PDA

View Full Version : Haynie (was Haynes)


eldonvieira
07-28-2012, 1:37 PM
Wasnt there supposed to be a ruling in that case yesterday

hoffmang
07-28-2012, 2:01 PM
The case is Haynie and no, we're waiting on a ruling on a submitted motion to dismiss.

-Gene

eldonvieira
07-28-2012, 2:58 PM
Ok thought that was suppose to be on the 27th

Purple K
10-18-2012, 10:27 PM
1
Stipulation to Extend Time for State Defendants to Respond to Amended Consolidated Complaint(10-cv-1255-SI)
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
PETER A. KRAUSE
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
ROSS C.MOODY
Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 142541
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Telephone: (415) 703-1376
Fax: (415) 703-1234
E-mail: Ross.Moody@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Defendants California Department of
Justice and Attorney General Kamala D. Harris
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK AARON HAYNIE, BRENDAN
JOHN RICHARDS, THE CALGUNS
FOUNDATION, INC., and THE SECOND
AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KAMALA HARRIS, Attorney General of
California (in her official capacity) and
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, CITY OF ROHNERT PARK,
OFFICER DEAN BECKER (RP134), and
DOES 1 TO 20,
Defendants.
10-cv-1255-SI
11-cv-2493 SI
(Consolidated Cases)
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR
DEFENDANTS KAMALA HARRIS AND
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE TO RESPOND TO AMENDED
CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT
TO THIS HONORABLE COURT:
Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 6-1, plaintiffs and defendants KAMALA
HARRIS, Attorney General of California and CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, by
and through their respective counsel, hereby agree and stipulate as follows:
1. Plaintiffs recently filed their Amended Consolidated Complaint on September 4, 2012,
after this Court issued its order granting in part, and denying in part, the City of Rohnert Park’s
Motion to Dismiss.
2. In light of plaintiffs’ and the City of Rohnert Park’s current settlement negotiations,
plaintiffs and defendants agree to extend defendants’ last day to respond to plaintiffs’ Amended
Case3:10-cv-01255-SI Document68 Filed09/24/12 Page1 of 2

2
Stipulation to Extend Time for State Defendants to Respond to Amended Consolidated Complaint(10-cv-1255-SI)
Complaint.
3. Accordingly, defendants KAMALA HARRIS, Attorney General of California and
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE shall have until October 16, 2012 to respond to
plaintiffs’ Amended Consolidated Complaint.
4. The parties are currently scheduled to appear for a Case Management Conference on
November 2, 2012. No trial date has been set. This extension does not interfere with any
previously scheduled deadline set by this Court.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: September 24, 2012
/s/ Ross Moody
________________________________
Ross Moody
Counsel for Defendants
Harris & California Dept. of Justice
Dated: September 24, 2012

/s/ Donald Kilmer
________________________________
Donald Kilmer
Counsel for Plaintiffs

Wherryj
10-19-2012, 9:12 AM
Ok thought that was suppose to be on the 27th

Two weeks?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
10-27-2012, 7:39 AM
Bye-bye Plog-Horowitz:

Plog-Horowitz, et al., v. Harris, et al, Case No.: CV-12-0452 SI is dismissed
with prejudice with the parties bearing their own attorney fees and costs.

:laugh:

Crom
10-27-2012, 9:04 PM
Lol. This is bad. And the case is over.

In general, an action taken*with prejudice*indicates misconduct on the party who filed the claim and forbids a party from refiling a case.

Bhobbs
10-27-2012, 9:43 PM
Lol. This is bad. And the case is over.

In general, an action taken*with prejudice*indicates misconduct on the party who filed the claim and forbids a party from refiling a case.

Which case?

OleCuss
10-27-2012, 10:30 PM
Yeah, I'm not entirely sure I understand what happened. I thought the case was being referred to as Haynie, et al. Perhaps FGG re-titled it for the chuckle factor?

Or did Plog-Horowitz get separated out and his case get kicked out of court (seems less likely)?

But dismissed with prejudice sounds to me like things are definitively over with this case. . .

BRoss
10-28-2012, 12:57 AM
Lol. This is bad. And the case is over.

In general, an action taken*with prejudice*indicates misconduct on the party who filed the claim and forbids a party from refiling a case.


It doesn't indicate misconduct if the parties stipulate to that dismissal with prejudice. (see the attached order granting such a stipulation)

Also, though the case with Plog-Horowitz is done per the stipulation, the other cases that were consolidated/related are still going on.

VAReact
10-28-2012, 6:22 AM
Good to know the entire case isn't dismissed -that is what I feared based on the first few posts.

Crom
10-28-2012, 8:26 AM
So the consolidated cases move forward. Thanks. I'm posting on mobile and don't have access to case filings, so I apologize for my inaccurate post. :)