PDA

View Full Version : SF v. 44Mag (Mag Repair Parts Kits)


fizux
08-23-2013, 4:43 AM
SF v. 44Mag [and Exile Machine, Copes, Crossroads]
Issue: 17200 claim against companies selling standard capacity magazine repair parts kits.

Current Status as of 12/19/2013:
Exile - Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings due 11/22, Oppositions due 12/11, hx 12/30.
COTW - Settled on 12/10/2013 (Stipulated judgment/injunction that COTW not allow LCM mag bodies or drums to be sold, unless later determined to be unconstitutional; parties to bear own costs).
Copes, 44Mag - Settlement announced 12/18/2013 for $15k nuisance payment; otherwise same as COTW. As of 12/19/2013, settlement has not been entered into the Court's docket.

12/18/2013 - Settlement announced by Copes and 44Mag. Congrats on a job well done by M&A (http://michellawyers.com/).*
12/18/2013 - Notice of entry of order (re: 12/10/2013 COTW Settlement / Stip J) filed.
12/10/2013 - COTW Settlement (http://webaccess.sftc.org/Cache/182524588/04304371-Page0-5.pdf) (Stipulated judgment/injunction that COTW not allow LCM mag bodies or drums to be sold, unless later determined to be unconstitutional).
11/13/2013 - CMC order setting MJP for 12/30/2013.
11/7/2013 - Joint CMC stmt; settlement imminent except for Exile Machine.
10/26/2013 - Stipulated order to extend time for 44Mag, Copes, and COTW (Responsive Pleading due 12/20/2013).
9/9/2013 - Designated Complex; assigned to Judge Curtis Karnow (Recorder Article (http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202609695275&slreturn=20131005135852))
8/21/2013 - Exile Machine's Answer (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/44-Mag_Answer-of-Defendant-Exile-Machine-LLC.pdf).
8/20/2013 - Stipulated order to extend time to respond until 9/20/2013.
6/10/2013 - Complaint (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/People-v.-44Mag-Distributing-LLC-et-al.-_-Complaint-for-Injunctive-Relief-and-Civil-Penalties.pdf).


Trial Court: Superior Court of California, in and for the City and County of San Francisco.
Case No. CGC-13-531982.
Docket: http://webaccess.sftc.org/scripts/magic94/Mgrqispi94.dll?APPNAME=web&PRGNAME=casenumberprompt22
(Enter "531982").

Links:
Related thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=776301
Michel & Assoc. Case Tracker: http://michellawyers.com/people-v-44-mag-distributing-llc/

* IMHO; other than being a member of the NRA, I am not associated or affiliated with M&A in any way.

Tincon
08-23-2013, 7:34 PM
Exile's Answer: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/44-Mag_Answer-of-Defendant-Exile-Machine-LLC.pdf

BigPimping
08-25-2013, 7:46 AM
I hope Exile humiliates those idiots who file illegal litigation.

saki302
08-26-2013, 1:20 AM
I hope they get humiliated in such a fashion these cities will think twice before using frivolous lawsuits to further their agenda.

MaHoTex
08-26-2013, 7:27 AM
I really do not want to pile on and add to the noise, but I must ask one question: Since the other thread got trashed can we please reserve this thread for only valid updates? No response to this post is necessary.

kmca
08-26-2013, 7:55 AM
Just curious, if/when Exile wins, are they reimbursed for their legal, travel, preparation and other expenses?

johnny1290
08-26-2013, 8:02 AM
In the PDF Exile is asking for dismissal with prejudice and costs of suit and other relief.

That sounds like expenses if they win to me. I hope they get it!

TANK
08-27-2013, 1:58 PM
I hope exile and everyone else wins against those idiots

stix213
08-27-2013, 2:45 PM
I had to look up "doctrine of laches"

I'm interested in more details as to how this applies as a defense in this case.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
08-27-2013, 3:11 PM
I had to look up "doctrine of laches"

I'm interested in more details as to how this applies as a defense in this case.

I can't say that I know anyone who has ever one a case by assering a defense of laches.

nickster
08-27-2013, 3:27 PM
How do you one a case?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
08-27-2013, 3:30 PM
How do you asser a defense of laches?

nickster
08-27-2013, 3:42 PM
I don't care to pre-numbulate on that due to prior commitments.

fizux
08-27-2013, 9:08 PM
How do you asser a defense of laches?
It's an assermative diphense.

issah
08-27-2013, 9:17 PM
This sucks. How can the State of California try to shut down magazine parts kits, which are perfectly legal under federal law, and, at the same time, legitimize marijuana possession and consumption, which are clearly illegal under the same set of laws? Our legislature has its heads up its collective arse!

Tincon
08-27-2013, 11:27 PM
LOL, am I missing an inside joke on this this thread?

The maxim “Equity aids the vigilant” (see C.C. 3527 [“[t]he law helps the vigilant”]) is given application in the doctrine of laches. Under the doctrine, those who neglect their rights may be precluded from obtaining relief in equity. Laches may bar relief in equity whether or not the statute of limitations has run on the action at law.


So if there was some unreasonable delay in action which prejudiced the defendant then it is possible that the court could deny SF injunctive relief. That would not dispose of the action however, as SF is also asking for some money damages as well. It would take the bite out of it though I think.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
08-28-2013, 6:38 AM
AUG-27-2013 APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF COMPLEX LITIGATION DESIGNATION FILED BY DEFENDANT EXILE MACHINE, LLC

Here's a project for someone: what is the procedure by which a case is desginated "complex" and is there a deadline? (ETA: I don't know the answers, just curious.)

Tincon
08-28-2013, 7:00 AM
Here's a project for someone: what is the procedure by which a case is desginated "complex" and is there a deadline? (ETA: I don't know the answers, just curious.)

California Rules of Court

Rule 3.400. Definition

(a) Definition

A "complex case" is an action that requires exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the court, the parties, and counsel.

(b) Factors

In deciding whether an action is a complex case under (a), the court must consider, among other things, whether the action is likely to involve:

(1)Numerous pretrial motions raising difficult or novel legal issues that will be time-consuming to resolve;

(2)Management of a large number of witnesses or a substantial amount of documentary evidence;

(3)Management of a large number of separately represented parties;

(4)Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court; or

(5)Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision.

(Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2007.)

(c) Provisional designation

Except as provided in (d), an action is provisionally a complex case if it involves one or more of the following types of claims:

(1)Antitrust or trade regulation claims;

(2)Construction defect claims involving many parties or structures;

(3)Securities claims or investment losses involving many parties;

(4)Environmental or toxic tort claims involving many parties;

(5)Claims involving mass torts;

(6)Claims involving class actions; or

(7)Insurance coverage claims arising out of any of the claims listed in (c)(1) through (c)(6).

(Subd (c) amended effective January 1, 2007.)

(d) Court's discretion

Notwithstanding (c), an action is not provisionally complex if the court has significant experience in resolving like claims involving similar facts and the management of those claims has become routine. A court may declare by local rule that certain types of cases are or are not provisionally complex under this subdivision.

Rule 3.402. Complex case counterdesignations

(a) Noncomplex counterdesignation

If a Civil Case Cover Sheet (form CM-010) designating an action as a complex case has been filed and served and the court has not previously declared the action to be a complex case, a defendant may file and serve no later than its first appearance a counter Civil Case Cover Sheet (form CM-010) designating the action as not a complex case. The court must decide, with or without a hearing, whether the action is a complex case within 30 days after the filing of the counterdesignation.

(Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007; previously amended effective July 1, 2004.)

(b) Complex counterdesignation

A defendant may file and serve no later than its first appearance a counter Civil Case Cover Sheet (form CM-010) designating the action as a complex case. The court must decide, with or without a hearing, whether the action is a complex case within 30 days after the filing of the counterdesignation.

(Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2007; previously amended effective July 1, 2004.)

(c) Joint complex designation

A defendant may join the plaintiff in designating an action as a complex case

I don't really see how this would be a "complex case" but....

Willport
08-28-2013, 3:33 PM
Typically the Civil Case Cover Sheet filed by a party will indicate whether that particular party believes a case should be designated as complex. That doesn't mean a whole lot. Typically, a party will request re-designation as part of the initial Case Management Conference, it can be done via stipulation and order, or it can be done via motion. Since SF indicated it wanted a complex designation in its initial Civil Case Cover Sheet, I'm surprised Exile filed a motion, instead of going the stip-and-order route.

Unless it gets a complex designation, the motions will be heard in dept. 301 or 302, the general law and motion departments, and a trial judge won't be assigned until trial.

With a complex designation, the case gets sent to one judge for all purposes. The judge ends up very familiar with the facts and issues before they get called upon to do anything of significance (for example, rule on a summary judgment motion). There are two departments that handle complex cases. Judge Karnow (Schwarzenegger appointee) and Judge Munter (Wilson Appointee). Both judges are not afraid to make decisions, and neither is to be trifled with. Particularly if this ends up in front of Judge Munter, counsel needs to bring their A-game.

elSquid
08-28-2013, 4:02 PM
With a complex designation, the case gets sent to one judge for all purposes. The judge ends up very familiar with the facts and issues before they get called upon to do anything of significance (for example, rule on a summary judgment motion). There are two departments that handle complex cases. Judge Karnow (Schwarzenegger appointee) and Judge Munter (Wilson Appointee). Both judges are not afraid to make decisions, and neither is to be trifled with. Particularly if this ends up in front of Judge Munter, counsel needs to bring their A-game.

I did a quick google, and found the following interview with Judge Munter:

http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202463956682&John_Munter&slreturn=20130728184225

He seems to be not bound by formality, and is focused on results. I found the quote:

I always tell counsel that we can break these cases down to have mini jury trials or mini court trials. My experience has been, in three years in doing complex, I actually have not had a jury trial on any issue at all. The counsel have generally speaking selected the option of having a court determination on these kind of issues.

...quite interesting. I assume that without jury involvement, these cases are resolved much faster?

-- Michael

Willport
08-28-2013, 5:04 PM
I did a quick google, and found the following interview with Judge Munter:

http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202463956682&John_Munter&slreturn=20130728184225

He seems to be not bound by formality, and is focused on results. I found the quote:

I always tell counsel that we can break these cases down to have mini jury trials or mini court trials. My experience has been, in three years in doing complex, I actually have not had a jury trial on any issue at all. The counsel have generally speaking selected the option of having a court determination on these kind of issues.

...quite interesting. I assume that without jury involvement, these cases are resolved much faster?

-- Michael

Keep in mind that 99.99% of cases settle. A numberof these cases are multi-party construction disputes, or construction injury disputes, and fairly unwieldy to try. Most of the 17200/CLRA cases get settled. Once a case goes through a summary judgment/summary adjudication motion, most of the time, the parties can see the writing on the wall, and it will settle. This case is unusual, in that (in the absence of it getting tossed), forcing the defendants out of doing business in California would seem to be the minimum.

fizux
08-28-2013, 10:39 PM
Ahh, now that is a Judge people should remember.

Judge Munter presided over the (in)famous Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie trial (on CourtTV right after Judge Lance Ito's OJ trial), affirmed on appeal at 63 Cal. App. 4th 1128 (1998) (http://law.justia.com/cases/california/caapp4th/63/1128.html). That spawned the attorney fee dispute case Chambers v. Kay, 29 Cal. 4th 142 (2002) (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3187294943622955914), which is in every modern PR casebook for fee splits between lawyers (RPC 2-200). That would be the very same Chambers that represented Artherd when he got arrested for felony "being in two places at once."

Small world, huh? The Weeks case is quite a good read...

chainsaw
08-28-2013, 11:32 PM
Thank you for posting this.

In my (not at all humble opinion), the Chambers case is an even better read. It shines a very interesting light on Mr. Chambers (who even has an account here, and has posted on this very forum). If you then read Mr. Chambers other writings in light of this case, the light gets even brighter.

fizux
08-29-2013, 12:03 PM
Thank you for posting this.

In my (not at all humble opinion), the Chambers case is an even better read. It shines a very interesting light on Mr. Chambers (who even has an account here, and has posted on this very forum). If you then read Mr. Chambers other writings in light of this case, the light gets even brighter.Oh, I did not forget reading his post on the prior thread.

Two things to keep in mind are: (1) Rena Weeks agreed to the fee split, but Kay kept the file (and it was back in the day before everything was PDFed and e-mailed), and Chambers could not produce her written consent or introduce her oral agreement; and (2) Kay was a serial RPC 2-200 offender, and subsequently screwed three other attorneys out of multi-million dollar fees in exactly the same manner.

Libertarian71
08-31-2013, 11:34 PM
I can't say that I know anyone who has ever one a case by assering a defense of laches.

And I cannot say that I've ever seen an answer where laches was not raised as an affirmative defense.

chainsaw
09-02-2013, 10:22 PM
I know this discussion is off-topic regarding this thread (which is about the SF anti repair-kit lawsuit), but it is on-topic regarding gun rights, through the connection of Mr. Chambers you pointed out.

Two things to keep in mind are: (1) Rena Weeks agreed to the fee split, but Kay kept the file (and it was back in the day before everything was PDFed and e-mailed), and Chambers could not produce her written consent or introduce her oral agreement; and (2) Kay was a serial RPC 2-200 offender, and subsequently screwed three other attorneys out of multi-million dollar fees in exactly the same manner.

You seem to be implying that (a) Chambers lost this case because he didn't have access to the "Weeks agreement" document, and (b) that Chambers was "screwed" (quote from your post) out of a fee sharing agreement by Kay.

Based on the record, I disagree.

The supreme court decision reads very different. If the agreement between Weeks and Kay/Chambers existed, it could have been subpoenaed, and introduced as evidence. If no written record remained, Mrs. Weeks would have been available to testify. The case hinges on the fact that no such agreement actually exists. Second, the supreme court disagreed with all of Chambers' arguments that he should be entitled to a share of the fee. In some of their writings, they describe one of Chambers' claim as being dangerously close to fraud, and describe some of his actions as "disturbing". The California supreme court seems to be saying that Chambers was attempting to do the "screwing", after the spectacular award to Weeks and Kay.

Nothing I say above is intended to imply anything about Mr. Kay, neither positive or negative. About Mr. Chambers, the supreme court has said plenty.

fizux
09-03-2013, 1:08 PM
I took the bait earlier and strayed OT; my original point was that Judge Munter did a masterful job handling the very complex Weeks trial.

I'll address the unrelated topic via PM or in another thread.

Sinestr
09-09-2013, 9:55 PM
Update, Complex designation approved: http://webaccess.sftc.org/minds_asp_pdf/Viewer/DownLoadDocument.asp?PGCNT=0

Moonshine
09-18-2013, 11:53 PM
I'm just glad I do not live in a city that wastes tax payer dollars like this. The law is quite clear, SF has NO CHANCE at winning. The money paid to Exile when they lose is going to be small compared to the salaries of judges and city attoneys that have to be paid to have this dog and pony show.

jdberger
09-24-2013, 10:54 PM
I don't really see how this would be a "complex case" but....

But what?

Tincon
09-25-2013, 11:12 AM
But what?

It's looks like it will be tried as one.

jdberger
09-25-2013, 10:42 PM
It's looks like it will be tried as one.

And you disagree with the order, how?

Fabio pled ignorance. You asserted knowledge. Please explain the flaws (as you see them) in the Court's reasoning.

Tincon
09-26-2013, 12:58 AM
And you disagree with the order, how?

Fabio pled ignorance. You asserted knowledge. Please explain the flaws (as you see them) in the Court's reasoning.

Isn't there some secretarial work you need to do?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
09-26-2013, 5:14 AM
I'm hanging on the edge of my seat to see how this critical line of inquiry will play out, I'm glad it is being pursued a month after the fact lol.

jdberger
09-26-2013, 8:54 AM
Isn't there some secretarial work you need to do?

Ad hominem, eh? Disappointing.

Really, I have a valid question. Your prediction here was wrong. How was your analysis different from that of the Court?

You've been asking the CGN community to embrace your legal theories for some time now. Shouldn't you explain where you went wrong so folks can make an educated decision on whether your commentary is worth merit?

taperxz
09-26-2013, 9:00 AM
:lurk5:..

Tincon
09-26-2013, 9:39 AM
Ad hominem, eh? Disappointing.

Really, I have a valid question. Your prediction here was wrong. How was your analysis different from that of the Court?

You've been asking the CGN community to embrace your legal theories for some time now. Shouldn't you explain where you went wrong so folks can make an educated decision on whether your commentary is worth merit?

LOL :facepalm: I didn't make a prediction. I said I didn't think it needed complex case designation, as an offhand comment. The analysis for complex cases is fairly complex, and the issue just isn't that important. Basically I don't think this case is one that would otherwise demand more judicial resources than a ordinary civil action. It's not a "big" case with hundreds or thousands of parties, multiple actions, or complex technical issues.

Why don't you explain why it's such a big deal to you? Or are you just going to take up Hokeyson's role and go from thread to thread trying (and failing) to snipe me?

fizux
09-27-2013, 1:33 AM
Since general civil ordinarily does not get single-assignment in SF, complex designation analysis isn't really that complex. Complex is the way to get single judge assigned for all purposes, in order to get pulled out of the general case management mosh pit. This is the test:

Complex designation will be approved if any of the following are true:
A. The case is high-profile or "sexy";
B. There will be more than one cross-complaint, and it will be easier to have a single judge assigned just to keep the parties straight; or
C. There isn't a case exactly on point for every single disputed issue somewhere in a Rutter Guide, and we all know that it will be appealed by whoever loses at the cross-MSJs.

Okay, maybe I'm oversimplifying, but it is a pretty good rule of thumb that works at least 90% of the time.

Chainsaw: FYI, when Phil Kay sued Ron George, et al., it was designated complex by SF as well.

a1c
09-27-2013, 8:15 AM
This sucks. How can the State of California try to shut down magazine parts kits, which are perfectly legal under federal law, and, at the same time, legitimize marijuana possession and consumption, which are clearly illegal under the same set of laws? Our legislature has its heads up its collective arse!

Don't try going there. It's not like it doesn't go both ways for issues you might agree with.

jdberger
09-27-2013, 8:30 AM
LOL :facepalm: I didn't make a prediction. I said I didn't think it needed complex case designation, as an offhand comment. The analysis for complex cases is fairly complex, and the issue just isn't that important. Basically I don't think this case is one that would otherwise demand more judicial resources than a ordinary civil action. It's not a "big" case with hundreds or thousands of parties, multiple actions, or complex technical issues.

Why don't you explain why it's such a big deal to you? Or are you just going to take up Hokeyson's role and go from thread to thread trying (and failing) to snipe me?

So that wasn't a prediction or criticism? Just snark.

Got it.*:rolleyes:

Philthy
10-18-2013, 11:10 PM
Can the City Attorney of San Francisco, an elected office from the C&C of San Francisco sue on behalf of the People of California? Do they have standing? At least everyone gets to vote for/against the State AG, and therefore we are all the AG's constituents.

15. there is no exception in the penal code.

True. The penal code was silent (until the recent change). However, in the 11/10/05 letter regarding clarification, the STATE Attorney General issued an opinion on the matter. That opinion came from a Deputy AG, in the firearms division, a division that specializes in the laws and regulations regarding firearms. People relied on this legal opinion, which was issued by the very department whose job it is to interpret and enforce firearms laws.

The Cow Palace is indeed in "San Francisco's backyard." However, it is NOT within San Francisco. It is within San Mateo County.

They're grasping at straws.

fizux
11-14-2013, 12:18 PM
Can the City Attorney of San Francisco, an elected office from the C&C of San Francisco sue on behalf of the People of California? Do they have standing?Yes. See B&P § 17204 (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=17204.).

taperxz
12-12-2013, 8:25 AM
A settlement has been issued

http://webaccess.sftc.org/Cache/182524588/04304371-Page0-5.pdf

taperxz
12-12-2013, 8:30 AM
This settlement is only crossroads guns show. 44 mag.com i assume will have a different settlement.

Librarian
12-12-2013, 1:22 PM
For now, does not restrict B&L/Crossroads or its vendors from selling parts to large-capacity magazines -- except I don't see 'bodies' on the list of parts. Are those technically called something that is on that list at p 4 line 10 and following? (I don't think so - 'bodies' are explicitly named at p 4 line 2)

goober
12-12-2013, 1:39 PM
For now, does not restrict B&L/Crossroads or its vendors from selling parts to large-capacity magazines -- except I don't see 'bodies' on the list of parts. Are those technically called something that is on that list at p 4 line 10 and following? (I don't think so - 'bodies' are explicitly named at p 4 line 2)

Bodies, tubes, etc. holding more than 10 rounds are expressly prohibited:

B. INJUNCTION. B & L Productions shall prohibit exhibitors or vendors at all B & L
Production events held in the State of California from offering or displaying for sale or selling any
magazine box, tube, body, or drum, which, with or without modification, is capable of holding more
than ten rounds

the other parts listed are OK.
b. Nothing in this injunction limits the rights of B & L Productions or its vendors
to sell the following repair or replacement parts for large-capacity magazines: followers,
follower springs, follower buttons, follower locks, follower lock springs, lips, nozzle rubbers,
I lip set pins, inner base set pins, release valves, charging valves, inner tubes, inner bases, inner
base seals, base plates, base plate locks, bases, base lock pins, block retainer plugs, locking
plates, and inserts.

fizux
12-12-2013, 1:58 PM
Thanks to taperxz for the settlement update; OP updated.

Perhaps someone at M&A can let us know whether settlements involving Copes and 44Mag are forthcoming...?

vintage rider
12-12-2013, 1:59 PM
For now, does not restrict B&L/Crossroads or its vendors from selling parts to large-capacity magazines -- except I don't see 'bodies' on the list of parts. Are those technically called something that is on that list at p 4 line 10 and following? (I don't think so - 'bodies' are explicitly named at p 4 line 2)

If the lips are part of the body, then they are allowable.

taperxz
12-12-2013, 2:15 PM
Thanks to taperxz for the settlement update; OP updated.

Perhaps someone at M&A can let us know whether settlements involving Copes and 44Mag are forthcoming...?

Actually that credit goes to Lorax. (moderator) He posted the link in the other 2A section and i simply brought it over here. :)

lorax3
12-18-2013, 12:01 PM
See update re Copes and 44Mag Settlement here

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=867754

fizux
12-19-2013, 5:45 PM
See update re Copes and 44Mag Settlement here

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=867754
OP updated with thread link.