|
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 |
#402
|
||||
|
||||
I just saw this come through:
A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked a new California labor law from impacting more than 70,000 independent truckers This was Judge Benitez. I suspect he's been balls to the wall on this one to get an order out before 1/1. Hopefully we'll see progress on our case soon! |
#403
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
https://thedeplorablepatriot.com/ "A Holocaust survivor dies of old age, when he gets to heaven he tells God a Holocaust joke. God says, That isn't funny. The Old man tells God, well, I guess you had to be there." Last edited by CaliforniaCowboy; 12-31-2019 at 6:05 PM.. |
#404
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#405
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Edit: LLC = Limited Liability Company Last edited by aBrowningfan; 01-01-2020 at 5:57 PM.. Reason: See Edit: above |
#406
|
|||
|
|||
Long story short...I am a freelance musician and AB 5 totally kills the gig economy for a musician who plays primarily one off concerts. The thing that killed me the most is when the local union didn’t have our back on it. I know a ton of musicians who are both conservative and liberal and they are livid that the legislature did this to us.
Part of me wishes Benitez had not intervened...I don’t know what it would take to swing the pendulum back the other way but it was pretty compelling to talk to my friends and let them know their representatives voted for that and didn’t take them into consideration. Most are already struggling in California as it is. |
#408
|
||||
|
||||
Benitez is too old for lasting influence on scotus and is doing a great job where he is. Let him stay on the ninth and take senior status should he choose.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
#409
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
https://californiatruckingassoc.grow...nload/zLw1V4Mp
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.” ― Plato |
#410
|
||||
|
||||
It's not going to happen. If Trump nominates another justice before he eventually leaves office it's going to be Amey Coney Barrett to replace Ginsburg or Amal Thapur to replace Breyer. Trump has been quoted in private conversations as saying he is "saving" Barrett for Ginsburg. Probably because she's female.
|
#412
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges.aspx |
#414
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Labor Law has nothing to do with 2A |
#416
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#418
|
||||
|
||||
Well, Trumps been busy. Maybe Judge B's load may ease off in the future? Somehow I doubt it will...the 9th is too big and needs to be broken into smaller pieces.
|
#419
|
||||
|
||||
Schedule change
Just saw this. It doesn't say anything about the preliminary injunction. That can still be issued or denied in the meantime, right?
Quote:
Last edited by GetMeCoffee; 01-08-2020 at 11:41 AM.. |
#421
|
||||
|
||||
Not sure why we're talking about the 9th Circuit. This is in District Court, it hasn't ben ruled on yet, so an appeal cannot be made yet, so it is not being sent to any Circuit court as of right now.
|
#422
|
|||
|
|||
Mandatory settlement conferences are usually handled by magistrate judges or lawyers, not the federal judge assigned to the case. Nothing unusual about this.
|
#423
|
|||
|
|||
I do not trust decisions made by magistrate's. These are appointed positions and they usually side with the State or State Official's more so if the latter are defendant's in the case. We will see maybe what happens here.
|
#424
|
||||
|
||||
I am pretty sure the judge at mandatory settlement conference has little to no power on the outcome.
|
#425
|
|||
|
|||
The settlement conference seems like such a waste of time. There is no room for compromise - the CA-DoJ is powerless to modify the law, so where is the room for compromise?
|
#426
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
On that note, albeit off topic, how are district court judges appointed? Last edited by Sputnik; 01-12-2020 at 8:46 PM.. |
#428
|
|||
|
|||
|
#429
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#430
|
|||
|
|||
|
#432
|
||||
|
||||
It means they are not going to waste time and resources to hold a settlement conference to discuss the possibility of settlement.
The plantiffs know the law is unconstitutional, and the state believes it is. So having a conference go to argue these points is pointless. No one is going to settle. So we move on. Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk |
#433
|
|||
|
|||
It means the the mandatory settlement conference is no longer mandatory in the case. As stated, there is nothing to negotiate. As a result the settlement conference would be a waste of everyone’s time.
|
#435
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Tolerate allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference. Anyone else find it sad that those who preach tolerance CAN'T allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that they do not necessarily like or agree with) without interference. I write almost everything in a jovial manner regardless of content . If that's not how you took it please try again |
#436
|
||||
|
||||
There's some movement. New document filed
Order Requesting Defendant to Update the Court on Ammunition Sales Background Check The order specifies that an update be provided to the court by March 13, 2020. I'm guessing we won't be seeing a PI before then? Retrieved from Michel & Associates case page: http://michellawyers.com/rhode-v-becerra/ Last edited by GetMeCoffee; 02-14-2020 at 2:33 PM.. |
#437
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#438
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Where and when did that ever happened before in Californistan?
__________________
BLACK RIFLES MATTER! |
#440
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Edit: I went back and reviewed the declaration of Mayra G. Morales submitted on 11/18/2019, and unless CA-DoJ have implemented some software updates, I don't see how they are going to convince Judge Benitez that their background check system is working. The main problem is with rejects due to mis-match on address between CA D/L and AFS. If AFS has your address as 123 Main Street and your D/L address is 123 Main St., you are going to be rejected. The mis-match can be fixed with a software revision, but absent the software revision being implemented, you are going to be rejected. An additional fix can occur via manual update (change Street to St. in the example) to the AFS database each time there is a reject that needs researching, but that is going to take time and I don't know whether CA-DoJ procedure/workflow allows for editing AFS records. Edit: Net-net, absent updates to the software (or manual edits to AFS data), I don't think the picture will have changed much from Mayra's 11/18/2019 declaration to what gets submitted on 3/13/2020. March 13, 2020 is less than a month away. Tick-tock, tick-tock. Last edited by aBrowningfan; 02-15-2020 at 8:56 PM.. Reason: See Edit: above. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|