Originally Posted by IVC
Looks like a dig at Peruta and light gloating related to infighting. Not taking sides, but the initial post is a bit dramatic for a procedural issue, resulting in quite a few confused readers (including myself initially).
The real question is whether there is any damage done. Since the cases are not consolidated, as per Gura's last paragraph, he is pleading that there be no delay in Richards. This looks like it should be a routine "all clear."
, which was the original name of Richards v. Prieto
before Sykes & the Sacramento defendants were dropped from the case due to Sacramento's change in policy. Mr. Peruta was the only plaintiff on the case between September of 2009 & March of 2010.
Original Peruta Complaint
The prayer for relief was for enjoining the enforcement of the good cause & good moral character statutes directly, both facially & as applied.
There's a statutory requirement with Section 1983 lawsuits that when you can challenge the constitutionality of a state law, or how a state law is interpreted, you are required to notify the state attorney general's office within 60 days
. In the end, the responsibility of the notification lies with the plaintiff parties
, not with the district court.
At no time, during the era when the case was under sole control of attorney Paul Neuharth, did they comply with that requirement. At all.
6 months after the complaint was filed, an amended complaint was filed and the case was taken over by Chuck Michel & Associates. Though it was narrowed to challenging the way the sheriff enforced "good cause", no notification was made to the state to let them know that the statute was in any way being challenged in any way.
Then Paul Clement got attached to the case when it went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. No notification was made (though I think as soon as the 60 days expired after the amended complaint, the case was fatally wounded), and now a member of the 9th Circuit Panel is wondering why the State of California is not a party to the case.
Regardless of Judge Gonzalez proceeding as if notification is not required, the 9th Circuit will essentially vacate & remand back to the district court to have them start over freshly, with the proper notifications to allow the State of California (as represented by the Attorney General's Office) to be a governmental-intervening party. If they had done so as the then-Sykes
parties did while then AG Brown was still in office, the AG at that time would not have intervened, and the window for having the mighty force of the State of California Attorney General's Office involved in their case would have been closed.
You can, however, believe that AG Kamala Harris would intervene if given opportunity.
Luckily, for the Richards
plaintiffs, they complied with the 60 day notify requirement and because of that, have foreclosed any involvement by state of California and their are only facing the hired guns (lawyers) for the county of Yolo.
Unluckily, for the Peruta
plaintiff lawyers (Neuharth, Michel/Associates, and Clement), because of their lack of compliance with the state AG notification requirement, even the 9th Circuit sends back the case to have it all redone from scratch, all the Section 1988 billable hours from after the notification requirement window the first time around (around October of 2009) until it's sent back down to district to redo it all again, are now unrecoverable. That includes Mr. Clement's $1000/hour fee for his involvement in the case.
Anywhere from tens of thousands to potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in NRA-ILA/CRPAF money was just tossed down the drain that cannot be recovered from the San Diego Treasury in attorney fees. That money comes from your NRA memberships & donations to NRA-ILA, and also any donations you make to CRPAF as well.
Mr. Clement, rather than making merits arguments on 2A, will likely get tied into a knot in re the notification issue during his 20 minutes of argument.
That leaves Mr. Gura for Richards
to argue the 2A merits, along with whoever is arguing for Chris Baker (Funtimes) & HDF in Baker v. Keoloha
The point of the OP was not about "gloating" and "infighting". It's about pointing out actual examples of lack of competence with basic federal rules of civil procedure that must be complied with, that people who have no business filing federal lawsuits should not be doing vanguard civil litigation in this fashion.
Perhaps after oral argument, where we can see the results of the damage done by this bungled situation, NRA members should call up ILA, and CRPA members call up CRPA Foundation, and ask them why they are paying for massive mistakes such as this apparent horror show.