judicial relief. Both the
parties and the Court would be better served if the cases were heard separately,
with Peruta heard first.

I like Peruta and what it affects if it's favorable to what I'm concerned with as far as traveling, but I'm not sure if I agree with that part.

Having said what I said above and in the previous post, I need some more lessons too, and still reading...

Erik.

dantodd
06-08-2011, 9:31 PM
We want Richards and Peruta to be heard at the same time and on Peruta's schedule . This gets both arguments for fixing ccw in front if the judge at the same time. It also means that Richards would not have to worry about a loss in Peruta effecting it. I haven't read the objection yet so I don't know why they are arguing to keep the cases separate.

tabrisnet
06-08-2011, 9:35 PM
I am as yet confused... did somebody forget to coordinate with their friends? Or was there some conflict which prevented the lawyers from discussing the joining of the cases, outside of the courts ?

afaiui, CD Michel is generally a friend of CGF.

Gray Peterson
06-08-2011, 9:38 PM
OK, here is essentially what is going on:

Both the Richards attorneys and the Peruta attorneys are zealously advocating for their client's best interests, which are coming into conflict with each other.

The Richards attorneys are making a broad based facial attack on good cause and good moral character, using 1st amendment-style prior restraint doctrine.

The Peruta attorneys are making for narrow relief on the narrow aspect of good cause, using Heller and the currently existing equal protection case law with Guillory v. Gates

The Richards attorneys want to being related to the Peruta case and aligned with it due to the belief that their clients may not only get relief, their case might be held in abeyance for Peruta, delaying justice for both Adam Richards and Brett Stewart unnecessarily longer. For that reason, the Richards attorneys filed th emotion to align, sacrificing their own "warm up time" that is typically granted to appeals first being heard.

The Peruta attorneys are also driven by the same concerns, believing that rather than Richards being aligned with it, they will be aligned with Richards schedule instead, delaying justice for the Peruta plaintiffs even further.

These motions are directed to what's called a "Motions Panel". The Motion's panel is a random monthly selection of 3 Circuit Judges who review motions on cases, freeing up the "merit's panel" (which hasn't been assigned yet) to actually reading the actual materials on lead-up to the oral arguments date. So when motions are made to the appeals court, it's being made to the motions panel, until panel assignment is done. The Circuit Court Clerk handles the transition of data and information from the "Motions" Panel to the "Merits" panel. Motions panels can also be hostile to gun owners, too, depending on what the selections are, which is likely the Peruta attorney's concerns.


I am as yet confused... did somebody forget to coordinate with their friends? Or was there some conflict which prevented the lawyers from discussing the joining of the cases, outside of the courts ?

afaiui, CD Michel is generally a friend of CGF.

This is a situation where attorneys MUST advocate for their owns client's behalf, and not necessarily play ball with each other. The Richards attorneys wants to speed up their case, the Peruta case doesn't want to have their case slowed down (or at least they think there is a potential of the case being slowed down). Every day the ability of self defense is denied to these plaintiffs (and all of us, you, me, everyone in California) is every day they can face being maimed or killed by criminals.

I feel for both sets of plaintiffs because I'm a plaintiff in a similar civil rights suit in Denver over carry and it's slightly painful to watch.

Window_Seat
06-08-2011, 9:42 PM
We want Richards and Peruta to be heard at the same time and on Peruta's schedule . This gets both arguments for fixing ccw in front if the judge at the same time. It also means that Richards would not have to worry about a loss in Peruta effecting it. I haven't read the objection yet so I don't know why they are arguing to keep the cases separate.

Why on Peruta's schedule?

Otherwise, I'm starting to understand stuff a bit better after reading stuff more than once (it sometimes takes me 2 hours to watch 60 Minutes)...

And, Peruta Appellants would prefer not to have their case heard with
Richards – even if the two cases were on precisely the same track and guaranteed
to stay that way. The timing issue and potentially extensive delays in obtaining
relief is a real concern. But it is not the main one. Binding the cases together and
hearing them together will prejudice the Peruta Appellants’ case.

Why would they be concerned that binding the cases together would prejudice their case? I think it would help their case, but that's just me (so far, maybe I'm still dumb at this)...

Erik.

taperxz
06-08-2011, 9:45 PM
So by having a pro and a con will expedite matters easier than two pros or two cons? Or am I way off on the concept here. It wouldn't be the first time!

Gray Peterson
06-08-2011, 9:46 PM
Why on Peruta's schedule?

Otherwise, I'm starting to understand stuff a bit better after reading stuff more than once (it sometimes takes me 2 hours to watch 60 Minutes)...



Why would they be concerned that binding the cases together would prejudice their case? I think it would help their case, but that's just me (so far, maybe I'm still dumb at this)...

Erik.

Read my post above. Richards wants to be on Peruta's schedule because it fast-tracks their case to be heard. Peruta's attorneys are concerned they'll be put on Richard's schedule instead, and there's an apparent two month time difference.

Window_Seat
06-08-2011, 9:53 PM
Read my post above. Richards wants to be on Peruta's schedule because it fast-tracks their case to be heard. Peruta's attorneys are concerned they'll be put on Richard's schedule instead, and there's an apparent two month time difference.

Yup, I was typing just as you hit the submit (I'm a bit slow at typing up my questions, comments, compliments, condiments... :eek:)

Erik.

taperxz
06-08-2011, 9:56 PM
Being the conspiracy theorist that I am I believe this is strategy between the two plaintiffs to make the panel rule and spin heads for the defense.

hoffmang
06-08-2011, 11:06 PM
A couple of points.

1. This is an odd filing from the Peruta plaintiffs.

2. These cases are almost exactly identical - since they came from the same theory and complaint. The only difference is one additional theory - prior restraint - that SAF/CGF added.

3. There is no way that having Richards heard the same day by the same panel will hurt Peruta.

4. This isn't a motion to consolidate or divide time.

5. Is anyone curious about why the Peruta plaintiffs are ok with allowing sheriff's to pass judgement on people's "good moral character" in furtherance of their enumerated fundamental right?

6. Wouldn't having more argument time and more briefing pages brought to bear at the same time be a net positive?

7. Do we all really want to get in a situation where two different panels end up with different decisions on the right to bear arms in California? En banc mess anyone?

Curiouser and curiouser...

-Gene

dantodd
06-09-2011, 12:02 AM
fundraising?

Funtimes
06-09-2011, 1:36 AM
A couple of points.

1. This is an odd filing from the Peruta plaintiffs.

2. These cases are almost exactly identical - since they came from the same theory and complaint. The only difference is one additional theory - prior restraint - that SAF/CGF added.

3. There is no way that having Richards heard the same day by the same panel will hurt Peruta.

4. This isn't a motion to consolidate or divide time.

5. Is anyone curious about why the Peruta plaintiffs are ok with allowing sheriff's to pass judgement on people's "good moral character" in furtherance of their enumerated fundamental right?

6. Wouldn't having more argument time and more briefing pages brought to bear at the same time be a net positive?

7. Do we all really want to get in a situation where two different panels end up with different decisions on the right to bear arms in California? En banc mess anyone?

Curiouser and curiouser...

-Gene


Would it matter at this point? If the denial was for A -- and A gets removed, they can't just go back and deny for B, can they? Can a motion to be heard on same day, lead to a joining of arguments? It seems like a good idea if I were in the habit of listening to people argue, might as well hear them at the same time. It does seem like it would push the city more than anyone. I don't doubt that SAF could be ready to argue this next week if they had to. The city on the other hand, would probably get smashed at that point.

wildhawker
06-09-2011, 1:39 AM
Would it matter at this point? If the denial was for A -- and A gets removed, they can't just go back and deny for B, can they?

Yes, it does, and yes, they can.

safewaysecurity
06-09-2011, 2:00 AM
Has anyone talked to Chuck Michel about this little problem?

navyinrwanda
06-09-2011, 2:04 AM
Peruta's attorneys make several confusing and patently false claims about Richards.

They mistakenly assert that Richards is a purely facial challenge, made against the State of California as defendant. However, even Judge England was able to understand the Richards complaint, as he wrote in his opinion, “Plaintiffs are not challenging the California statute itself, but instead challenge Yolo County’s interpretation of their statutory authority, namely its Concealed Weapon License Policy.”

In a footnote, England further explained that, “The State of California and/or its legislature is not a party to the action.”

From here, though, England either deliberately or through inexcusable confusion converted Richards complaint and pleadings into a solely facial attack on the State of California's firearms carry statutes. He ignored the as-applied challenge that was plainly obvious in Richards' Motion for Summary Judgment:

...Prieto cannot reasonably claim that his policy cabins his discretion in any sort of meaningful, constitutionally acceptable way. To the contrary, Prieto’s written policy repeatedly confirms his exclusive and absolute discretion to adjudicate applicants’ moral character and good cause, and even goes so far as to declare that gun carry permits will be issued or renewed only
when “the Sheriff or his designee feels” like it. Worse still, the Sheriff’s written policy provides that “self-protection and protection of family (without credible threats of violence)” are “invalid reasons to request a permit.” This position categorically violates the Second Amendment. As the Supreme Court has made clear, self-defense is at the core of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
...

The good moral character and good cause provisions of Penal Code § 12050, and Defendants’ manner of implementing these requirements, vest unbridled discretion in the Sheriff’s ability to license exercise of fundamental rights. They must be enjoined. [emphasis added]


The only significant difference between Richards and Peruta is the vastly more comprehensive, well-researched and well-written argument of law that is Richards.

press1280
06-09-2011, 3:31 AM
5. Is anyone curious about why the Peruta plaintiffs are ok with allowing sheriff's to pass judgement on people's "good moral character" in furtherance of their enumerated fundamental right?

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume since Peruta was found to have "good moral character", then his counsel figures that is a fight for another day, another plaintiff. They didn't want to fight on extra fronts if they don't have to.
As far as everything else goes, I can only assume timing is the reason Peruta doesn't want to be consolidated with Richards. A snag in Richards (counsel gets sick, scheduling conflicts,exc.) will mean a snag w/Peruta. I guess they don't want to get bogged down and then have some US v. Crackhead case sneak past them and torpedo the whole thing.

slowride
06-09-2011, 7:19 AM
This is a great thing Chuck Michel did for us and is the result of a political decision reflecting the strong devide between CRPA/NRA and CGF/Gura beliefs on the proper legal strategy. Gura wants to ride the NRA coat tails because Michel has put together a much better argument.

Liberty1
06-09-2011, 7:37 AM
Welcome and strange 1st post? Are you saying this tongue n cheek or are you serious?

Edward Peruta
06-09-2011, 7:37 AM
On second thought....!

Gray Peterson
06-09-2011, 7:37 AM
This is a great thing Chuck Michel did for us and is the result of a political decision reflecting the strong devide between CRPA/NRA and CGF/Gura beliefs on the proper legal strategy. Gura wants to ride the NRA coat tails because Michel has put together a much better argument.

Uh, no. The stated purpose of the Richards alignment motion is to speed up the time for the Richards case and to prevent an intracircuit conflict which will require en banc resolution. This has zero to do with "much better argument"

Kestryll
06-09-2011, 8:12 AM
Welcome and strange 1st post? Are you saying this tongue n cheek or are you serious?

Oh I'm sure he's serious.

What else would you expect from Mr. Birdt?

ddestruel
06-09-2011, 9:02 AM
On second thought....!

probably a good second thought it came across at the end as somewhat confrontational. And probably wasnt helpful. But i wish you luck and i'm routing for you.



With all the dog piling to back this up and now its back to go it alone.... reading these two cases over and over i keep seeing them as necessarily intertwined yet this muscle flexing seems to keep ringing that old sound in the back of my head "divided and conquered". The in fighting and p'ing matches on our side seem to always accomplish that, those who oppose the 2nd amendment love to watch broad far-reaching hard to counter cases be divided into more narrow arguments by two factions who have equal objectives but can't seem to overcome their ego's or ideals.

Time will tell and judge where this goes....

Is it D-Day on the Normandy Coast, or just the Battle for Sicily where our own stall us out (think Patton(Gura) being told to slow down by Ike (NRA))?


Will we win the small battle yet prolong this front of the war? Or will the smaller and narrower puerta argument lay the foundation for better Richards footing regardless of the Delay

sighere
06-09-2011, 9:27 AM
I think the Richards folks are trying to make sure the weakness of the Peruta case does not hurt them in the long run. As someone else posted above, the cases are actually not identical, nor are the issues. Peruta makes this clear in their opposition. Peruta states that they initially challenged 12050 head on. Now it's just challenging the Sheriff/Chief's discretion on Good cause, and asking that self defense be considered good cause.

The weakness in Peruta is that it does not challenge good moral character. These sheriffs are not so dumb. You take away their discretion on good cause, they'll start denying on "good moral character". Think about it, if the discretion is unfettered (and it is) "bad" moral character might be:
1. A drunk driving conviction 15 years ago
2. Medical marijuana use
3. Speeding tickets
4. Citations for building a garage without a permit

Do I need to go on?

I think the Richards folks are trying to get Peruta on board to a facial challenge of 12050, and rightly so. Of course if I was reprepsenting Peruta, I would probably tell the Richards folks to pound sand. (Of course, I would not have made my challenge as narrow as they did)

Bigtime1
06-09-2011, 10:07 AM
I think the Richards folks are trying to make sure the weakness of the Peruta case does not hurt them in the long run. As someone else posted above, the cases are actually not identical, nor are the issues. Peruta makes this clear in their opposition. Peruta states that they initially challenged 12050 head on. Now it's just challenging the Sheriff/Chief's discretion on Good cause, and asking that self defense be considered good cause.

The weakness in Peruta is that it does not challenge good moral character. These sheriffs are not so dumb. You take away their discretion on good cause, they'll start denying on "good moral character". Think about it, if the discretion is unfettered (and it is) "bad" moral character might be:
1. A drunk driving conviction 15 years ago
2. Medical marijuana use
3. Speeding tickets
4. Citations for building a garage without a permit

Do I need to go on?

I think the Richards folks are trying to get Peruta on board to a facial challenge of 12050, and rightly so. Of course if I was representing Peruta, I would probably tell the Richards folks to pound sand. (Of course, I would not have made my challenge as narrow as they did)

The "good moral character" issue must relegated to the dumpster asap.

Just who in the hell is the civilian public employee at the SD County licensing office to judge anyone? Can we FOIA their personnel file? Search out their school transcripts? Interview their neighbors about their behavior? Talk to their college room mates? Could they withstand the same scrutiny? How would they enjoy being subjected the process? WHO MADE THEM GOD?

wash
06-09-2011, 10:09 AM
This sounds like a pissing contest between NRA and Alan Gura again.

I'll defer to the two time supreme court winner when it comes to legal strategy.

I'm just plain embarrassed and disappointed when I see things like this.

We are better than this, we need to work together.

tabrisnet
06-09-2011, 10:17 AM
This sounds like a pissing contest between NRA and Alan Gura again.

I'll defer to the two time supreme court winner when it comes to legal strategy.

I'm just plain embarrassed and disappointed when I see things like this.

We are better than this, we need to work together.


Quite, and what I originally was thinking... This question could have been asked OUTSIDE of court, rather than the adversarial court system.

Here's to hoping nobody involved takes this slight personally.

Window_Seat
06-09-2011, 10:32 AM
This sounds like a pissing contest between NRA and Alan Gura again.

I'll defer to the two time supreme court winner when it comes to legal strategy.

I'm just plain embarrassed and disappointed when I see things like this.

We are better than this, we need to work together.

Have to agree here...

If there is anything that anti groups like Brady, LCAV, MAIG, etc. are more afraid of than anything else, it's groups like CGF, NRA, SAF, CRPA, GOA, GOCA, GS2AC, JPFO, PPoSF and others all sticking together on the one issue that our right needs to be furthered, and actually working together.

All of these organizations, as well as the ones that focus on more broad conservative issues, one of them being 2A, combined, make for a total membership base of 6 Million plus.

Is there any way that things could be worked out in a timely fashion so that this litigation effort could be as successful as possible? Maximum success is what I'm hoping for, but the bickering has got to end in order for that to happen.

Erik.

bwiese
06-09-2011, 10:34 AM
Please don't over-read the situation that much....
Attorneys are obligated to do what they think are best for their specific clients' case.

ccmc
06-09-2011, 10:59 AM
WHO MADE THEM GOD?

California voters.

Glock22Fan
06-09-2011, 11:05 AM
Quite, and what I originally was thinking... This question could have been asked OUTSIDE of court, rather than the adversarial court system.

Here's to hoping nobody involved takes this slight personally.

It would appear that the Richards camp were in contact with the Peruta camp on the very day that the Richards camp filed the motion to request the merge.

And yet, the Richards camp did not think to mention this motion to the Peruta camp. Common courtesy would have thought that doing so might have avoided this controversy.

GrizzlyGuy
06-09-2011, 11:18 AM
On second thought....!

Good move since your lawyer didn't pre-bless what you said. I'm cheering for you to win one for all of us, and who knows what the other side might be able to use against you. Hopefully your next official public statement will be "victory!". :)

http://www.barewalls.com/i/c/482737_Winston-Churchill--V-for-VICTORY.jpg

Glock22Fan
06-09-2011, 11:46 AM
I think the Richards folks are trying to make sure the weakness of the Peruta case does not hurt them in the long run.
Maybe it is, in their minds, the other way around.

wash
06-09-2011, 11:59 AM
Maybe it is, in their minds, the other way around.
Have you ever looked at the timeline in the cases and how Peruta happened?

I know everyone is trying to play nice now but how many times is the NRA going to try to mess up an Alan Gura/SAF case?

Glock22Fan
06-09-2011, 12:04 PM
Have you ever looked at the timeline in the cases and how Peruta happened?

I know everyone is trying to play nice now but how many times is the NRA going to try to mess up an Alan Gura/SAF case?

Yes, I'm aware of the timelines. How does that make any difference to what I said?

And your second paragraph? You really think that Chuck Michel/NRA is trying to mess up Alan Gura by refusing to bend over backwards when Gura demands, without even notifying Michel first, that Peruta effectively delays his case by three months, just so the Peruta arguments and the Richards arguments can be heard together?

BigDogatPlay
06-09-2011, 12:11 PM
Please don't over-read the situation that much....
Attorneys are obligated to do what they think are best for their specific clients' case.

^^^ This ^^^... and they also kind of have to do what their client wants as well.

Just sayin', not trying to put words into any parties mouths.

wash
06-09-2011, 12:57 PM
Yes, I'm aware of the timelines. How does that make any difference to what I said?

And your second paragraph? You really think that Chuck Michel/NRA is trying to mess up Alan Gura by refusing to bend over backwards when Gura demands, without even notifying Michel first, that Peruta effectively delays his case by three months, just so the Peruta arguments and the Richards arguments can be heard together?
How is that worse than doing a copycat lawsuit with a less than ideal plaintiff and possibly messing up the original case before it has a chance to be argued?

wash
06-09-2011, 1:01 PM
At this point NRA looks like a 400 lb fattie that shoved it's way to the front of the lunch line and is demanding a plate of the mystery meat before it is fully cooked.

wazdat
06-09-2011, 1:49 PM
I predict the motion will be granted because the 9th Circus would like to kill two birds with one stone... :puke:

Connor P Price
06-09-2011, 1:54 PM
The two cases being joined on the Peruta schedule seems perfect to me. It strengthens the argument, and speeds the process. I really want to see good moral character taken down, just striking down good cause won't do much when sheriffs start denying everyone with a speeding ticket.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

safewaysecurity
06-09-2011, 2:07 PM
I'm still torn on which case is better but at the moment I'm thinking the Peruta case. Man I wish Alan Gura and the NRA could start out fresh and put their differences behind them and actually work together and not just a brief here and there.

wildhawker
06-09-2011, 2:15 PM
I'm still torn on which case is better but at the moment I'm thinking the Peruta case. Man I wish Alan Gura and the NRA could start out fresh and put their differences behind them and actually work together and not just a brief here and there.

What is the metric you're using to derive a conclusion of "better"? Frankly, I think many are basing the value of a case or filing on how it 'feels' after reading it.

NRA could choose to hire Alan for a case. Why didn't/don't/won't they?

-Brandon

Maestro Pistolero
06-09-2011, 2:37 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Alan Gura sees a benefit to NOT being perceived as aligned with the big, bad, NRA. In terms of perception, his credibility may rise in front of an audience that's ideologically pre-disposed against NRA cases, views, and affiliations. He has said, in so many words, that the NRA may make more headway at times by NOT being on the front line of every case.

If they (NRA and Gura) are really clever, they will privately exploit this dichotomy, working together behind the scenes. It's pure speculation on my part, but maybe there's a little of that going on, even if not in these particular cases. If so, it's downright dastardly, and I love it.

safewaysecurity
06-09-2011, 2:41 PM
What is the metric you're using to derive a conclusion of "better"? Frankly, I think many are basing the value of a case or filing on how it 'feels' after reading it.

NRA could choose to hire Alan for a case. Why didn't/don't/won't they?

-Brandon

The NRA frankly has more resources and I like their arguments a bit more. As we saw with the Richards case the first amendment framework didn't really work now you can blame the judge for that (and I kind of do blame the judge because his reasoning and most of the stuff was ridiculous) but I feel like it might not be the right way to go about it but then again I'm no legal expert. Also I was under the impression that Alan Gura said he wouldn't work for the NRA even if they did try to hire him. At least that's what I recalled from a speech he made a while ago.

wash
06-09-2011, 2:48 PM
How often is a copy better than the original?

I know it happens but not when the original is well planned by the best in the business and the copy has already needed to be fixed once.

For some reason anything "NRA" feels really good to you.

I would love it if there was coordination here. NRA could leave CCW to Alan and the NRA could be fighting something else entirely. That's two cases instead of one, things might move almost twice as fast.

We loose time and look silly when stuff like this happens.

The only reason why Peruta is going faster than Richards is because CGF waited while Sacramento county went virtual shall issue.

Which county has Peruta changed?

Maestro Pistolero
06-09-2011, 2:49 PM
I was under the impression that Alan Gura said he wouldn't work for the NRA even if they did try to hire him.
I don't think that's quite what he said, but he definitely distanced himself from that idea. Which would support my notion that he sees a benefit to keeping the NRA at arms length (at least in terms of perception).
NRA could leave CCW to Alan and the NRA could be fighting something else entirely.There's no way the NRA would relinquish an entire field of 2A protection to an attorney not directly representing them, and they shouldn't. Not even if it's Alan Gura.

dantodd
06-09-2011, 3:09 PM
It is somewhat misleading to label Peruta an "NRA case" while they are supporting the case currently it was filed without their consent and without their knowledge. The plaintiff jumped into a fire and NRA/CRPA came to his "rescue."

Since the original plaintiff essentially used Sykes (now Richards) as a personal version of "Pleadings and Practice" without Gura's (or the plaintiff's) consent it is not difficult to see where the friction in this case is rooted.

I would suspect that while Richards will be more than ready to move on the Peruta schedule I suspect that Yolo County will work to push the schedule back as they have the weaker argument and probably know they doomed, eventually. This means that a consolidated argument would likely be delayed vs. Peruta being heard alone. But it absolutely be heard before Richards would make it through otherwise.


Yolo knows that Peruta is a weaker case (no fault of Chuck Michel, he inherited a bad case.) They would much rather see Peruta lose in the 9th to reduce their workload and give them precedent they can cite. The panel chosen for Richards will also probably delay Richards pending the outcome of Peruta (as we saw Sykes and Pena delayed for Nordyke) which means that Richards would actually be heard later than it would if Peruta weren't also in the pipeline.

dantodd
06-09-2011, 3:12 PM
John,

Sykes was filed months before Peruta. The stay pending Nordyke is what slowed them down.

wildhawker
06-09-2011, 3:15 PM
You are absolutely incorrect.

Sykes (now Richards) was the first post-McDonald Federal "bear" civil case filed.

Did you read the latest Peruta filing by Michel & Assoc?

-Brandon

Are you sure your chronology is correct? I'm under the distinct impression that Peruta is the original. If Richards chose to wait, that's their business, but now to come in and say that nobody can do anything without their approval and everyone has to march to their drums is arrogant in the extreme. I can understand you perhaps having worries it it were Gorski, but Chuck Michel? Come on.

Meplat
06-09-2011, 3:17 PM
WOW! One post and banned! I didn't even have that rocky a start.:eek: Boo has a better average than that!

This is a great thing Chuck Michel did for us and is the result of a political decision reflecting the strong devide between CRPA/NRA and CGF/Gura beliefs on the proper legal strategy. Gura wants to ride the NRA coat tails because Michel has put together a much better argument.

wildhawker
06-09-2011, 3:18 PM
Peruta also evolved substantively after M&A took it over.


It is somewhat misleading to label Peruta an "NRA case" while they are supporting the case currently it was filed without their consent and without their knowledge. The plaintiff jumped into a fire and NRA/CRPA came to his "rescue."

Since the original plaintiff essentially used Sykes (now Richards) as a personal version of "Pleadings and Practice" without Gura's (or the plaintiff's) consent it is not difficult to see where the friction in this case is rooted.

I would suspect that while Richards will be more than ready to move on the Peruta schedule I suspect that Yolo County will work to push the schedule back as they have the weaker argument and probably know they doomed, eventually. This means that a consolidated argument would likely be delayed vs. Peruta being heard alone. But it absolutely be heard before Richards would make it through otherwise.


Yolo knows that Peruta is a weaker case (no fault of Chuck Michel, he inherited a bad case.) They would much rather see Peruta lose in the 9th to reduce their workload and give them precedent they can cite. The panel chosen for Richards will also probably delay Richards pending the outcome of Peruta (as we saw Sykes and Pena delayed for Nordyke) which means that Richards would actually be heard later than it would if Peruta weren't also in the pipeline.

Glock22Fan
06-09-2011, 3:18 PM
You are absolutely incorrect.

Sykes (now Richards) was the first post-McDonald Federal "bear" civil case filed.

Did you read the latest Peruta filing by Michel & Assoc?

-Brandon

Then I apologise. I was under the distinct impression that Peruta filed first.

And yes, I did read the latest Peruta filing, but if it said that, I missed it.

And you jumped in pretty damned fast. I deleted that post almost immediately I made it.

hoffmang
06-09-2011, 3:29 PM
It would appear that the Richards camp were in contact with the Peruta camp on the very day that the Richards camp filed the motion to request the merge.

And yet, the Richards camp did not think to mention this motion to the Peruta camp. Common courtesy would have thought that doing so might have avoided this controversy.

Let's make sure we're all reading the same filings. The Richards case is related to the Peruta case - that's a fact and both sides at least tacitly admit to that. The Richards filing HAS NO IMPACT on Peruta independently. Why would Richards team be obligated to mention filings in Richards to Peruta?

-Gene

Glock22Fan
06-09-2011, 3:43 PM
Let's make sure we're all reading the same filings. The Richards case is related to the Peruta case - that's a fact and both sides at least tacitly admit to that. The Richards filing HAS NO IMPACT on Peruta independently. Why would Richards team be obligated to mention filings in Richards to Peruta?

-Gene

Chuck Mitchel seems to think it would be appropriate, as do the standard protocol instructions in the footnote. His motion, bottom of page 6. (I take it you have read it? ;))


A few hours after filing the amicus curiae brief in the Peruta case, Richards Appellants filed a “Motion to Align Oral Argument Together With Related Case ” in their own matter. The motion was made without notice to counsel for Peruta, despite counsel for Richards being in contact with them the same day it was filed.2


Had it been discussed, maybe it could have been resolved out of court, as suggested by others above, but when Richards files a motion in Richards that affects Peruta, then it damn well must have an impact on Peruta.

wash
06-09-2011, 3:56 PM
There's no way the NRA would relinquish an entire field of 2A protection to an attorney not directly representing them, and they shouldn't. Not even if it's Alan Gura.

They absolutely should. NRA is really good on the legislative side, not so much on the litigation side.

NRA is also hamstrung because some of their leadership can not function as single issue gun rights advocates, other issues come in to play.

The worst I can say about SAF and Alan Gura is that they have a little feud with the NRA.

If the NRA could learn to let SAF and Alan Gura handle the litigation strategy side without injecting irrelevant issues in to the equation, we would be way ahead of where we are now.

Meplat
06-09-2011, 3:58 PM
The "good moral character" issue must relegated to the dumpster asap.

Just who in the hell is the civilian public employee at the SD County licensing office to judge anyone? Can we FOIA their personnel file? Search out their school transcripts? Interview their neighbors about their behavior? Talk to their college room mates? Could they withstand the same scrutiny? How would they enjoy being subjected the process? WHO MADE THEM GOD?

Here they are not civilians, they are detectives. They review your app and recommend granting or not. Then a lieutenant reviews the recommendation and sends it to the sheriff who makes the final decision. I would be shocked to find the detective's recommendation not followed in all but the rarest of cases.

Of course your same questions remain, civilian or not.

Meplat
06-09-2011, 4:04 PM
On what do you base this assumptionIt would appear that the Richards camp were in contact with the Peruta camp on the very day that the Richards camp filed the motion to request the merge.

And yet, the Richards camp did not think to mention this motion to the Peruta camp. Common courtesy would have thought that doing so might have avoided this controversy.

chris12
06-09-2011, 4:05 PM
If the NRA could learn to let SAF and Alan Gura handle the litigation strategy side without injecting irrelevant issues in to the equation, we would be way ahead of where we are now.

They did get extra money from Chicago, that's a positive.

Glock22Fan
06-09-2011, 4:13 PM
On what do you base this assumption

Already answered, post #58

wash
06-09-2011, 4:30 PM
Here's a question for you:

What happens if a Peruta decision moots the Richards case?

That means Gura and SAF can't request legal fees. So the organization that created the case winds up not getting paid.

Chuck might be able to recover fees if he wins but what do you think are the chances that NRA will share that money with SAF?

We are all supposed to be friends and on the same side. Stupid things like this cause all the problems.

chris12
06-09-2011, 4:47 PM
Re-reading my other post, it didn't come across like I intended. I agree with you about the NRA, I just found it amusing that I could only think of one helpful thing that was barely related to litigation.

Glock22Fan
06-09-2011, 4:54 PM
On what do you base this assumption

Here's a question for you:

What happens if a Peruta decision moots the Richards case?

That means Gura and SAF can't request legal fees. So the organization that created the case winds up not getting paid.

Chuck might be able to recover fees if he wins but what do you think are the chances that NRA will share that money with SAF?

We are all supposed to be friends and on the same side. Stupid things like this cause all the problems.

Two things. First, your anger should be directed at Chuck not me, it was he who decided to fight the motion. I just don't see why everyone thinks Chuck should roll over just because the mighty Gura (who I do admire, I just don't worship him) says so.

Second, everyone keeps grumbling that Peruta is not attacking on the broad spectrum that Richards is. So, if Peruta loses, if surely would only take a small bite out of Richards, leaving a lot left. You've all been saying Peruta should be attacking on the same grounds as Richards, and yet that would leave you worse off.

I'm not really fighting this because I think Chuck is right and Alan is wrong, although I have some sympathy for Chuck's position. My biggest worry is that CalGuns is developing into a cult, the same as a couple of other california forums did before it, whereby "The Right People" become worshipped as Gods and anyone who has different views is torn to shreds. Alan, despite his skill and success so far, has to wipe his own butt, you know.

Meplat
06-09-2011, 5:00 PM
This sounds like Peruta is a dangerous and possibly disastrous case for all concerned. It would seem that a good outcome for all concerned, including the Peruta plaintiff would be more important than a couple of months delay. It is somewhat misleading to label Peruta an "NRA case" while they are supporting the case currently it was filed without their consent and without their knowledge. The plaintiff jumped into a fire and NRA/CRPA came to his "rescue."

Since the original plaintiff essentially used Sykes (now Richards) as a personal version of "Pleadings and Practice" without Gura's (or the plaintiff's) consent it is not difficult to see where the friction in this case is rooted.

I would suspect that while Richards will be more than ready to move on the Peruta schedule I suspect that Yolo County will work to push the schedule back as they have the weaker argument and probably know they doomed, eventually. This means that a consolidated argument would likely be delayed vs. Peruta being heard alone. But it absolutely be heard before Richards would make it through otherwise.


Yolo knows that Peruta is a weaker case (no fault of Chuck Michel, he inherited a bad case.) They would much rather see Peruta lose in the 9th to reduce their workload and give them precedent they can cite. The panel chosen for Richards will also probably delay Richards pending the outcome of Peruta (as we saw Sykes and Pena delayed for Nordyke) which means that Richards would actually be heard later than it would if Peruta weren't also in the pipeline.

Meplat
06-09-2011, 5:08 PM
Already answered, post #58

Saw that, sorry!

wash
06-09-2011, 5:30 PM
I'm not directing any anger at you. If I was going to, you wouldn't know it until it was painfully obvious.

I'm just trying to illustrate what is causing problems here.

In a way Chuck is caught in the middle, he had to clean up Peruta, it wasn't his idea to step on Alan's toes. It's just hypocritical to complain about interference from Richards when Peruta (the case) has always been the one interfering.

In a perfect world we would have already won both cases but in a perfect world we would have constitutional carry and no reason for either case.

We will never know but Peruta might have already screwed up Richards. Who knows how the judge would have ruled if he didn't have the Peruta decision guiding him?

There are only two things; how things are and how things should be. Alan's motion would shift things back closer to how things should be.

I know that Chuck has to fight for his client but in reality it is all Californians that we are fighting for and fighting between these two cases helps no one.

Meplat
06-09-2011, 5:31 PM
I think you misunderstood the spirit of my question. I'm not angry. I'm disappointed at our inability to co-ordinate better and to get along. It was an honest plea for information. This forum has a few insiders and a huge bunch of outsiders. It is sometimes hard for those who do not live and breath litigation to keep up.

No hate or anger here.

Mike

Two things. First, your anger should be directed at Chuck not me, it was he who decided to fight the motion. I just don't see why everyone thinks Chuck should roll over just because the mighty Gura (who I do admire, I just don't worship him) says so.

Second, everyone keeps grumbling that Peruta is not attacking on the broad spectrum that Richards is. So, if Peruta loses, if surely would only take a small bite out of Richards, leaving a lot left. You've all been saying Peruta should be attacking on the same grounds as Richards, and yet that would leave you worse off.

I'm not really fighting this because I think Chuck is right and Alan is wrong, although I have some sympathy for Chuck's position. My biggest worry is that CalGuns is developing into a cult, the same as a couple of other california forums did before it, whereby "The Right People" become worshipped as Gods and anyone who has different views is torn to shreds. Alan, despite his skill and success so far, has to wipe his own butt, you know.

Sgt Raven
06-09-2011, 5:37 PM
Have you ever looked at the timeline in the cases and how Peruta happened?

I know everyone is trying to play nice now but how many times is the NRA going to try to mess up an Alan Gura/SAF case?


Is this going to turn into another Gura/McDonald- NRA/Chicago SCOTUS mess? :eek:

Paladin
06-09-2011, 5:40 PM
I doubt whether this issue will be decided by CNGers on this thread. Agreed?

And now for something completely different: all this discussion about going for a facial challenge vs attacking both GC and GMC vs cutting off just GC discretion now and cutting off GMC discretion later made me realize that CA's anti sheriffs must feel like they're about to play out the role of the Black Knight, but in the court room.

So, kick back, grab a beer, and know that our RKBA is on its way (even if it may take 3 months longer than ideal).

Enjoy!

zKhEw7nD9C4

dantodd
06-09-2011, 5:44 PM
Is this going to turn into another Gura/McDonald- NRA/Chicago SCOTUS mess? :eek:

It would seem that Gura did much the same thing to Peruta that NRA did to McDonald. It would seem that the view is different depending upon whose ox is being gored.

navyinrwanda
06-09-2011, 6:02 PM
Why would Richards team be obligated to mention filings in Richards to Peruta?

-Gene

Basic professional courtesy - when those filings affect Peruta (and this filing unquestionably affected Peruta).

Picking up the phone and calling someone can have amazing effects.

dantodd
06-09-2011, 6:41 PM
One advantage of this motion is that IF the panel does decide that Richards will not be heard at the same time they will put into the record that the lawsuits are sufficiently different that the ruling in Peruta will not be based on the same arguments that Richards will make.

kcbrown
06-09-2011, 6:47 PM
Frankly, given the immense respect shown Chuck Michel and his team by everyone, including the Right People, I'm actually quite skeptical that this move was not telegraphed ahead of time, that it's not part of the strategy agreed to by both sides (even if only at the last minute).

Which is to say: this discussion may be making much more out of this than there really is.

HowardW56
06-09-2011, 7:13 PM
It appears that both attorneys have had their toes stepped on. They both are talented and capable. Alan Gura has had tremendous success at SCOTUS, and he deserves everyone's respect for that.

Let’s all hope this squabble doesn't get out of hand, and they both can continue to advocate for the gun owners community successfully...

We are all on the same side...

Meplat
06-09-2011, 7:34 PM
It appears that both attorneys have had their toes stepped on. The both are talented and capable. Alan Gura has had tremendous success at SCOTUS, and he deserves everyone's respect for that.

Let’s all hope this squabble doesn't get out of hand, and they both can continue to advocate for the gun owners community successfully...

We are all on the same side...

AMEN!

wash
06-09-2011, 8:04 PM
It would seem that Gura did much the same thing to Peruta that NRA did to McDonald. It would seem that the view is different depending upon whose ox is being gored.
Uh, not really.

In McDonald, Gura and SAF had a case, then NRA created a copy cat, had the cases merged and then insisted on oral argument time instead of just briefs. After that they took credit for the whole thing, hardly mentioning Gura and SAF. They probably raised more money from McDonald than SAF has raised since the 70's.

In this case Gura and SAF made Sykes v. McGuiness and because they were stayed by Nordyke and delayed when Sacramento folded, Peruta's copy cat case (which was cleaned up by Chuck) managed to get decided first which probably changer the outcome in Richards (the name of the new lead plaintiff in the former Sykes case).

What is the common thread there?

NRA cases ~interfering with Alan Gura/SAF cases.

Some of it is just the way things work out but NRA has not been the wronged party even once.

hoffmang
06-09-2011, 10:24 PM
Basic professional courtesy - when those filings affect Peruta (and this filing unquestionably affected Peruta).

Picking up the phone and calling someone can have amazing effects.

Two riddles for you.

1. How does our filing in Richards hurt Chuck? Taking Chucks word for it doesn't answer my question.

2. Do you think that any person of counsel or involved with Richards got the courtesy call that you're saying we're supposed to have given him (even though our filing does not effect his case - I mean his copy of our case?)

-Gene

truthseeker
06-09-2011, 10:39 PM
:lurk5:

Connor P Price
06-10-2011, 12:12 AM
Two riddles for you.

1. How does our filing in Richards hurt Chuck? Taking Chucks word for it doesn't answer my question.

2. Do you think that any person of counsel or involved with Richards got the courtesy call that you're saying we're supposed to have given him (even though our filing does not effect his case - I mean his copy of our case?)

-Gene

Not really disagreeing with you, but I'd like to speak to number two here. I'd be shocked if anyone in the Richards camp received a call before Peruta began, but should that be put on Chuck? I don't think so.

Just the other day while waiting for the Ventura case to begin I spoke with an attorney who had inherited a case that he didn't like much, for a client that he didn't seem to like much and he told me that an attorney's worst nightmare is getting a case halfway through that they wouldn't have wanted from the beginning. This stuck with me, and seems to ring true in this case.

Imagine this: Two of your buddies are engaged in an argument, the winner of which is to be decided by a panel of three strangers. One of your buddies happens to have done a crappy job of structuring his argument from the start, so the panel is already against him and now your told that you have to take over for him. Do you feel confident? Or is that an uphill battle?

I don't need to go any further into why one case may be better than another, I honestly believe that both Richards and Peruta are fighting for noble reasons. However I've made it known that I prefer the arguments in Richards. I only hope that everyone recognizes that this isn't exactly analogous to Gura/NRA in Mcdonald. We all like Gura here and rightly so, SAF and CGF are kicking *** by his side in Richards. Michel has jumped into Peruta, and done a great job improving it as well.

I would love to see the cases merged, I feel that its best for CA in general. However I also understand where Michel is coming from. It doesn't have to be completely one or the other.

Lex Arma
06-10-2011, 7:13 AM
The motion to align arguments filed in Richards is really pretty ordinary. While the appellate rules don't exactly track the rules of trial courts, an administrative motion, setting forth why/why not any two cases are related is a 'required' filing when a lawyer learns that a pending case is similar to the case he is prosecuting.

Normally (in a trial court) the administrative motion to relate cases is filed in the earlier case. While Richards was filed first in the trial courts, Peruta won the race to the court of appeals. Due to this unique fact pattern, we consulted with the clerks of the Ninth Circuit and were instructed to file this rather ordinary (and arguably required) administrative motion in our case.

C. D. Michel and his client are entitled to disagree with us and have stated their reasons. This wasn't the first, and won't be the last time lawyers (even nominally on the same side) disagree with each other.

As for comparisons to what happened in the McDonald divided argument? There aren't any.

First, divided argument before SCOTUS is expressly frowned upon by the High Court, therefore it was highly unusual for NRA to even request it, and even more rare for the Court to grant it.

Second, divided argument before SCOTUS is a zero sum game. Any time given to NRA was taken from GURA.

Third, the motion to relate and align oral arguments filed in Richards simply requests that the cases be heard by the same panel on the same day as Peruta. This will not result in any more or any less time for oral argument in either case than they would have had if they had been heard separately.

The only possible prejudice to Peruta is that their case might be held for a month or two while the briefing in Richards is completed. And that is speculative. We have no plans to request an extension of time to file opening briefs in Richards. But if anyone cares to research the issue, you will find there are no timelines, rules or customs that control when a case gets set for oral argument after the briefs are in. The Court has its own internal timetable for such things.

Hope this helps clear the air.

Gray Peterson
06-10-2011, 8:04 AM
The motion to align arguments filed in Richards is really pretty ordinary. While the appellate rules don't exactly track the rules of trial courts, an administrative motion, setting forth why/why not any two cases are related is a 'required' filing when a lawyer learns that a pending case is similar to the case he is prosecuting.

Normally (in a trial court) the administrative motion to relate cases is filed in the earlier case. While Richards was filed first in the trial courts, Peruta won the race to the court of appeals. Due to this unique fact pattern, we consulted with the clerks of the Ninth Circuit and were instructed to file this rather ordinary (and arguably required) administrative motion

"We were instructed to file". This should clue you in that this wasn't some sort of backbiting BS.

uyoga
06-10-2011, 8:42 AM
Time for all the litigators to go into a room and discuss joint strategies that will mutually benefit all of their clients as well as the rest of us members and contributors who are similarly situated.

The success of this joint meeting would be almost guaranteed if everyone makes sure egos are placed and left in the box outside the door.

A lot of us financially contribute to the organizations funding each of the cases. We don't care who gets the credit for the succesful outcome. Let's work together.

Connor P Price
06-10-2011, 9:11 AM
Time for all the litigators to go into a room and discuss joint strategies that will mutually benefit all of their clients as well as the rest of us members and contributors who are similarly situated.

This doesn't sound ethical. The lawyers on each side have to advocate entirely for their client. That doesn't mean they are fighting with eachother, they are just doing their job. I'm sure there's no animosity on either side here; each side knows the other is just doing what they have to do.

Coded-Dude
06-10-2011, 9:14 AM
Time for all the litigators to go into a room and discuss joint strategies that will mutually benefit all of their clients as well as the rest of us members and contributors who are similarly situated.

The success of this joint meeting would be almost guaranteed if everyone makes sure egos are placed and left in the box outside the door.

A lot of us financially contribute to the organizations funding each of the cases. We don't care who gets the credit for the succesful outcome. Let's work together.

http://boards.fightingamphibians.org/fg/src/127965728490.gif

uyoga
06-10-2011, 9:15 AM
My point was that "zealously advocating for their client" actually advocates for the rest of us similarly situated. A benefit to their clients is, indeed, a benefit to us. Nothing unethical intended or implied there.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-10-2011, 9:29 AM
The motion to align arguments filed in Richards is really pretty ordinary.

Out of curiosity, can you cite another example where one of these ordinary "motions to align" was filed before the case was assigned to a panel and before the case was briefed? Or even after the case was briefed? I'm thinking of a motion asking for an order (as opposed to a notice of related cases or a statement in the opening brief) filed in a federal appellate case.

Lex Arma
06-10-2011, 9:46 AM
Out of curiosity, can you cite another example where one of these ordinary "motions to align" was filed before the case was assigned to a panel and before the case was briefed? Or even after the case was briefed? I'm thinking of a motion asking for an order (as opposed to a notice of related cases or a statement in the opening brief).

Curiosity my ***! But here goes: The analogy is to an adminstrative motion to relate cases set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Civil Procedure in the various districts. The motion is required by the rules. Look it up, I am not your research clerk.

The appellate rules do not specifically require such a motion, they probably should, it is not that rare an event. Way back in 2000 Nordyke was related to Great Western without either party filing motions.

However it is considered good practice to inform the court of any circumstances that will preserve judicial resources in advance of the Court having to perform duplicate work. That is why it is classified as an Administrative, rather than Substantive motion.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-10-2011, 9:53 AM
Curiosity my ***! But here goes: The analogy is to an adminstrative motion to relate cases set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Civil Procedure in the various districts. The motion is required by the rules. Look it up, I am not your research clerk.

Why are you so testy? I didn't ask you to research anything, I asked for an example, just one, of this "really pretty ordinary" motion. You were the one who claimed it was so ordinary, I figured you'd have a case name or number where it was done before in another federal appellate case, doesn't matter which circuit. But apparently you don't.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-10-2011, 10:20 AM
Even though this is an appellate situation, and there does not appear to be any authority or precedent for an "administrative motion to align/relate cases" in the appellate rules, I took your suggestion and looked up the trial court rules. The FRCP doesn't mention related cases at all, and the local rules do not require let alone authorize an administrative motion to align/relate. So where exactly is this motion to align "classified as an Administrative, rather than Substantive motion" in the FRCP or local rules?

Lex Arma
06-10-2011, 10:21 AM
Time for all the litigators to go into a room and discuss joint strategies that will mutually benefit all of their clients as well as the rest of us members and contributors who are similarly situated.

The success of this joint meeting would be almost guaranteed if everyone makes sure egos are placed and left in the box outside the door.


I was invited to two such litigation strategy sessions. Both were hosted by Alan Gura prior to oral arguments in Heller and prior to oral arguments in McDonald. I met Alan Gura for the first time at the Heller meeting and we did not file any cases together until after McDonald was already docketed with the Supreme Court. The NRA was invited to both meetings.

I have never been invited to any such a meeting by the NRA. Two possible conclusions here: (1) They aren't interested in holding such a meeting, or (2) They have held such meetings, I just wasn't invited. I am actually more comfortable with #2, because #1 makes the NRA seem like a aircraft carrier piloted by chipmunks. (don't ask)

I do know that I have personnally suggested to individual NRA Board Members that such litigation coordination would be beneficial and got some positive feedback from those individual Board members. Apparently they were unable to persuade the rest of the Board, because nothing ever came of my suggestion.

I would like to clear the air a little. Gura has never actively interferred with any case filed by the NRA. The same cannot be said of the reverse.

Disclaimer: I work with Alan Gura on several cases. I think he is a top notch lawyer. Concession: I am biased.

But I am also an Endowment Member of the NRA. I give discounts on my hourly rate as a lawyer (both gun work and family law work) to people who are members of the NRA, SAF CRPA, etc. I stand behind Gene Hoffman's admonition: Never, never choose to not be a member of the NRA. But that doesn't mean I agree with everything they do.

Nuf said. :cool:

Lex Arma
06-10-2011, 10:28 AM
Even though this is an appellate situation, and there does not appear to be any authority or precedent for an "administrative motion to align/relate cases" in the appellate rules, I took your suggestion and looked up the trial court rules. The FRCP doesn't mention related cases at all, and the local rules do not require let alone authorize an administrative motion to align/relate. So where exactly is this motion to align "classified as an Administrative, rather than Substantive motion" in the FRCP or local rules?

Most districts have local rules requiring counsel to notify the court at the time an action is filed (or as soon thereafter as known) if it is related to an action already on file with the court. The purpose of such notice is to enable the court to determine whether the case should be assigned to the same judge handling the pending case. [See CD CA Rule 83-1.3; ND CA Rule 3-12; > SD CA Rule 40.1(e); ED CA Rule 83-123]

(Note: You must file such a notice even if you do not want the cases to be assigned to the same judge.)

-- [8:842] Central District Rule: The Central District Rule requires plaintiff's attorney to file and serve a Notice of Related Case if an action already pending in the Central District appears:

· to arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, happenings or events; or

· to involve the same patent, trademark or copyright; or

· to call for determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law and fact; or

· is likely for other reasons to entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges. [CD CA Rule 83-1.3.1; see > United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. R&D Latex Corp. (9th Cir. 2001) 242 F.3d 1102, 1116--similar cases not "identical"]

A brief factual statement is required setting forth the basis of the attorney's belief that the actions are related. [CD CA Rule 83-1.3.1]

Any party opposing a related-case transfer has five days after service of the notice or first appearance to file a counterstatement setting forth reasons why the action does not qualify for related-case transfer. [CD CA Rule 83.1.3.2]

-- [8:843] Northern District Rule: Whenever a party knows of an earlier related case in the district, it must serve on all parties and file in the earliest-filed case an "Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related" under ND CA Rule 7-11. [ND CA Rule 3-12(b)]

The motion must contain (i) the title and case number and filing date of all such related actions and (ii) a brief statement of their relationship according to criteria set forth in Local Rule 3-12(a) (discussed below). It should also set forth any reasons why assignment to a single judge for disposition is or is not likely to effect a saving of judicial effort and other economies. Within 10 days after service of the Notice, any other party may file a counterstatement supporting or opposing the Notice. The court with the earliest assigned case will then decide whether reassignment is necessary. [ND CA Rule 3-12(b),(d)-(f)]


Actions are deemed "related" when:

-- both concern "substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event"; and

-- it is "likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different Judges." [ND CA Rule 3-12(a)]

Even if no notice is filed, a court may sua sponte identify a case as potentially related to another case and refer a case to the judge in the earlier case, requesting that it determine whether the cases are related. [See ND CA Rule 3-12(c)]


Federal Rules of Civil Procedure TRG: CHAPTER 8, D. COMPLAINTS
------------ Excerpt from pages 1776-1777

uyoga
06-10-2011, 10:32 AM
I was invited to two such litigation strategy sessions. Both were hosted by Alan Gura prior to oral arguments in Heller and prior to oral arguments in McDonald. I met Alan Gura for the first time at the Heller meeting and we did not file any cases together until after McDonald was already docketed with the Supreme Court. The NRA was invited to both meetings.

I have never been invited to any such a meeting by the NRA. Two possible conclusions here: (1) They aren't interested in holding such a meeting, or (2) They have held such meetings, I just wasn't invited. I am actually more comfortable with #2, because #1 makes the NRA seem like a aircraft carrier piloted by chipmunks. (don't ask)

I do know that I have personnally suggested to individual NRA Board Members that such litigation coordination would be beneficial and got some positive feedback from those individual Board members. Apparently they were unable to persuade the rest of the Board, because nothing ever came of my suggestion.

I would like to clear the air a little. Gura has never actively interferred with any case filed by the NRA. The same cannot be said of the reverse.

Disclaimer: I work with Alan Gura on several cases. I think he is a top notch lawyer. Concession: I am biased.

But I am also an Endowment Member of the NRA. I give discounts on my hourly rate as a lawyer (both gun work and family law work) to people who are members of the NRA, SAF CRPA, etc. I stand behind Gene Hoffman's admonition: Never, never choose to not be a member of the NRA. But that doesn't mean I agree with everything they do.

Nuf said. :cool:

OK . . . NRA . . . (of which I am a Life Member) is the ball in your court, or what?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-10-2011, 10:42 AM
Richards is Eastern District, no requirement or authority for motion to align/relate cases in the Eastern District local rules. Notice, yes, motion, no (there is a difference, my original question was about motions, not notices).

The 9th circuit rules are clear...a statement of related cases is required in the last page of the opening brief. After briefing, the case management attorneys then identify related cases during the inventory processs: "Cases involving the same legal issue are identified during the court’s inventory process."

This is actually the ordinary procedure, but instead you filed an unprecedented, extraordinary motion that is neither required by nor authorized by the FRAP, the 9th circuit rules, or the committee notes. It isn't a "really pretty ordinary" motion at all.

Purple K
06-10-2011, 10:46 AM
"An aircraft carrier piloted by chipmunks." I like it!

wash
06-10-2011, 10:58 AM
All indications seem to point to NRA internal politics as the reason why cases are not properly coordinated.

As a slightly reluctant NRA member I would like to get all of their leadership in one room and run a little Spanish Inquisition style loyalty test.

Lex Arma
06-10-2011, 11:10 AM
Richards is Eastern District, no requirement or authority for motion to align/relate cases in the Eastern District local rules. Notice, yes, motion, no (there is a difference, my original question was about motions, not notices).

The 9th circuit rules are clear...a statement of related cases is required in the last page of the opening brief. After briefing, the case management attorneys then identify related cases during the inventory processs: "Cases involving the same legal issue are identified during the court’s inventory process."

This is actually the ordinary procedure, but instead you filed an unprecedented, extraordinary motion that is neither required by nor authorized by the FRAP, the 9th circuit rules, or the committee notes. It isn't a "really pretty ordinary" motion at all.

That is why I said our motion was analogous to trial court procedure and if you noticed, the Northern District (analogy, get it?) requires the motion. Being creative to serve your client's interests is one of the things lawyers get paid to do. Since there is no rule forbidding such a motion, and since there is authority for the motion in a similar context (and in that context it IS pretty ordinary), we filed the motion. Innovation in the legal profession is slow, but it does happen.

Why do you insist on anonymous criticism from the sidelines? If we knew your name, we could look up any of the published cases you have worked on and we would know if your opinion carried any weight.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-10-2011, 11:26 AM
That is why I said our motion was analogous to trial court procedure and if you noticed, the Northern District (analogy, get it?) requires the motion. Being creative to serve your client's interests is one of the things lawyers get paid to do. Since there is no rule forbidding such a motion, and since there is authority for the motion in a similar context (and in that context it IS pretty ordinary), we filed the motion. Innovation in the legal profession is slow, but it does happen.

You're pretty good at making these weasely explanations. (No personal attack intended, I think the explanation is weasely, not you.) Why don't you just provide a straightforward explanation why you filed this motion which appears to be unprecedented in federal appellate practice and certainly not required by any rule? Instead of simply following the ordinary procedure that is actually outlined in the applicable rules. The "we didn't know what to do so we consulted the 9th circuit clerks and the told us to do it" doesn't tell the whole story and you know it.

If we knew your name, we could look up any of the published cases you have worked on and we would know if your opinion carried any weight.

No published cases = opinion doesn't carry any weight? That sounds like a great litmus test for posting on calguns lol.

dantodd
06-10-2011, 11:56 AM
You're pretty good at making these weasely explanations. (No personal attack intended, I think the explanation is weasely, not you.)

I don't understand how "being creative to serve [our] client's interests" is weasely.

If you can't understand why Don's clients feel their interests are better served by such a filing that would certainly be a valid line of questioning. I have more respect for your intelligence than to think you can't figure that out though.

eaglemike
06-10-2011, 12:11 PM
You're pretty good at making these weasely explanations. (No personal attack intended, I think the explanation is weasely, not you.) Why don't you just provide a straightforward explanation why you filed this motion which appears to be unprecedented in federal appellate practice and certainly not required by any rule? Instead of simply following the ordinary procedure that is actually outlined in the applicable rules. The "we didn't know what to do so we consulted the 9th circuit clerks and the told us to do it" doesn't tell the whole story and you know it.



No published cases = opinion doesn't carry any weight? That sounds like a great litmus test for posting on calguns lol.
The litmus test wasn't about posting on CalGuns - get it?????

Why do you use language that is unnecessarily offensive? And stay anonymous? Failing the classy behavior test.

Lex Arma
06-10-2011, 12:15 PM
You're pretty good at making these weasely explanations. (No personal attack intended, I think the explanation is weasely, not you.) Why don't you just provide a straightforward explanation why you filed this motion which appears to be unprecedented in federal appellate practice and certainly not required by any rule? Instead of simply following the ordinary procedure that is actually outlined in the applicable rules. The "we didn't know what to do so we consulted the 9th circuit clerks and the told us to do it" doesn't tell the whole story and you know it.


No published cases = opinion doesn't carry any weight? That sounds like a great litmus test for posting on calguns lol.

Weasely may = advocacy. Name calling is a matter of perspective.

As for no personal attack intended - bushwa. You've been dogging me every time you perceive some mis-step or set back in any case I'm working on. I can appreciate, and even welcome criticism from friends and colleagues. I might assume you are a friend since you post on Calguns.net. But I don't know that.

Asking me to publicly disclose attorney work product and attorney/client communication (e.g., why we filed the motion) may be curiosity on your part; or it may be an attempt gain an unfair advantage. I have no way of knowing because you choose to post anonymously. FWIW, how do you KNOW our reasons aren't exactly the reasons we stated in our motion? The cases are similar enough to warrant being related and heard by the same panel.

The reference to (your) published cases was an attempt to find out if you have ever put your skill and reputation on the line. You appear to have some (better than most) working knowledge of the legal profession.

I was just "curious." :cool:

Connor P Price
06-10-2011, 2:12 PM
My point was that "zealously advocating for their client" actually advocates for the rest of us similarly situated. A benefit to their clients is, indeed, a benefit to us. Nothing unethical intended or implied there.

You are correct, I hadn't had my coffee yet and read into your statement something else entirely. A meeting off the minds like you describe or like mr Kilmer describes is in no way unethical, and is very important.

I mistook your comment for saying that the lawyers should meet and compromise on currently active cases. It just wouldn't be right for anyone to compromise for their client, but that's not what you were talking about. Sorry about that.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

hoffmang
06-10-2011, 4:44 PM
I find it amusing that time is now of the essence when the Peruta plaintiffs asked for a 60 day extension on their time to file (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/Peruta-Motion-For-Extension-2011-03-03.pdf) their briefs...

So are they in a rush or not?

-Gene

Funtimes
06-10-2011, 6:24 PM
I find it amusing that time is now of the essence when the Peruta plaintiffs asked for a 60 day extension on their time to file (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/Peruta-Motion-For-Extension-2011-03-03.pdf) their briefs...

So are they in a rush or not?

-Gene

Maybe the NRA has gotten more support in form of Amici briefs?

mofugly13
06-11-2011, 6:49 AM
I find it amusing that time is now of the essence when the Peruta plaintiffs asked for a 60 day extension on their time to file (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/Peruta-Motion-For-Extension-2011-03-03.pdf) their briefs...

So are they in a rush or not?

-Gene

Did anyone from thier cam actually come here and say they were in a rush?

uyoga
06-11-2011, 9:32 AM
It appears that the "time is of the essence" claim can be surmised from reading the Motion in Opposition, on Page 10: " . . . The Richards “motion to align” seeks to impact Peruta in a number of ways. . . . (3) moves to effectively stay or otherwise attach itself to Peruta until Richards catches up, . . . " and from Page 11 and 12: " . . . There could be additional delays, briefing extensions in Richards, . . . "

Coded-Dude
06-11-2011, 11:07 AM
so the Peruta camp will delay for amici briefs from other camps(as long as its not Richards)?

Maestro Pistolero
06-11-2011, 11:13 AM
Sorry, this sentence seems to be missing something:
The Richards attorneys want to (avoid?, prevent?) being related to the Peruta case and aligned with it due to the belief that their clients may not only get relief,
OK, here is essentially what is going on:

Both the Richards attorneys and the Peruta attorneys are zealously advocating for their client's best interests, which are coming into conflict with each other.

The Richards attorneys are making a broad based facial attack on good cause and good moral character, using 1st amendment-style prior restraint doctrine.

The Peruta attorneys are making for narrow relief on the narrow aspect of good cause, using Heller and the currently existing equal protection case law with Guillory v. Gates

The Richards attorneys want to being related to the Peruta case and aligned with it due to the belief that their clients may not only get relief, their case might be held in abeyance for Peruta, delaying justice for both Adam Richards and Brett Stewart unnecessarily longer. For that reason, the Richards attorneys filed th emotion to align, sacrificing their own "warm up time" that is typically granted to appeals first being heard.

The Peruta attorneys are also driven by the same concerns, believing that rather than Richards being aligned with it, they will be aligned with Richards schedule instead, delaying justice for the Peruta plaintiffs even further.

These motions are directed to what's called a "Motions Panel". The Motion's panel is a random monthly selection of 3 Circuit Judges who review motions on cases, freeing up the "merit's panel" (which hasn't been assigned yet) to actually reading the actual materials on lead-up to the oral arguments date. So when motions are made to the appeals court, it's being made to the motions panel, until panel assignment is done. The Circuit Court Clerk handles the transition of data and information from the "Motions" Panel to the "Merits" panel. Motions panels can also be hostile to gun owners, too, depending on what the selections are, which is likely the Peruta attorney's concerns.




This is a situation where attorneys MUST advocate for their owns client's behalf, and not necessarily play ball with each other. The Richards attorneys wants to speed up their case, the Peruta case doesn't want to have their case slowed down (or at least they think there is a potential of the case being slowed down). Every day the ability of self defense is denied to these plaintiffs (and all of us, you, me, everyone in California) is every day they can face being maimed or killed by criminals.

I feel for both sets of plaintiffs because I'm a plaintiff in a similar civil rights suit in Denver over carry and it's slightly painful to watch.

Meplat
06-11-2011, 11:52 AM
Fabio:

I am a life member of NRA and some times the leadership of the organization just makes me go facepalm. But, I agree with Gene and Lex we all need to be NRA members and contributors. But NRA is like Canada even though you some times wonder WTF they are thinking we need to be nice, get along, and work with them, because we are in this together and we need each other.

That said: do you think nit picking and pot stirring is helpful?

Mike





Richards is Eastern District, no requirement or authority for motion to align/relate cases in the Eastern District local rules. Notice, yes, motion, no (there is a difference, my original question was about motions, not notices).

The 9th circuit rules are clear...a statement of related cases is required in the last page of the opening brief. After briefing, the case management attorneys then identify related cases during the inventory processs: "Cases involving the same legal issue are identified during the court’s inventory process."

This is actually the ordinary procedure, but instead you filed an unprecedented, extraordinary motion that is neither required by nor authorized by the FRAP, the 9th circuit rules, or the committee notes. It isn't a "really pretty ordinary" motion at all.

Kestryll
06-11-2011, 12:10 PM
You're pretty good at making these weasely explanations. (No personal attack intended, I think the explanation is weasely, not you.)

What a clever way to get your dig or insult in while trying to say it's not one.

I'd advise you to never do it again here, you're not that clever and I'm not that dumb.

Scarecrow Repair
06-11-2011, 9:57 PM
you're not that clever and I'm not that dumb.

Ooooh mama ... I will have to remember this for use on myself whenever I think I am hot stuff. When I am driving and annoyed with some slowpoke, I always try to remind myself that it is probably Aunt Bob and Uncle Sally with a wedding cake on the back seat; just because I can't see why they are driving so slowly, they probably have a reason. Now I have another good reminder whenever I think I am just oh so clever ...

Thanks for the smile.

NRA Fan
06-12-2011, 6:53 PM
Trying to figure this all out, but it appears richards is cgn backed and Peruta is crpa backed. Hoffmang is on the board of both based upon his signature line and the NRA doesn't even seem to be actively involved. So is it hoffmang responsible for coordinating the two camps? Why is the NRA getting any blame? Seems this is a local squabble that needs to be solved...privately.

wildhawker
06-12-2011, 7:27 PM
Trying to figure this all out, but it appears richards is cgn backed and Peruta is crpa backed. Hoffmang is on the board of both based upon his signature line and the NRA doesn't even seem to be actively involved. So is it hoffmang responsible for coordinating the two camps? Why is the NRA getting any blame? Seems this is a local squabble that needs to be solved...privately.

A number of us are on both CGF and CRPA boards. However, we're [purposefully] not directly involved with CRPA Foundation, the 501(c)3 litigation arm of CRPA.

Your post indicates a lack of context and history for some of the comments made within this thread. I won't repeat it here but the information is widely available here and elsewhere on the web.

-Brandon

Window_Seat
06-12-2011, 7:39 PM
A number of us are on both CGF and CRPA boards. However, we're [purposefully] not directly involved with CRPA Foundation, the 501(c)3 litigation arm of CRPA.

Your post indicates a lack of context and history for some of the comments made within this thread. I won't repeat it here but the information is widely available here and elsewhere on the web.

-Brandon

And I'm still trying to sort it out as well by reading the briefs some more, but I've always been a bit slow (I was the one they were referring to when they made the sign that said "SLOW CHILDREN AT PLAY")... :no:

Erik.

Kestryll
06-12-2011, 7:50 PM
A number of us are on both CGF and CRPA boards. However, we're [purposefully] not directly involved with CRPA Foundation, the 501(c)3 litigation arm of CRPA.

Your post indicates a lack of context and history for some of the comments made within this thread. I won't repeat it here but the information is widely available here and elsewhere on the web.

-Brandon

I wouldn't waste too much time trying to explain things to NRA Fan.

I'm sure Mr. John Birdt has at least a remedial understanding of what is happening.
While his deceitful nature as shown by this his fourth or fifth account here after being banned argues against his integrity, one would hope law school taught him enough to grasp the basics of these two cases.

hoffmang
06-12-2011, 7:54 PM
Isn't it funny how it's always Jon Birdt?

-Gene

HowardW56
06-12-2011, 8:19 PM
Isn't it funny how it's always Jon Birdt?

-Gene


:D:D

wildhawker
06-12-2011, 8:22 PM
I wouldn't waste too much time trying to explain things to NRA Fan.

I'm sure Mr. John Birdt has at least a remedial understanding of what is happening.

While his deceitful nature as shown by this his fourth or fifth account here after being banned argues against his integrity, one would hope law school taught him enough to grasp the basics of these two cases.

I just found the perfect legal adviser and campaign manager for Chelene Nightengale's next run for governor...

:cool:

-Brandon

dantodd
06-12-2011, 8:23 PM
Isn't it funny how it's always Jon Birdt?

-Gene

He should start a club. "The Jon Birdt Society"

HowardW56
06-12-2011, 8:42 PM
He should start a club. "The Jon Birdt Society"

The Charles & Jon Mutual Admiration Society....

Window_Seat
06-12-2011, 8:55 PM
From the motion for extension:

The Firm's lawyers have also been tied up on numerous other matters, including Parker v. California, No. 10CECG02116 (Super. Ct. Fresno, filed June 17, 2010), a recently successful challenge to various ammunition regulations set forth in the California Penal Code. In Parker, oral arguments were held just in late January and attorneys' fees are now being sought by Appellants' counsel via noticed motion. Preparations for a pending appeal are also currently underway. (Michel Decl. at ¶¶​​ 6-8; Declaration of Sean A. Brady at ¶​¶​ 4-6.).

Is an appeal really likely? Do we still keep OOIDA in our back pockets and make sure it's not getting wrinkled too badly? AB613 cannot be reconsidered fast enough, but the fact that it passed the committee first time around (I think) might make it so they don't have much ground to stand on for an appeal, or no? Is this really for real, or do Counsel always prepare for appeals?

If we want alignment of both cases, and for the case to be heard on the Peruta schedule (I thought that's what we wanted), then doesn't this automatically jeopardize that agenda, thus delaying everything? If the cases were aligned, wouldn't they (being Peruta) want that?

Didn't someone here mention something about how simple telephone conversations can go a long way towards solutions?

Erik.

Maestro Pistolero
06-12-2011, 11:17 PM
Trying to figure this all out, but it appears richards is cgn backed and Peruta is crpa backed. Hoffmang is on the board of both based upon his signature line and the NRA doesn't even seem to be actively involved. So is it hoffmang responsible for coordinating the two camps? Why is the NRA getting any blame? Seems this is a local squabble that needs to be solved...privately.
It is appropriate to blame the NRA because when there's a win, they will stepping in to take the credit. :D

Anchors
06-13-2011, 3:25 AM
So now we have to wait a while to find out how the motion went? At least two weeks...

The state needs time to curtail their lies to fit each case, this way saying one thing in one won't hurt them as much in the other.

Meplat
06-13-2011, 10:09 PM
I just found the perfect legal adviser and campaign manager for Chelene Nightengale's next run for governor...

:cool:

-Brandon

That was cruel.

wildhawker
06-13-2011, 11:28 PM
That was cruel.

Me? :43:

goober
06-14-2011, 12:04 AM
Isn't it funny how it's always Jon Birdt?

-Gene

I just found the perfect legal adviser and campaign manager for Chelene Nightengale's next run for governor...

:cool:

-Brandon

ok now who's gonna clean the beer off my monitor? :D

Scarecrow Repair
06-14-2011, 8:52 AM
ok now who's gonna clean the beer off my monitor? :D

Your fault for driving the information superhighway while drinking.

hoffmang
06-16-2011, 9:34 PM
The Richards team posted a response (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/008-Reply-Releated-Case-2011-06-16.pdf) to the Peruta team today.

-Gene

goober
06-16-2011, 9:44 PM
The Richards team posted a response (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/008-Reply-Releated-Case-2011-06-16.pdf) to the Peruta team today.

-Gene

Respectfully, if Peruta counsel does not wish to have argument in his
case heard on the same day and in the same place as that in another
case, he should refrain from creating related cases.
Appellants never asked for Peruta to be filed, or for it to mimic their
case, but what’s done is done. The situation is of Peruta’s making. The
cases are plainly related and must be heard by the same panel.

*owch*.... that's gonna leave a mark :pinch:

Liberty1
06-16-2011, 9:53 PM
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=1sONfxPCTU0

Blackhawk556
06-16-2011, 10:49 PM
Wow that's going to cause some people to not have a few beers together and chillax

Funtimes
06-16-2011, 10:58 PM
damn, can't we play nice and get along with each other lol.

Connor P Price
06-16-2011, 11:07 PM
Wow that's going to cause some people to not have a few beers together and chillax

damn, can't we play nice and get along with each other lol.

As like minded attorneys with a strong grasp of the legal system, I imagine that counsel on either side will be just fine once the issue of carry is resolved. While the above quote reads quite a bit like a legal ***** slap, I'm sure everyone will be just fine.

This is much less a fight between the two camps than people are making it seem.

ddestruel
07-12-2011, 2:58 PM
30 days with no activity

yellowfin
08-10-2011, 10:54 AM
So now, according to the docket, we officially are awaiting our side's opening brief on 8/24. Setting my alarm clock and stacking some deli meat on some rye bread... There was one rather odd entry which I don't understand that says "Case Rejected from Circuit Mediation Program". Anyone got the scoop on this?

hoffmang
08-11-2011, 12:32 AM
There was one rather odd entry which I don't understand that says "Case Rejected from Circuit Mediation Program". Anyone got the scoop on this?

Mediation isn't going to move this case toward a settlement. The Sheriff is wrong as a matter of law and there is no middle ground between our position and their position.

-Gene