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 > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-23-2013, 3:43 AM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-23-2013, 6:34 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-25-2013, 6:46 AM
BigPimping's Avatar
BigPimping BigPimping is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Still in the game playa!!
Posts: 12,545
iTrader: 55 / 100%
Default

I hope Exile humiliates those idiots who file illegal litigation.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-26-2013, 12:20 AM
saki302's Avatar
saki302 saki302 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,118
iTrader: 89 / 100%
Default

I hope they get humiliated in such a fashion these cities will think twice before using frivolous lawsuits to further their agenda.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-26-2013, 6:27 AM
MaHoTex's Avatar
MaHoTex MaHoTex is offline
You're a daisy if you do!
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Isola di Linosa
Posts: 4,474
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

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

Sh-Sh-Sha Pocket Sand!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-26-2013, 6:55 AM
kmca's Avatar
kmca kmca is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 2,339
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Just curious, if/when Exile wins, are they reimbursed for their legal, travel, preparation and other expenses?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-26-2013, 7:02 AM
johnny1290 johnny1290 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,565
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

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!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-27-2013, 12:58 PM
TANK TANK is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: East Bay-Oakley/Brentwood
Posts: 819
iTrader: 194 / 100%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-27-2013, 1:45 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,516
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
Support my Steam Greenlight campaign for Omega Reaction!
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=618002901

Just vote Yes please, not asking for money.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-27-2013, 2:11 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: 2,567
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-27-2013, 2:27 PM
nickster nickster is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 63
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

How do you one a case?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-27-2013, 2:30 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: 2,567
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

How do you asser a defense of laches?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-27-2013, 2:42 PM
nickster nickster is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 63
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I don't care to pre-numbulate on that due to prior commitments.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-27-2013, 8:08 PM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
How do you asser a defense of laches?
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).
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-27-2013, 8:17 PM
issah's Avatar
issah issah is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 74
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-27-2013, 10:27 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

LOL, am I missing an inside joke on this this thread?

Quote:
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.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-28-2013, 5:38 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: 2,567
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by docket
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.)

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 08-28-2013 at 5:53 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-28-2013, 6:00 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
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.)
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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....
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-28-2013, 2:33 PM
Willport Willport is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 25
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-28-2013, 3:02 PM
elSquid's Avatar
elSquid elSquid is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Left coast.
Posts: 8,275
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willport View Post
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/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
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-28-2013, 4:04 PM
Willport Willport is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 25
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
I did a quick google, and found the following interview with Judge Munter:

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
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.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-28-2013, 9:39 PM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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).
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-28-2013, 10:32 PM
chainsaw chainsaw is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 660
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-29-2013, 11:03 AM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chainsaw View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-31-2013, 10:34 PM
Libertarian71's Avatar
Libertarian71 Libertarian71 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Soviet Socialist Republic of California
Posts: 632
iTrader: 46 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by aklon View Post
As an American citizen, the 1911 is your birthright: using John Moses Browning as His chosen instrument, The Lord God above gave us the 1911 as His gift to a free people.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-02-2013, 9:22 PM
chainsaw chainsaw is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 660
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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:
Originally Posted by fizux View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-03-2013, 12:08 PM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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).
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-09-2013, 8:55 PM
Sinestr's Avatar
Sinestr Sinestr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Smells like cow shi+
Posts: 652
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-18-2013, 10:53 PM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-24-2013, 9:54 PM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,925
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
I don't really see how this would be a "complex case" but....
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
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-25-2013, 10:12 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 jdberger View Post
But what?
It's looks like it will be tried as one.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-25-2013, 9:42 PM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,925
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
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.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-25-2013, 11:58 PM
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 jdberger View Post
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?
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-26-2013, 4:14 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: 2,567
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-26-2013, 7:54 AM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,925
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
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?
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-26-2013, 8:00 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-26-2013, 8:39 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 jdberger View Post
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 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?
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-27-2013, 12:33 AM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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).
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-27-2013, 7:15 AM
a1c's Avatar
a1c a1c is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 8,869
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by issah View Post
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.
__________________
WTB: French & Finnish firearms. WTS: raw honey, tumbled .45 ACP brass, stupid cat.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-27-2013, 7:30 AM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,925
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
LOL 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.*
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 4:05 AM.




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.