View Single Post
Old 11-30-2012, 11:08 PM
CaliforniaLiberal's Avatar
CaliforniaLiberal CaliforniaLiberal is offline
#1 Bull Goose Loony
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,537
iTrader: 23 / 100%

Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
While it would have been better, in my opinion, to serve the notice, this is a relatively toothless rule. A party’s failure to file and serve a notice of a constitutional challenge to a state statute does not result in a forfeiture by any party of any constitutional claim that the party has timely asserted in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1(d)

It might be possible that the court would sanction the responsible attorney under § 1927, however at this point in the appeal that seems pretty unlikely, especially considering the lower court also had an obligation to notify, and either failed to do so, or if it did then it is a somewhat moot issue. Worst case scenario here is remand back to the lower court to give the AG a chance to intervene. But considering that the the AG did receive notification in Richards and did not intervene, remand seems unlikely.

So I'm not sure the development is terribly important.

Pull up a chair and be welcome to CalGuns Tincon!
Better Way to Search CalGuns -
CA Bill Search -
C D Michel, Good Info CA Gun Law, New CA Legislation -
California Rifle and Pistol Association -
Sacramento County Sheriff Concealed Carry Info -
Second Amendment Foundation -