Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 12-02-2012, 9:11 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,628
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
There's a statutory requirement with Section 1983 lawsuits that when you can challenge...how a state law is interpreted, you are required to notify the state attorney general's office....
Just curious, what is the statutory authority for this? (You appear to be making a distinction between "challenging the constitutionality of a state law" and "challenging how a state law is interpreted.")

Quote:
In the end, the responsibility of the notification lies with the plaintiff parties, not with the district court.
Are you saying the district court has no responsibility here?
  #42  
Old 12-02-2012, 9:22 AM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
though I think as soon as the 60 days expired after the amended complaint, the case was fatally wounded
Can you explain the basis for this supposition?
  #43  
Old 12-02-2012, 9:43 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,628
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Can you explain the basis for this supposition?
I wasn't going to nitpick this, but it's the AG who has 60 days to intervene after receiving notice. A party who files a document calling into question the constitutionality of a state statute must file and serve the requisite notice "promptly." But it really isn't about whether Peruta's attorneys "know the law" on the timing and filing of these notices.
  #44  
Old 12-02-2012, 9:43 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 10,434
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

FGG is back in action after having been banned. This is bound to get interesting. And educational.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #45  
Old 12-02-2012, 9:55 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,628
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
FGG is back in action after having been banned. This is bound to get interesting. And educational.
The OP and others know exactly why the notice was not served and filed. You have to wonder why the issue is being presented the way it is in this thread.
  #46  
Old 12-02-2012, 10:01 AM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
I wasn't going to nitpick this, but it's the AG who has 60 days to intervene after receiving notice. A party who files a document calling into question the constitutionality of a state statute must file and serve the requisite notice "promptly." But it really isn't about whether Peruta's attorneys "know the law" on the timing and filing of these notices.
It's also interesting that the Sykes notice appears to be deficient in that it fails to provide an identification of the paper in which the constitutional challenge is raised. A minor technicality with little import perhaps, but that would be an accurate description of this entire issue.
  #47  
Old 12-02-2012, 10:27 AM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Vacaville, CA
Posts: 3,528
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Peruta copycatted Sykes, 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/now-Richards 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.
Gray, this explains the answer to an earlier question (on another thread) I had.

I'm still confused however, about whether CGF wanted or didn't want the 2 cases to be combined. Did they originally want Richards and Peruta combined, and are we glad that the two cases are not combined now because of the issue concerning Rule 5.1 and 28 U.S.C. §2403?

Erik.
  #48  
Old 12-02-2012, 10:32 AM
Al Norris Al Norris is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Richards: While Alan Gura did in fact submit the required notification, it was still incumbent upon the district court clerk to make the official notification and docket entry. This was not done. The clerk did not comply with 28 USC 2403.

Peruta: From what we can see, at this point, there was never an attempt by the initial attorney (complaint) nor the subsequent attorneys (amended complaint) to address this issues. Certainly the court clerk never attempted to comply with 2403.

The court has wide discretion on how it may apply 2403 (see FRCP 5.1), up to and including a remand (for both cases) back to district court to make the required notification(s).

The court may hold that the certification must be made. In which case, the State has 60 days to tell the court that it wants to be involved... or not.

In the meantime, orals will be held and we may learn more at that time.

One thing is certain. Should the court require an answer from the State, they "may reject the constitutional challenge [before the 60 days has elapsed], but may not enter a final judgment holding the statute unconstitutional." Rule 5.1(c).

Baker: Section 2403 does not come into play. The State was noticed (they were part of the initial complaint) as they were a defendant in the lawsuit. That the district court dismissed them (Younger), does not stop the case. The State of Hawaii actually noticed the appellate court that they were not going to challenge the appeal.
__________________
Listings of the Current 2A Cases, over at the Firing Line.
  #49  
Old 12-02-2012, 10:33 AM
Jason_2111's Avatar
Jason_2111 Jason_2111 is offline
Internet Folk Hero
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Way up in the hills
Posts: 3,176
iTrader: 143 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
Gray, this explains the answer to an earlier question (on another thread) I had.

I'm still confused however, about whether CGF wanted or didn't want the 2 cases to be combined. Did they originally want Richards and Peruta combined, and are we glad that the two cases are not combined now because of the issue concerning Rule 5.1 and 28 U.S.C. §2403?

Erik.
I was wondering the same exact thing.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by aklon View Post
The inevitable explosion gets closer and closer, coming in little steps, but closer every day.
I say: "Let's do it and get it over with."
  #50  
Old 12-02-2012, 10:44 AM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,779
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
The OP and others know exactly why the notice was not served and filed. You have to wonder why the issue is being presented the way it is in this thread.
Don't be coy. What is your explanation for the failure to notify?
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
  #51  
Old 12-02-2012, 12:10 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,890
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks Gray. It is somewhat reassuring, at least, that the net result is that Gura may get to drive the bus as a result of this. By the way,
doesn't the court itself also have a responsibility to notice the AG?

See this post from Esquappellate at Maryland Shooters:
Quote:
Section 2403 provides in pertinent part:

(b) In any action, suit, or proceeding in a court of the United States to which a State or any agency, officer, or employee thereof is not a party, wherein the constitutionality of any statute of that State affecting the public interest is drawn in question, the court shall certify such fact to the attorney general of the State, and shall permit the State to intervene for presentation of evidence, if evidence is otherwise admissible in the case, and for argument on the question of constitutionality. The State shall, subject to the applicable provisions of law, have all the rights of a party and be subject to all liabilities of a party as to court costs to the extent necessary for a proper presentation of the facts and law relating to the question of constitutionality.
Esquappellate elaborates here:
Quote:
Rule 5.1 FRCP spells out the consequences. 5.1(d) says that the failure to file or for the court to certify "does not forfeit a constitutional claim or defense that is otherwise timely asserted." If the court holds that certification should have been provided, then the AG has 60 days to intervene and "the court may reject the constitutional challenge [before the 60 days has elapsed], but may not enter a final judgment holding the statute unconstitutional." Rule 5.1(c).

And yes, a remand is perfectly possible to remedy a failure to comply with 2403. It was ordered in Oklahoma ex rel Edmondson v. Pope, 516 F.3d 1214 C.A.10 (Okla.),2008 and in Pleasant-El v. Oil Recovery Co., Inc., 148 F.3d 1300 C.A.11 (Ala.),1998, for example. If there are potential fact issues, regarding the constitutionality of the statute, you can be sure that you'll get a remand. However, you could argue that a remand is not necessary, see, e.g., Puffer's Hardware, Inc. v. Donovan, 742 F.2d 12, C.A.1, August 20, 1984 ("where constitutional issue did not depend on any factual questions but was purely a question of law which could be addressed by the Court of Appeals, to which the statute was applicable and in which notification was given"), or that the suit does not draw into question the constitutionality of a state statute and can be fully adjudicated without a ruling on same.

Tough call. It seems clear to me at least that the court is signaling here that they think that the suit draws into question the constitutionality of the state statute. If so, then a notice will absolutely be required. So, one path could be to provide the notice anyhow and THEN argue that even though notice has now been given, the suit doesn't really require the court to rule on the constitutionality of the Cal. statute. If you can legitimately argue that it is a pure question of law that can be decided by the court of appeals, then the court can still reach the issue but must wait for 60 days for the AG to intervene if he wants to, unless, of course, they decide to rule against you, which they can do without waiting 60 days under Rule 5.1(c). The AG could assert a right to file briefs and participate in argument. They decline to do so at their peril.

There is another twist to this. Even if Gura in Richards filed the notice with the state (and Gura demonstrates that he plainly did so with his 28(j) filing), Rule 5.1(b) and Section 2403 expressly require the COURT to ALSO send the certification to the AG. While Gura's 28j letter states that the court of appeals should assume that the district court sent the certification, Gura does not cite to the docket for support. If the district court had done so, it *should* appear on the docket. If it doesn't, the court of appeals would be justified in concluding that the district court failed to do the certification. If the Clerk of the district court failed to do that, the Court of Appeals is arguably going to have to sit on this until such certification is provided, or perhaps, remand both Peruta and Richards back to district court to allow such certification to be made in district court. The court has discretion on what to do. Here is what the 8th Circuit has stated on this:

"When the parties and the court statutorily charged with notifying the Attorney General of a constitutional challenge to a federal statute fail to do so, the appellate court has discretion to respond in different ways, depending on the nature of the arguments and the progress of the litigation. See, e.g., In re Young, 82 F.3d 1407, 1412-13 (8th Cir.1996) (case was removed from the oral argument calendar and certified to the Attorney General); Merrill v. Town of Addison, 763 F.2d 80, 83 (2d Cir.1985) (state attorney general was notified after oral argument and intervened with a supplemental brief). It often may suffice to notify the Attorney General and allow him to intervene on appeal."

Oklahoma ex rel Edmondson, 516 F.3d at 1216. Of course, the 8th Circuit then ordered a remand because "A number of arguments were waived or abandoned by the parties either in district court or on appeal, including the appropriate standard of review, cf. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 345, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995), the possibility of a saving construction, and the interests served by the statute." (Id.).

This mess reminds me of the old adage that "men must turn square corners when they deal with the government." Rock Island, A. & L.R. Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 141, 143, 41 S.Ct. 55, 56, 65 L.Ed. 188 (1920) (Holmes, J.)). Basically, you got to police the district court clerk as well. The notice is required, period, if the suits draw into question the constitutionality of the California statute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Peruta copycatted Sykes, 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/now-Richards 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.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
  #52  
Old 12-02-2012, 1:17 PM
mag360 mag360 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,040
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Wow the Peruta case grinds my gears. This is exactly why we dont want people touching 2A cases who shouldnt be. At least gura gets to proceed uninhibited or less inhibited by a stupid case.
  #53  
Old 12-02-2012, 1:33 PM
Al Norris Al Norris is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mag360 View Post
Wow the Peruta case grinds my gears. This is exactly why we dont want people touching 2A cases who shouldnt be. At least gura gets to proceed uninhibited or less inhibited by a stupid case.
Not quite.

If the court has decided that there is a constitutional issue with the statute (and it is clear that the court is thinking this), they have several options open to them - for both cases.

While I believe that Gura has the better argument, this does not preclude the court from its options.
__________________
Listings of the Current 2A Cases, over at the Firing Line.
  #54  
Old 12-02-2012, 1:46 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The chances of Richards plaintiffs being remanded over Peruta's mistake is zero. The cases are not consolidated in any way. The only thing in held in tandem with them is that they are being argued on the same day in front of the same panel.
  #55  
Old 12-02-2012, 2:00 PM
Purple K's Avatar
Purple K Purple K is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN ContributorCGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Solano County
Posts: 3,118
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris View Post
Richards: While Alan Gura did in fact submit the required notification, it was still incumbent upon the district court clerk to make the official notification and docket entry. This was not done. The clerk did not comply with 28 USC 2403.

Peruta: From what we can see, at this point, there was never an attempt by the initial attorney (complaint) nor the subsequent attorneys (amended complaint) to address this issues. Certainly the court clerk never attempted to comply with 2403.

The court has wide discretion on how it may apply 2403 (see FRCP 5.1), up to and including a remand (for both cases) back to district court to make the required notification(s).

The court may hold that the certification must be made. In which case, the State has 60 days to tell the court that it wants to be involved... or not.

In the meantime, orals will be held and we may learn more at that time.

One thing is certain. Should the court require an answer from the State, they "may reject the constitutional challenge [before the 60 days has elapsed], but may not enter a final judgment holding the statute unconstitutional." Rule 5.1(c).

Baker: Section 2403 does not come into play. The State was noticed (they were part of the initial complaint) as they were a defendant in the lawsuit. That the district court dismissed them (Younger), does not stop the case. The State of Hawaii actually noticed the appellate court that they were not going to challenge the appeal.
It may make me seem a conspiracy theorist, but one has to wonder if the Clerks blunder in Richards (Sykes) wasn't intentional. It's often stated in this forum and elsewhere that these cases are destined for a higher Court. This could give certain activist judges the opportunity to delay this case significantly in hopes that the composition of the SCOTUS changes.
__________________

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
"Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson.
"a system of licensing the right of
self-defense, which doesn’t recognize self-defense as “good cause”
Don Kilmer
  #56  
Old 12-02-2012, 2:07 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple K View Post
It may make me seem a conspiracy theorist, but one has to wonder if the Clerks blunder in Richards (Sykes) wasn't intentional. It's often stated in this forum and elsewhere that these cases are destined for a higher Court. This could give certain activist judges the opportunity to delay this case significantly in hopes that the composition of the SCOTUS changes.
esqappellate at MD Shooters doesn't think so. The fact is, Richards plaintiffs, not relying on the district court, not only emailed the person who is officially receives such process service, they also sent a certified letter to the CA AG.

To remand Richards for something that was not their particular fault (the district court itself not doing the notification), totally unheard of procedurally, something that a man of decades of appellate experience has dealt with (esqappellate) has never seen at all. I trust esqappellate on the matter.

Peruta, not so much.
  #57  
Old 12-02-2012, 2:13 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
The OP and others know exactly why the notice was not served and filed. You have to wonder why the issue is being presented the way it is in this thread.
Actually, I have no idea as it seems to be a mistake your friend keeps making. Maybe he should stick to state court?

Care to explain why he didn't file a notice when he amended the complaint? Can we NRA members get our money back from his malpractice?

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
  #58  
Old 12-02-2012, 2:16 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Just curious, what is the statutory authority for this? (You appear to be making a distinction between "challenging the constitutionality of a state law" and "challenging how a state law is interpreted.")
In the first instance of Peruta, which was a carbon-copy of Sykes, the constitutionality of the state law WAS facially challenged here. James Neuharth did not send a notice.

Quote:
Are you saying the district court has no responsibility here?
They have a responsibility. However, the appellate court would probably treat Richards differently than Peruta because Richards counsel did their due diligence, Peruta's did not.
  #59  
Old 12-02-2012, 2:21 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
I wasn't going to nitpick this, but it's the AG who has 60 days to intervene after receiving notice. A party who files a document calling into question the constitutionality of a state statute must file and serve the requisite notice "promptly."
No notice was filed, and that is kind of a nitpick.

Quote:
But it really isn't about whether Peruta's attorneys "know the law" on the timing and filing of these notices.
Sure, it's about the case sucking from the get go, and causing losses in district courts nationwide, including in my case and also in Richards where the Peruta loss was heavily cited.

I had to deal up close with the damage done by the Peruta loss, and I can't be charitable to legal malpractices done from the get go at all.
  #60  
Old 12-02-2012, 2:28 PM
Purple K's Avatar
Purple K Purple K is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN ContributorCGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Solano County
Posts: 3,118
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
The OP and others know exactly why the notice was not served and filed. You have to wonder why the issue is being presented the way it is in this thread.
So now you know what they knew! Do you also know when they knew it? Did you know it before they knew it? Damn you're good. Maybe you can use these psychic powers of yours to share with us the outcome of the case and save us the time and trouble of waiting.
__________________

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
"Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson.
"a system of licensing the right of
self-defense, which doesn’t recognize self-defense as “good cause”
Don Kilmer
  #61  
Old 12-02-2012, 2:34 PM
Purple K's Avatar
Purple K Purple K is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN ContributorCGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Solano County
Posts: 3,118
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
No notice was filed, and that is kind of a nitpick.



Sure, it's about the case sucking from the get go, and causing losses in district courts nationwide, including in my case and also in Richards where the Peruta loss was heavily cited.

I had to deal up close with the damage done by the Peruta loss, and I can't be charitable to legal malpractices done from the get go at all.
If Peruta is sent back down, could that breathe new life into cases where Peruta was heavily cited. An appeal or notice of supplimental authority?
__________________

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
"Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson.
"a system of licensing the right of
self-defense, which doesn’t recognize self-defense as “good cause”
Don Kilmer
  #62  
Old 12-02-2012, 2:47 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funtimes View Post
That they get combined would probably not be a snow balls's chance. Our case is going to be heard, no matter what happens to Peruta; the same thing probably also applies to Richards, especially since they followed the rules for notification.
Still speculating. Still whistling past a grave yard.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
  #63  
Old 12-02-2012, 2:54 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Maybe he should stick to state court?
Bauer v. Harris argues against that, too. Perhaps he should stick to billing NRA and CRPAF for... writing copy for email blasts?

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
  #64  
Old 12-02-2012, 3:09 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris View Post
Not quite.

If the court has decided that there is a constitutional issue with the statute (and it is clear that the court is thinking this), they have several options open to them - for both cases.

While I believe that Gura has the better argument, this does not preclude the court from its options.
What are those options? Because they can be counted on to take the ones most troublesome to us.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
  #65  
Old 12-02-2012, 3:15 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple K View Post
It may make me seem a conspiracy theorist, but one has to wonder if the Clerks blunder in Richards (Sykes) wasn't intentional. It's often stated in this forum and elsewhere that these cases are destined for a higher Court. This could give certain activist judges the opportunity to delay this case significantly in hopes that the composition of the SCOTUS changes.
BINGO!!
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
  #66  
Old 12-02-2012, 3:27 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
The chances of Richards plaintiffs being remanded over Peruta's mistake is zero. The cases are not consolidated in any way. The only thing in held in tandem with them is that they are being argued on the same day in front of the same panel.
Still whistling Gray.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
  #67  
Old 12-02-2012, 3:32 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
esqappellate at MD Shooters doesn't think so. The fact is, Richards plaintiffs, not relying on the district court, not only emailed the person who is officially receives such process service, they also sent a certified letter to the CA AG.

To remand Richards for something that was not their particular fault (the district court itself not doing the notification), totally unheard of procedurally, something that a man of decades of appellate experience has dealt with (esqappellate) has never seen at all. I trust esqappellate on the matter.

Peruta, not so much.
Has esqappellate ever had to deal with the 9th circus?
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
  #68  
Old 12-02-2012, 3:36 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
In the first instance of Peruta, which was a carbon-copy of Sykes, the constitutionality of the state law WAS facially challenged here. James Neuharth did not send a notice.



They have a responsibility. However, the appellate court would probably treat Richards differently than Peruta because Richards counsel did their due diligence, Peruta's did not.
Still whistling.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
  #69  
Old 12-02-2012, 4:02 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,628
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Actually, I have no idea as it seems to be a mistake your friend keeps making. Maybe he should stick to state court?
All these attorneys including the former solicitor general and the SAF rookie of the year are so dumb and incompetent they didn't even know what notice they were supposed to serve and file!

Quote:
Care to explain why he didn't file a notice when he amended the complaint?
It couldn't possibly be that the first amended complaint is not within the terms of FRCP 5.1. lol.

Quote:
Can we NRA members get our money back from his malpractice?
At the same time you can get your money back from your attorneys who didn't do anything about the district court's failing to certify?

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 12-02-2012 at 5:16 PM..
  #70  
Old 12-02-2012, 4:08 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,279
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Kinda curious. . . I don't think this will work, but IIRC, Chuck Michels went and talked to the state legislature about the implications of pending legislation with regard to Peruta and how that would jeopardize state law. This means that the state was certainly aware of the litigation and at least some of its implications.

Could they argue that this was a sort of notice if there were an AG representative present at the meeting/hearing?

Note that I'm asking if it could be argued. I don't actually think it will work because of both timing issues and proper notification channels not being used.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
  #71  
Old 12-02-2012, 4:10 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,628
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Sure, it's about the case sucking from the get go, and causing losses in district courts nationwide, including in my case and also in Richards where the Peruta loss was heavily cited.
So you no longer think the first amended compaint is "great news"?
  #72  
Old 12-02-2012, 4:13 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,628
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
In the first instance of Peruta, which was a carbon-copy of Sykes, the constitutionality of the state law WAS facially challenged here. James Neuharth did not send a notice.
You didn't answer the question, which was very specific.
  #73  
Old 12-02-2012, 4:24 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,628
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
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.
OMG the sky is falling!!! How much you want to bet the 9th circuit isn't going to send either case back to district court because of 2403 or 5.1?
  #74  
Old 12-02-2012, 5:01 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
Kinda curious. . . I don't think this will work, but IIRC, Chuck Michels went and talked to the state legislature about the implications of pending legislation with regard to Peruta and how that would jeopardize state law. This means that the state was certainly aware of the litigation and at least some of its implications.

Could they argue that this was a sort of notice if there were an AG representative present at the meeting/hearing?

Note that I'm asking if it could be argued. I don't actually think it will work because of both timing issues and proper notification channels not being used.
This probably has no bearing on your question, but I would be shocked if the AG’s office was not aware of every jot & tittle within a day or two of the filing of all these cases. Hell, if their spies lurking around here don’t report it what good are they?
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
  #75  
Old 12-02-2012, 5:31 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Vacaville, CA
Posts: 3,528
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
OMG the sky is falling!!! How much you want to bet the 9th circuit isn't going to send either case back to district court because of 2403 or 5.1?
Maybe a wannabe law student question here, but why would they send back anything other than Peruta on that issue? What kind of an instruction would you expect otherwise if the Court addresses the issue in a Peruta opinion?

Not trying to pick a fight with you... But according to some of your questions to Gray, it seems you imply that the District Court had some responsibility to notify the state (since it would seem awkward to me for the District Judge to just sit there and watch the Plaintiff make these errors without doing something), and that is what I was thinking as well, so if that were the case, wouldn't it be predictable for the Ninth Circuit to remand Peruta with instructions based on that issue?

Under rule 62(b), don't District Judges take it upon themselves to issue stays of proceedings and judgements based on another big case on the horizon, or is rule 62(b) always something that one or both parties ask for (or am I comparing apples to oranges)?

Please 101 me on that (anyone, not just you).

Erik.
  #76  
Old 12-02-2012, 5:52 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,628
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
Not trying to pick a fight with you... But according to some of your questions to Gray, it seems you imply that the District Court had some responsibility to notify the state (since it would seem awkward to me for the District Judge to just sit there and watch the Plaintiff make these errors without doing something), and that is what I was thinking as well, so if that were the case, wouldn't it be predictable for the Ninth Circuit to remand Peruta with instructions based on that issue?
Imply? You might want to bone up on 28 USC 2403 lol.

If you want some wannabe law student practice, why don't you speculate what the "instructions" might say if the 9th circuit remanded Peruta? What exactly would the 9th circuit be telling the district court to do? What would the 9th circuit do with the district court judgment?

By the way I realize I'm answering your question with a question.

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 12-02-2012 at 5:56 PM..
  #77  
Old 12-02-2012, 5:58 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
The OP and others know exactly why the notice was not served and filed. You have to wonder why the issue is being presented the way it is in this thread.
Could you explain this to us. I would have no idea why after reading the context of the OP and what your views mean.
  #78  
Old 12-02-2012, 6:00 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

And yes i know you may not want to explain to us as its a waste of time. If you could though...
  #79  
Old 12-02-2012, 6:07 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,279
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Could you explain this to us. I would have no idea why after reading the context of the OP and what your views mean.
I think he may have touched on that one in post #70.

But as someone who is not at all legally sophisticated, I could be very wrong on that.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
  #80  
Old 12-02-2012, 6:09 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,628
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
I think he may have touched on that one in post #70.
Yes. The OP doesn't have any idea what I may be talking about though!
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:40 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.