01CECG03182 - Edward Hunt vs State of California

[kenc9]

This case has a new entry for 08-JAN-2007, I believe as this case goes we will have a real good idea what to expect from Jerry Brown as the A.G..

The new entry,

"03-JAN-2007
03:54 PM Stipulation Hunt, Edward W.
Entry: Parties stipulate for opposition and reply to motions for summary adjudication."

Anyone know if this is more stall or preparation for the case?

This case has a Filing Date of :Tuesday , September 18th, 2001

Does anyone really know what the inside skinny is on this case or expectations?
summary adjudication of issues n. a court order ruling that certain factual issues are already determined prior to trial. This summary adjudication is based upon a motion by one of the parties contending that these issues are settled and need not be tried. The motion is supported by declarations under oath, excerpts from depositions which are under oath, admissions of fact by the opposing party, and other discovery, as well as a legal argument (points and authorities). The other party may respond by counter-declarations and legal arguments attempting to show that these issues were "triable issues of fact." If there is any question as to whether there is conflict on the facts on an issue, the summary adjudication must be denied regarding that matter. The theory behind this summary process is to reduce the number of factual questions which will require evidence at trial and eliminate one or more causes of action in the complaint or conversely find a judgment for plaintiff. The motion for summary adjudication of issues often accompanies the broader motion for summary judgment, which can result in judgment on the entire complaint or some causes of action before the trial starts. The pleading procedures are extremely technical and complicated and are particularly dangerous to the party against whom such a motion is made

http://banweb.co.fresno.ca.us/plsql/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?case_id =01CECG03182&begin_date=&end_date=

-ken

[jnojr]

Can we get this thread stickied? This could be a very, very important case for us.

[ETD1010]

forgive my ignorance, but what exactly IS going on here? ::looks confused::

[kenc9]

Here is his letter explaining the case from Hunt.
http://calgunlaws.com/Docs/ASSAULT%20WEAPONS/Articles/76855_Fresno_DA_Hunt_Letter.PDF

[hoffmang]

There are quite a few additional recent filings and they do get into OLLs and SB-23.

You can find a couple of the filings on http://www.calgunlaws.com/article-477.html

-Gene

[xenophobe]

Anyone know if this is more stall or preparation for the case?


This is one of the required steps before the trial. Not a stalling tactic.

[pnkssbtz]

Just read that pdf Hoffmang...

Wow Iggy is good at spin control...

[Jarhead4]

I was just reading what Iggy said about what a flash suppresser is. He stated that the definition of a flash suppressor is “any device designed, intended, or that functions to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter’s field of vision.” However, in Jane’s Infantry Weapons it defines a Flash Hider as a “Conical Attachment to the muzzle for concealing muzzle flash from an observer.” Jane’s has been the expert in this field long before Iggy was.

So my point is that a flash suppresser is based on the observer, and not the shooter’s field of view. Also, what are the parameters for determining if the flash is perceptibly reduced? If you change ammo you could perceptibly reduce the flash, depending on your point of view.

Once again I have to say this today. Idiots!!!

[Wulf]

I was just reading what Iggy said about what a flash suppresser is. He stated that the definition of a flash suppressor is “any device designed, intended, or that functions to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter’s field of vision.” However, in Jane’s Infantry Weapons it defines a Flash Hider as a “Conical Attachment to the muzzle for concealing muzzle flash from an observer.” Jane’s has been the expert in this field long before Iggy was.

So my point is that a flash suppresser is based on the observer, and not the shooter’s field of view. Also, what are the parameters for determining if the flash is perceptibly reduced? If you change ammo you could perceptibly reduce the flash, depending on your point of view.

Once again I have to say this today. Idiots!!!

You're absolutely correct...for that matter an extra length of barrel is a vaguely conical attachment (permantatly where the muzzle would other wise be) that will perceptibly reduce the flash in many cases. So will a brake, a bloop tube, a compensator, a muzzle guard, a silencer, mock silencer...etc etc.

It would really be an interesting test case to get sombody to remanufacture their flash hider in some trivial way and rebrand it "muzzle jewlery" or "barrel bling" or whatever. Then do some "exhaustive" testing on a 26 inch barreled gun with lite loads of a severely flash supressed powder to demonstrate that it doesnt perceptibly reduce flash.

The State wants the perception that they're being effective, but they're not willing to do their own testing and certification based on some objective standard because it would be a PITA and expensive too boot.

I've done a fair ammount of outdoor shooting and what I've found is that if you rate the effectiveness of a flash hider at 10 (arbritrarily), then another couple of inches of barrel is worth another 10, a lite load compared to a max book load is worth 50, a dark night vs a moonlit night is worth 50, and a flash supressed powder is worth a 100. Basically, with a low flash load, the other factors are meaningless, with a flashy load, there's nothing you can hang on the barrel that will help enough to make a difference.

[M. Sage]

If you want to know how Brown is going to handle it, see the post I just made with the article of his inaugural speech in it. He basically says that if he's placed in a position where the State is sued, even if the suit has merit, even if he agrees with the people bringing the suit, his job is to defend the State to the best of his ability.

[AJAX22]

Am I the only one who thinks that it is absurd to place restrictions on pieces of equipment which allow a shooter to fire a second shot with a better field of view, a more ergonomic grasp which promotes a greater degree of controll, and a properly adjusted LOP to make firing more comfortable..

to be totally rediculous?

Its like they want us to be firing blindly, spraying bullets all over the place, unable to controll the weapon....

The pointey end is where the bullet comes out, you'd think that once we have that much, they'd encourage us to have the best, most reliable, most controlable rifles available.... that is unless there is a deep dark adgenda at work....

[Jarhead4]

I forgot to add one thing. I guess flash suppressers are like pornography. You now it when you see it.

[jester]

The State wants the perception that they're being effective, but they're not willing to do their own testing and certification based on some objective standard because it would be a PITA and expensive too boot.

Someones got to pay for it, and its conviently not in their budget to do anything that would benefit gunowners.

[Yankee Clipper]

I was just reading what Iggy said about what a flash suppresser is. He stated that the definition of a flash suppressor is “any device designed, intended, or that functions to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter’s field of vision.” However, in Jane’s Infantry Weapons it defines a Flash Hider as a “Conical Attachment to the muzzle for concealing muzzle flash from an observer.” Jane’s has been the expert in this field long before Iggy was.

So my point is that a flash suppresser is based on the observer, and not the shooter’s field of view. Also, what are the parameters for determining if the flash is perceptibly reduced? If you change ammo you could perceptibly reduce the flash, depending on your point of view.

Once again I have to say this today. Idiots!!!

Your right and Jane's is right. But it’s a feel-good-law, made up of feel-good components like this one. Doing away with flash suppressors doesn't lower the crime rate and only creates jobs for the Iggy types in this state. If the legislature is smart (impossible) they'd eliminate all mention of flash suppressors - but they won't.

[kenc9]

Here is the latest update from the court.

08-JAN-2007
07:59 AM Notice filed Hunt, Edward W.
Entry: Notice of evidence in opposition to motion for summary judgment or alternative summary adjudication of 1st amended complaint filed. KEC

08-JAN-2007
07:59 AM Statement filed Hunt, Edward W.
Entry: Statement in opposition to motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication filed. KEC

08-JAN-2007
08:01 AM Opposition filed Hunt, Edward W.
Entry: Opposition to motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication filed. KEC

08-JAN-2007
08:05 AM Separate statement filed State of California,
Entry: Separate Statement of in opposition to motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication filed. KEC

08-JAN-2007
08:05 AM Memorandum of P & A filed State of California,
Entry: Memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication filed. KEC

08-JAN-2007
08:06 AM Proof of service filed State of California,
Entry: Proof of service of memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication, and separate statement in opposition to motion filed. Served on attorneys for other parties by overnight mail on 1-8-2007 . KEC

09-JAN-2007
07:48 AM Notice filed Hunt, Edward W.
Entry: Notice of lodging federal authorities cited in plaintiffs' opposition to motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication filed. KEC

[juha_teuvonnen]

Motion for summary judgement is filed by DOJ. Basically this means that they are arrogant enough to think that there's no issue worth a trial. Edward Hunt disagreed, so there will be no summary judgement - the case is going to trial.

[shark92651]

Am I the only one who thinks that it is absurd to place restrictions on pieces of equipment which allow a shooter to fire a second shot with a better field of view, a more ergonomic grasp which promotes a greater degree of controll, and a properly adjusted LOP to make firing more comfortable..

to be totally rediculous?

Its like they want us to be firing blindly, spraying bullets all over the place, unable to controll the weapon....

The pointey end is where the bullet comes out, you'd think that once we have that much, they'd encourage us to have the best, most reliable, most controlable rifles available.... that is unless there is a deep dark adgenda at work....

No, it's not just you :) I think the assumption they make is that any desire we may have to shoot more accurately is to ensure that we can aggressively kill more innocent people. The idea that maybe we would like to shoot more accurately so that we can punch tighter holes into paper or into someone when he have a legitimate right to self defense never crossed their minds.

[kenc9]

Motion for summary judgement is filed by DOJ. Basically this means that they are arrogant enough to think that there's no issue worth a trial. Edward Hunt disagreed, so there will be no summary judgement - the case is going to trial.

This may be our best chance for some change, a fresh look at the law with a new A.G..

-ken

[dondo]

If you want to know how Brown is going to handle it, see the post I just made with the article of his inaugural speech in it. He basically says that if he's placed in a position where the State is sued, even if the suit has merit, even if he agrees with the people bringing the suit, his job is to defend the State to the best of his ability.

...Place round object in square hole......pound violently.........
i became even more retarded reading this. so retarded I quit using capital letters. Is there anyway I can make my house its own sovereign nation?

[jnojr]

Here is the latest update from the court.

08-JAN-2007
07:59 AM Notice filed Hunt, Edward W.
Entry: Notice of evidence in opposition to motion for summary judgment or alternative summary adjudication of 1st amended complaint filed. KEC

08-JAN-2007
07:59 AM Statement filed Hunt, Edward W.
Entry: Statement in opposition to motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication filed. KEC

08-JAN-2007
08:01 AM Opposition filed Hunt, Edward W.
Entry: Opposition to motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication filed. KEC

08-JAN-2007
08:05 AM Separate statement filed State of California,
Entry: Separate Statement of in opposition to motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication filed. KEC

08-JAN-2007
08:05 AM Memorandum of P & A filed State of California,
Entry: Memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication filed. KEC

08-JAN-2007
08:06 AM Proof of service filed State of California,
Entry: Proof of service of memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication, and separate statement in opposition to motion filed. Served on attorneys for other parties by overnight mail on 1-8-2007 . KEC

09-JAN-2007
07:48 AM Notice filed Hunt, Edward W.
Entry: Notice of lodging federal authorities cited in plaintiffs' opposition to motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication filed. KEC

Am I the only one who cringed at all those "AM"s, and had to go back and double-check that they were for ante meridian instead of the other AM? :D

[kenc9]

Looks like the fight is drawing down and looks like Hunt is bringing his Federal experts.

09-JAN-2007
07:48 AM Notice filed Hunt, Edward W.
Entry: Notice of lodging federal authorities cited in plaintiffs' opposition to motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication filed. KEC

17-JAN-2007
03:16 PM Notice filed State of California,
Entry: Notice of lodging Federal authorities cited in defendants' summary judgment briefs filed. ng

[SemiAutoSam]

Yes there is but its expensive. And you would have to purchase sharks for the moat.

You can actually own your own land but it must be paid in full and after the process is complete you will never be able to borrow against the land again.



...Place round object in square hole......pound violently.........
i became even more retarded reading this. so retarded I quit using capital letters. Is there anyway I can make my house its own sovereign nation?

[hoffmang]

kenc9,

"federal authorities" are a list of Federal Court Cases and Federal Code - not people.

-Gene

[artherd]

Correct, "Points and Authorities" is a common term incorporating legal statute, case or other law items that support an assertation.

[kenc9]

kenc9,

"federal authorities" are a list of Federal Court Cases and Federal Code - not people.

-Gene

Thanks for the correction, I am just glad to see movement here after a long long holding pattern.

If they do really go through all the points in his letter this may settle many points in the law.

I really think this is to big for one court to make judgement on but we will see.

-ken

[colossians323]

Am I the only one who cringed at all those "AM"s, and had to go back and double-check that they were for ante meridian instead of the other AM? :D


No;)

[xdimitrix]

It looks like all thats happening is Hunt is trying to stop the DOJ's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Doesn't sound like its anywhere near decided (at least in our favor, the motion could be granted but that's unlikely since a DA is suing on legitimate issues).

[hoffmang]

Unless settled, this one is going to trial. The motion to dismiss isn't going to cut it.

-Gene

[Paul]

Am I the only one who thinks that it is absurd to place restrictions on pieces of equipment which allow a shooter to fire a second shot with a better field of view, a more ergonomic grasp which promotes a greater degree of controll, and a properly adjusted LOP to make firing more comfortable..

to be totally rediculous?

Its like they want us to be firing blindly, spraying bullets all over the place, unable to controll the weapon....

The pointey end is where the bullet comes out, you'd think that once we have that much, they'd encourage us to have the best, most reliable, most controlable rifles available.... that is unless there is a deep dark adgenda at work....

Yes. The bottom line is not safety but power. The power to create victims. Victims need saving from government. Government that creates or fosters feel-good leglistation which isn't effective at all.

[edwardm]

Got a copy handy?

Unless settled, this one is going to trial. The motion to dismiss isn't going to cut it.

-Gene

[JWI]

Did you all get this:

"DOJ does not consider a magazine attached to a receiver by a screw, requiring a screwdriver for removal, to be a detachable magazine." (p. 9:19-20.)

I think that's the end of the debate on the legality of mag-lock kits. How on earth could the DOJ prosecute someone with a pinned mag, after their own firearms expert declared under penalty of perjury that such a configuration is not a detachable magazine?

This declaration is also dated after the administrative proceedings where they were trying to define "capacity to accept a detachable magazine." It seems to be that this died a quiet death. Have they given up after the NRA gave them such an *** beating on previous statements that you could not "permanently alter" any firearm? In that regard, how about paragraphs 16-18 regarding "permanently altered"?

I think they would just be in for a big embarrasment if they ever tried to prosecute someone with a pinned mag rifle. I'd even keep a copy of this declaration, and make it one of the papers you take to the range with you.

Are there any other documents available from this case such as Hunt's motion for summary judgment and supporting declarations?

[DSA_FAL]

Did you all get this:

"DOJ does not consider a magazine attached to a receiver by a screw, requiring a screwdriver for removal, to be a detachable magazine." (p. 9:19-20.)

I think that's the end of the debate on the legality of mag-lock kits. How on earth could the DOJ prosecute someone with a pinned mag, after their own firearms expert declared under penalty of perjury that such a configuration is not a detachable magazine?

This declaration is also dated after the administrative proceedings where they were trying to define "capacity to accept a detachable magazine." It seems to be that this died a quiet death. Have they given up after the NRA gave them such an *** beating on previous statements that you could not "permanently alter" any firearm? In that regard, how about paragraphs 16-18 regarding "permanently altered"?

I think they would just be in for a big embarrasment if they ever tried to prosecute someone with a pinned mag rifle. I'd even keep a copy of this declaration, and make it one of the papers you take to the range with you.

Are there any other documents available from this case such as Hunt's motion for summary judgment and supporting declarations?

Which document is this in?

[hoffmang]

Iggy Chinn said it in his Declaration in the case. Warning - larger PDF:
http://calgunlaws.com/Docs/ASSAULT%20WEAPONS/Cal%20Regulations/NRA-HuntPDecOfIgnatiusChinn061205.PDF

-Gene

[kenc9]

22-JAN-2007
03:33 PM Reply filed Hunt, Edward W.
Entry: Reply to defendants opposition to motion for summary judgment/adjudication filed. ng

22-JAN-2007
03:33 PM Notice filed Hunt, Edward W.
Entry: Notice of demand for exchange of expert trial witness information filed. ng

22-JAN-2007
03:34 PM Objection filed Hunt, Edward W.
Entry: Evidentiary Objections of plaintiff to DOJ Agent Ignatius Chinn's declaration in support of motion for summary judgment/adjudication filed. ng

22-JAN-2007
03:35 PM Notice filed Hunt, Edward W.
Entry: Notice of lodging authority and reuqest for judicial notice filed. ng

22-JAN-2007
03:37 PM Reply filed State of California,
Entry: Reply memorandum in support of motion for summary judgment/adjudication filed. ng

[kap]

22-JAN-2007
03:34 PM Objection filed Hunt, Edward W.
Entry: Evidentiary Objections of plaintiff to DOJ Agent Ignatius Chinn's declaration in support of motion for summary judgment/adjudication filed. ng

What does that mean in layman's terms?

[Paratus et Vigilans]

What does that mean in layman's terms?

It means that, under the Evidence Code, which determines what testimony may and may not be allowed into evidence in a case, some of what the Chinn Declaration says may not be allowed into evidence. The judge will have to rule on the evidentiary objections as part of his/her ruling on the motion for summary judgment. Putting it as plainly as possible (for me anyway), it means that the judge may decide that some or all of what Agent Chinn says in his declaration may not be considered when the judge rules on the summary judgment motion.

To try to make a little more sense of it for you, a "summary judgment" is a short cut in a case that allows it to end early if there are no "material" facts in dispute. If the facts of the case are clear and no one is saying "this didn't happen" or "it did so," then all that's left to do in a case is apply the law to the facts, which does not require a trial with witnesses, it just requires the judge to read through the evidence, read the law, and decide the case based on the law as applied to those facts. As a practical matter, it happens very rarely that there are no disputed material facts, so summary judgments are rarely granted. Usually, one side or the other brings the motion as a way of forcing the other side to lay out in detail its "game plan" for the trial. Think of it as lining up for a play on 3rd and goal from the 4 yard line, seeing how the defense lines up, then calling a time out and deciding whether to go with the play you called, or maybe a better play for the defense the other side trotted out there and showed you.

Hope that helps make some sense of it for you! :)

[kenc9]

Thank you...Well said.

[Wulf]

Given all the contradictory stuff DOJ and Chinn have spued recently why wouldent the defense dispute facts just so they wouldent miss the opportunity to cross Chinn?

[anonymous]

Personally, I'm thinking about converting my rifle to a gripless with a bullet-tip release mag button just to cover all my bases.

[bwiese]

Personally, I'm thinking about converting my rifle to a gripless with a bullet-tip release mag button just to cover all my bases.

Pray tell, why the useless effort?

If it's gripless (and no flash hider or telestock, etc.) it is completely free and abundantly clear (i.e, no arguing) that it can have detachable magazines - including hicaps (if you legally possessed the hicaps before 2000).

I've now had several reports that DOJ phone staff are even recommending something like the MonsterMan grip - they don't call it by name (either thru lack of knowledge, or fear of recommending a given brand of product).

[kenc9]

Given all the contradictory stuff DOJ and Chinn have spued recently why wouldent the defense dispute facts just so they wouldent miss the opportunity to cross Chinn?
I think when they get into court and they let Iggy lead as expert he will get caught in all his misstatements and help Hunt.

Hopefully the new AG will see it for how it is and do us some good.

We will see.

[hoffmang]

There exists two trial transcripts where Iggy's testimony was found severely wanting by two different California Judges.

I'll probably post it later. Someone had asked if I had copies... I do but not a complete copy yet, and I'm not sure whether counsel wants it posted just yet.

-Gene

[Aluisious]

I should convert to a MM and wrestle off the flash hider.

The pistol grip doesn't fit my hand anyway, and I'm bench shooting. The flash hider does nothing. Top loading is a PITA.

[kap]

It means that, under the Evidence Code, which determines what testimony may and may not be allowed into evidence in a case, some of what the Chinn Declaration says may not be allowed into evidence. The judge will have to rule on the evidentiary objections as part of his/her ruling on the motion for summary judgment. Putting it as plainly as possible (for me anyway), it means that the judge may decide that some or all of what Agent Chinn says in his declaration may not be considered when the judge rules on the summary judgment motion.

To try to make a little more sense of it for you, a "summary judgment" is a short cut in a case that allows it to end early if there are no "material" facts in dispute. If the facts of the case are clear and no one is saying "this didn't happen" or "it did so," then all that's left to do in a case is apply the law to the facts, which does not require a trial with witnesses, it just requires the judge to read through the evidence, read the law, and decide the case based on the law as applied to those facts. As a practical matter, it happens very rarely that there are no disputed material facts, so summary judgments are rarely granted. Usually, one side or the other brings the motion as a way of forcing the other side to lay out in detail its "game plan" for the trial. Think of it as lining up for a play on 3rd and goal from the 4 yard line, seeing how the defense lines up, then calling a time out and deciding whether to go with the play you called, or maybe a better play for the defense the other side trotted out there and showed you.

Hope that helps make some sense of it for you! :)
Thanks for the great explanation and the insight into the strategy. That is exactly what I wanted to know.

[kenc9]

Anyone have an idea what "CDAEVNT" is and what is happening?

29-JAN-2007
11:13 AM Off calendar
Entry: Off calendar for Summary Judgment scheduled for 2/1/07. Continued to 3/22/07 By Court. kl
29-JAN-2007
11:14 AM Notice of Cal Setting Printed
Entry: Docket entry for the letter produced from CDAEVNT on 29-JAN-2007 by KMLATT.

-ken

[bwiese]

Anyone have an idea what "CDAEVNT" is and what is happening?


I googled and other cases around the country have this.

I believe this is a 'software agent' or authorized system user that enters items into the case management database. I'm guessing it does not reflect origin of the document, just that 'CDAEVENT' put some kinda document in, or 'CDAEVENT' is a message that indicates a new doc of some sort got put into case files...

[tgriffin]

Any update?

[Smokeybehr]

Looks like the case management conference is scheduled for Wednesday, then the ruling on the summary judgements next month, and the mandatory settlement conference and trial in April. I doubt that the case is going to be settled at the conference unless the DOJ admits to all of the things that former DA Hunt is suing for.

[hoffmang]

I would agree with you, but there is a wildcard in the new AG. However, I think odds still are that this is going to trial.

-Gene

[1911_sfca]

Any chance we can generate a "Calguns Certificate of Commendation" for Hunt, for having the cojones to bring this issue to trial? :)

[JGarrison]

Did you all get this:

"DOJ does not consider a magazine attached to a receiver by a screw, requiring a screwdriver for removal, to be a detachable magazine." (p. 9:19-20.)

The funny part about that is in the paragraph above he states

"DOJ observed that such a modification maneuver would nonetheless violate the spirit of the law, and observed the possibilty that the 58 DA's in CA would view the maneuver with skepticism and procede with a prosecution in the cirumstances."

[Fate]

When judged completely by the letter of the law, the spirit of the law can kiss my...

[kenc9]

07-FEB-2007
02:20 PM Stip and order continue trial Hunt, Edward W.
Entry: Stipulation and order to continue trial to (date) signed by Judge (name). (Party is Exempt from fee) gs

07-FEB-2007
02:20 PM Order Received for Signature
Entry: Order: continue trial Forwarded to: Judge Simpson gs

08-FEB-2007
10:32 AM Returned mail-no address found
Entry: returned by Post Office, no new address found for Kathleen Lynch . Document and envelope placed in file. nl

09-FEB-2007
09:22 AM Judge's return letter or note
Entry: Documents returned: stipulation to continue trial and all trial deadlines Reason: no need to contnue trial at this time Judge: A Simpson Date: 2/9/07 (mailed 2/9/07 to Trutanich / Michel

[C.G.]

Excuse my ignorance of legalese, but does that mean they dropped it?

[mblat]

Really.... Who gave up?

[kenc9]

Excuse my ignorance of legalese, but does that mean they dropped it?


I was hoping this was saying that there will be no continuance or extension of the trial.

[USMC_2651_E5]

From what I understand, continue means to delay the proceedings. So I interpret this to mean that one side or the other tried to get an extension and the judge denied it because there was "no need" for an extension.

[Paratus et Vigilans]

From what I understand, continue means to delay the proceedings. So I interpret this to mean that one side or the other tried to get an extention and the judge denied it because the was "no need" for an extention.

That is precisely what it means. This is a probably a case of the judge putting pressure on both sides to either try the case or settle it. When both sides are willing to stipulate (i.e., agree) to a continuance, it usually means that (a) neither side is quite ready for trial, or (b) one side is not ready, and the other is willing to agree to an extension, either to be accommodating about it, or maybe to repay the favor of an earlier extension that went in their favor, or maybe just to look like a nice guy, knowing that the trial judge is going to shoot it down anyway. Hard to say for sure without being on the "inside" of the case.

Here, whatever the reason stated in the stip for the continuance was, it didn't satisfy the judge that is was a good enough reason. Judges like to keep their calendars on track, and to move one trial means juggling some other things, and they hate that. Ironically, you can show up on the trial date and report "Ready, your honor," and the judge tells you there are no open departments for the trial to begin right now, so just hang out here for the rest of the day, the rest of the week (the rest of your life :) ) and see what opens up . . .meanwhile you have to frantically call all your witnesses and reschedule them, if you can, for later times or later dates - and that is a living nightmare, let me tell you. (I just did.)

Days like that, you wish you had some kind of 9-5 job where you can just punch in, work, punch out and go home. You get over it, or you get out of litigation, but hey, that's the breaks.

Be interesting to know who really wanted this continuance, and why. Maybe there has been a change of position in the AG's office since JB took over???

[kenc9]

Ok, is this a pretrial hearing or what?

Someone explain please...

21-FEB-2007
03:22 PM Ex Parte document filed Hunt, Edward W.
Entry: Ex parte application for order suspending all pretrial deadlines and activity until further order of the court filed. Hearing Date set on 2/22/07 at 3:30 in Dept # 72. ng
21-FEB-2007
03:25 PM Order Received for Signature
Entry: Order: stip & oreer to suspend pretrial deadlines Forwarded to:72 ng

[tgriffin]

IF I understand correctly, Hunt has filed a request with the court, for the judge to hurry every-ones *** up. Looks like granted and set for tomorrow.

[kenc9]

Seems something was heard as the minute order printed.


03:25 PM Order Received for Signature
Entry: Order: stip & oreer to suspend pretrial deadlines Forwarded to:72 ng

22-FEB-2007
03:53 PM Minute order printed
Entry: Docket entry for the letter produced from CDAEVNT on 22-FEB-2007 by DWARNSHUIS.

[tgriffin]

Well looks like we have about 2 hours until we figure out whats going on.

[BLFD1]

Any news on this? :confused:

[kenc9]

Any news on this? :confused:

The Case Event Schedule has not changed so I have no idea if they met or what may have happened.


-ken

[hoffmang]

Chuck mentioned an April trial on NRANews last night.

-Gene

[chris]

thanks for the update. i can't wait for the trial on this one.

[kenc9]

The doc. says Hearing set on 4-10-07 at 3:00 in 98A,caa .

I was just trying to see how it is going down with JB at the helm.



Chuck mentioned an April trial on NRANews last night.

-Gene

[kenc9]

Update...I thought this was being heard by only a judge but it appears a jurry trial is on the way? Am I reading this right???

29-MAR-2007
01:36 PM Jury fees posted Hunt, Edward W.
Entry: Jury fees posted for plaintiffs by Attorney C. M. Michel . CVCE 95513 KEC

29-MAR-2007
01:36 PM Notice filed Hunt, Edward W.
Entry: Notice of plaintiffs' posting of jury fees filed. KEC

29-MAR-2007
01:37 PM Payment Hunt, Edward W.
Entry: A Payment of -$150.00 was made on receipt CVCE95513.

[kenc9]

What is happening here?

22-MAR-2007
11:19 AM Minute order Judge Simpson
Entry: Minute Order from Dept.: 72 Clerk: K Artis Reporter: S McKennon Nature of Hearing: Summary Judgment - matter is argued and submitted. Tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. No further order is necessary. The plaintiff's Summary Judgment is denied and the defendants/ Summary Judgment is granted as to the 1st cause of action. The defendants' motion as to the 2nd, 5th and 6th causes of action is denied.

22-MAR-2007
11:22 AM Clerk Cert of Mailing Printed
Entry: Docket entry for the letter produced from CDAEVNT on 22-MAR-2007 by KARTIS.

29-MAR-2007
01:36 PM Jury fees posted Hunt, Edward W.
Entry: Jury fees posted for plaintiffs by Attorney C. M. Michel . CVCE 95513 KEC

29-MAR-2007
01:36 PM Notice filed Hunt, Edward W.
Entry: Notice of plaintiffs' posting of jury fees filed. KEC

29-MAR-2007
01:37 PM Payment Hunt, Edward W.
Entry: A Payment of -$150.00 was made on receipt CVCE95513.

[hoffmang]

We lost on the first claim, but the 2nd, 5th, and 6th are still potentially valid claims. I don't remember which those all are and am traveling so I will not have access to the documents until next week to refresh my memory.

-Gene

[kenc9]

Thanks, hopefully they can do some good.

-ken

[Ten Rounder]

Any Update?

[Fjold]

Any Update?

+1 here.

I just did a search for an update and this was the only post.

[crunchy2k]

+1 here.

I just did a search for an update and this was the only post.

It appears the trial has been continued to this fall.

09-APR-2007
02:49 PM Stip & order to continue trial Hunt, Edward W.
Entry: Stipulation to Lift Suspension of Pretrial Deadlines and Activity, and to Continue Trial signed by Judge Simpson . CVCE 96293 KEC The Court's order dated February 22, 2007, suspending all pretrial deadlines and activity in this matter until further order of the court shall be lifted. The Current trial date of April 23, 2007, shall be continued for at least 6 months. TLL

And the defense attorney's mail is being returned.

30-APR-2007
10:58 AM Returned mail-no address found Hunt, Edward W.
Entry: returned by Post Office, no new address found for Katheen A Lynch Document and envelope placed in file. DFord

http://tinyurl.com/ytldsw

[1064chubbs]

so its a new year how much longer is this gonna take :mad:

[artherd]

Hunt is going an interesting direction. I cannot say much more but I know the case has been extremely valuable to this point. I am unsure wether it will proceed, or it may be scrapped in favor of less expensive litigation to the same end.

[wilit]

Hunt is going an interesting direction. I cannot say much more but I know the case has been extremely valuable to this point. I am unsure wether it will proceed, or it may be scrapped in favor of less expensive litigation to the same end.

I heard we'll know more in 2 weeks! :D

Please keep us updated. I'm curious to know how this case is going to play out.

[Fjold]

I was wondering what was going on with this and did a search last night on it.

Thanks for the update folks.