|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
SF v. 44Mag (Mag Repair Parts Kits)
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.* 12/18/2013 - Notice of entry of order (re: 12/10/2013 COTW Settlement / Stip J) filed. 12/10/2013 - COTW Settlement (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) 8/21/2013 - Exile Machine's Answer. 8/20/2013 - Stipulated order to extend time to respond until 9/20/2013. 6/10/2013 - Complaint. 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/ma...numberprompt22 (Enter "531982"). Links: Related thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=776301 Michel & Assoc. Case Tracker: http://michellawyers.com/people-v-44...tributing-llc/ * IMHO; other than being a member of the NRA, I am not associated or affiliated with M&A in any way. Last edited by fizux; 12-19-2013 at 4:49 PM.. Reason: updates |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Exile's Answer: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...achine-LLC.pdf
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
NRA Life Member Mr. President, I can't take any more winning! Make it stop Mr. President. The winning is YUGGEEEE! "If you've got a problem with the US, you better make sure it's not a military problem." SSgt Leslie Edwards |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I hope exile and everyone else wins against those idiots
__________________
"No man who refuses to bear arms in defense of his nation can give a sound reason why he should be allowed to live in a free country" T. Roosevelt |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
I can't say that I know anyone who has ever one a case by assering a defense of laches.
__________________
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
It's an assermative diphense.
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL. Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay Case Status: Peña v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA). |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
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!
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
LOL, am I missing an inside joke on this this thread?
Quote:
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 08-28-2013 at 5:53 AM.. |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Complex Case Designation
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. |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticle...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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
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). That spawned the attorney fee dispute case Chambers v. Kay, 29 Cal. 4th 142 (2002), 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...
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL. Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay Case Status: Peña v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA). |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
And I cannot say that I've ever seen an answer where laches was not raised as an affirmative defense.
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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.
Quote:
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. |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL. Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay Case Status: Peña v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA). |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Update, Complex designation approved: http://webaccess.sftc.org/minds_asp_...nt.asp?PGCNT=0
__________________
"Strength Determination Merciless Forever" Last edited by Sinestr; 09-10-2013 at 6:32 PM.. Reason: link |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
But what?
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky. 90% of winning is simply showing up. "Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green NRA Benefactor Member |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance. |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky. 90% of winning is simply showing up. "Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green NRA Benefactor Member |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
Isn't there some secretarial work you need to do?
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance. |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
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?
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky. 90% of winning is simply showing up. "Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green NRA Benefactor Member |
#37
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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?
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance. |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL. Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay Case Status: Peña v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA). |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
WTB: French & Finnish firearms. WTS: raw honey, tumbled .45 ACP brass, stupid cat. |
#40
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Got it.*
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky. 90% of winning is simply showing up. "Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green NRA Benefactor Member |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|