Miller v Bonta 2, 2022 - Prevailing party fees: Unconstitutional, perm. enjoined 3-20

[eaglemike]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

I can see an appeal because for the Governor it could be win win. If the Governor wins and Benitez is overruled, he has his fee shifting. If the Ninth Circuit affirms a Benitez judgement declaring CA's law unconstitutional, it would provide some authority to strike down the Texas law.

I don't see any way the fee shifting could be found as complying with the US Constitution. 1st Amendment, right to petition. The fee shifting would certainly put a huge damper on that.
Wish I could have been there yesterday. After hearing judge B Monday, pretty sure he would have been clear regarding this in relation to the USCon.

[Ocdlaw]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

I can see an appeal because for the Governor it could be win win. If the Governor wins and Benitez is overruled, he has his fee shifting. If the Ninth Circuit affirms a Benitez judgement declaring CA's law unconstitutional, it would provide some authority to strike down the Texas law.

The Texas law isn’t even relevant anymore since Roe v. Wade was overturned. Texas can simply ban abortion. They don’t need to worry about fee shifting anymore.

[Silence Dogood]

What are the AW provisions of this law?

In addition to banning the sale of some assault weapons, the law also will prohibit parts that can be used to build weapons, guns without serial numbers, or .50-caliber rifles.

https://apnews.com/article/politics-...b1b765278494a4

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by Ocdlaw

The Texas law isn’t even relevant anymore since Roe v. Wade was overturned. Texas can simply ban abortion. They don’t need to worry about fee shifting anymore.

But aren't the fee shifting unrelated third party damage provisions still part of Texas law?

[Chewy65]

KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid for us among the truly stupid. While we are awaiting Benitez's ruling, can someone confirm that a bench trial was actually held and, if so, what is the state of it. Is the court in recess to consider its decision on the trial, the preliminary injunction? Why would a PI be issued if a trial has been held? Where is the need, if the trial results declare the law unconstitutional and enjoin its enforcement?

[abinsinia]

Opinion And Order Enjoining Enforcement Of California Code Of Civil Procedure § 1021.11. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 12/19/2022.(ddf) (Entered: 12/19/2022)

Nighttime reading.. This is the order ending the fee shifting rule.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...43320.43.0.pdf

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Saint Benitez

The California provision, on the other hand, denies prevailing party
status to a plaintiff, even a plaintiff who is entirely successful, and thus denies any possibility of recovering his attorney’s fees

I didn't realize it was NEVER prevail .. Like you never get attorney's fees.

[eaglemike]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Nighttime reading.. This is the order ending the fee shifting rule.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...43320.43.0.pdf

Hallelujah
Thought this would happen. Nice that it happened quickly.
Hooray for common sense and justice! and Judge B!!!!!!

[JiuJitsu]

Judge Benitez is the man. This is one of hopefully many more permanent injunctions coming soon!

[Drivedabizness]

The fact that Newsom would push this should be made great hay of. (grammar)

He has never, in his public life, acknowledged ANY limits on his power. He needs to be sternly rebuked, routinely.

[JDHCA]

Here's the Opinion and Order.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...43320.43.0.pdf

[ritter]

Thank you, Judge Benitez. This is the absolute worst gun law CA has come up with yet.

[JDHCA]

Here's a link to Gavin's statement.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/12/19/go...un-safety-law/

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by JDHCA

Here's a link to Gavin's statement.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/12/19/go...un-safety-law/

Benitez talks about how California actually made their law worse.

Originally Posted by Saint Benitez

The Intervenor-Defendant Governor describes the California law as identical or
virtually identical to a Texas law known as S.B. 8.3 But that is not quite accurate.
...
As a matter of law, a California plaintiff cannot be a prevailing party. See § 1021.11(e). The Texas statute has no similar provision and thus it appears that a Texas prevailing plaintiff can be awarded his attorney’s fees. The California provision, on the other hand, denies prevailing party status to a plaintiff, even a plaintiff who is entirely successful, and thus denies any possibility of recovering his attorney’s fees.

Gavin suggest the two are identical, but I guess not.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Nighttime reading.. This is the order ending the fee shifting rule.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...43320.43.0.pdf

One week later!

This is why I call him Speedy Benitez!

[Flight4]

Originally Posted by JDHCA

Here's a link to Gavin's statement.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/12/19/go...un-safety-law/

It is egregious and unforgivable that a governor and his colleagues would intentionally violate the 1st, 2nd, and 14th amendment rights of the 39 million citizens of their own state in order to make a political statement about an unrelated state!

What putrid rot allows one to reconcile such an action with his solemn oath to do the opposite?

I (Gavin Newsom) do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by Flight4

It is egregious and unforgivable that a governor and his colleagues would intentionally violate the 1st, 2nd, and 14th amendment rights of the 39 million citizens of their own state in order to make a political statement about an unrelated state!

What putrid rot allows one to reconcile such an action with his solemn oath to do the opposite?

Agreed. What's amazing is he is all but clearly admitting to tossing gun rights under the bus just to make a point. It seems like that would be actionable in court, but I don't know how.

[DolphinFan]

Gavin is a tool.
The difference between the 2A and Abortion is;
The 2A is a Federal Right.
Abortion is a States Right.

Got to love the separation of powers and checks and balances of our form of government, a REPUBLIC.

[kenl]

Originally Posted by DolphinFan

Gavin is a tool.
The difference between the 2A and Abortion is;
The 2A is a Federal Right.
Abortion is a States Right.

Got to love the separation of powers and checks and balances of our form of government, a REPUBLIC.

Think it should read "Abortion is a issue to be decided by the States".

Otherwise, I agree

[anorexicpoodle]

Maybe someone with better understanding of the legal intricacies here can educate me.

He has admitted to pushing, passing and trying to enforce a law he knew was unconstitutional to deprive rights of his constituents as a tit-for-tat retaliatory tantrum against another state.

In isolation isn't this itself a violation of 18USC 241 excepting his qualified immunity status?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

When Bonta refused to defend it, and he insists on pushing it from his office doesn't this expunge any plausible deniability?

What is needed to raise challenge to his immunity status here? I don't feel like he's being disincentivized from continuing to assail the rights of his constituents.

If the only thing that happens when he tries to oppress you and by luck loses, is he gets to make a press release about losing there's no reason not to keep trying with your money.

[Squatch]

Originally Posted by DolphinFan

Gavin is a tool.

The difference between the 2A and Abortion is;

The 2A is a Federal Right.

Abortion is a States Right.



Got to love the separation of powers and checks and balances of our form of government, a REPUBLIC.

Hate to correct you because, for the most part we agree, but 2A is a God given right. Federal gives us nothing. The 2A was written telling the Feds what they CAN'T do not telling us what we CAN do.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[homelessdude]

I wonder if Judge Benitez writes these himself or if he has staff that does it. I'm guessing staff compiles the research, facts, etc and he writes it. It always sounds like his words and if that's true he always writes out a very well laid out argument that a non lawyer can understand. I always enjoy reading his decisions not only for the decision but also for the logic behind the decision. It's too bad that most of the rest of the judges aren't as gifted.

[taperxz]

Newsom basically did this to get a Federal Judge to rule on this case to get standing on the Texas law on abortion.

The entire thing was a scam knowing that our 2A lawyers would crush it.

That’s all that happened.

[SkyHawk]

Originally Posted by JDHCA

Here's a link to Gavin's statement.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/12/19/go...un-safety-law/

What a petulant child

[Squatch]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Newsom basically did this to get a Federal Judge to rule on this case to get standing on the Texas law on abortion.

The entire thing was a scam knowing that our 2A lawyers would crush it.

That’s all that happened.

You give Newsom too much credit. I think he is just so arrogant he thought he could best the judge.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Squatch]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

What a petulant child

He is and he obviously doesn't comprehend very well. The judge stated they are not equal and gave the reason.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by Squatch

You give Newsom too much credit. I think he is just so arrogant he thought he could best the judge.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Nope, if you had been paying attention, he said he would do this with guns in CA the day after Texas passed their bill.

[Ocdlaw]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

I wonder if Judge Benitez writes these himself or if he has staff that does it. I'm guessing staff compiles the research, facts, etc and he writes it. It always sounds like his words and if that's true he always writes out a very well laid out argument that a non lawyer can understand. I always enjoy reading his decisions not only for the decision but also for the logic behind the decision. It's too bad that most of the rest of the judges aren't as gifted.

His law clerks do the research and draft writing. That’s how it normally works.

[GetMeCoffee]

Originally Posted by anorexicpoodle

Maybe someone with better understanding of the legal intricacies here can educate me.

He has admitted to pushing, passing and trying to enforce a law he knew was unconstitutional to deprive rights of his constituents as a tit-for-tat retaliatory tantrum against another state.

In isolation isn't this itself a violation of 18USC 241 excepting his qualified immunity status?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

When Bonta refused to defend it, and he insists on pushing it from his office doesn't this expunge any plausible deniability?

What is needed to raise challenge to his immunity status here? I don't feel like he's being disincentivized from continuing to assail the rights of his constituents.

If the only thing that happens when he tries to oppress you and by luck loses, is he gets to make a press release about losing there's no reason not to keep trying with your money.

I had a similar thought. Not just about Newsom, but the legislators that wrote it. There ought to be a penalty for blatantly interfering with civil rights.

[Squatch]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Nope, if you had been paying attention, he said he would do this with guns in CA the day after Texas passed their bill.

Oh I do remember him saying that. I still think it got him nowhere and he just looks like a bigger dolt on the national stage.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Chewy65]

Benitez clearly points out the difference between the Texas and California fee shifting laws.

California’s law then goes even further. As a matter of law, a California plaintiff cannot be a prevailing party. See § 1021.11(e). The Texas statute has no similar provision and thus it appears that a Texas prevailing plaintiff can be awarded his attorney’s fees. The California provision, on the other hand, denies prevailing party status to a plaintiff, even a plaintiff who is entirely successful, and thus denies any possibility of recovering his attorney’s fees. The California plaintiffs-never-prevail provision is not insignificant. And although both § 1021.11’s and § 30.022’s effect on court access should be constitutionally scrutinized, it is important to note that only § 1021.11 applies to laws affecting a clearly enumerated constitutional right set forth in our nation’s founding documents. Whether these distinctions are enough to save the Texas fee-shifting provision from judicial scrutiny remains to be seen. And although it would be tempting to comment on it, the Texas law is not before this Court for determination.

[eaglemike]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

Benitez clearly points out the difference between the Texas and California fee shifting laws.

I'm pretty interested/surprised that lefties cannot understand that difference, let alone that the the 1A and 2A both are clearly infringed by Newsom's actions, while the abortion issue has clearly been sent back to the states.

[SkyHawk]

"Are we just pawns in a game that Gavin Newsom plays with the laws in this country?"

YES!

CRPA video today

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIDKGdbmEXU

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

What a petulant child

But... But... But... It keeps his name in the press. Any news, so long as they spell your name correctly, is 'good' news... right?

Ruling on California gun law renews Gov. Gavin Newsom’s feud with federal judge

[SkyHawk]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

But... But... But... It keeps his name in the press. Any news, so long as they spell your name correctly, is 'good' news... right?

Ruling on California gun law renews Gov. Gavin Newsom’s feud with federal judge

The Sacbee will never pass up a chance to mouthpiece for the hairpiece

[homelessdude]

Benitez is doing a far better job of carrying out his duties as a judge than Newsum is doing as a governor. If he wasn't so arrogant he might even learn a few things about how the government is supposed to work. Not much chance of that happening.

[Chewy65]

It just seems that Newsum should be impeachable for going forward with defending an unconstitutional law that the state's attorney general found to be indefensible. Doesn't the governor swear and oath to uphold the Constitution of the United Sates?

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

It just seems that Newsum should be impeachable for going forward with defending an unconstitutional law that the state's attorney general found to be indefensible. Doesn't the governor swear and oath to uphold the Constitution of the United Sates?

The People tried to recall him…that didn’t work.

The Legislature would have to impeach. Guess how a 2/3 majority Dem composition is going to handle that.

[abinsinia]

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE(S) by California Gun Rights Foundation, John W. Dillon, Dillon Law Group, P.C., Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, George M. Lee, James Miller, PWGG, L.P., Ryan Peterson, John Phillips, San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, Second Amendment Foundation of case(s) 3:23-cv-00400 . (Benbrook, Bradley) (Entered: 03/02/2023)

New docket filing. It looks like they want Benitez to hear a similar case.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...43320.46.0.pdf

[abinsinia]

Joint MOTION Stipulation For Entry Of Judgment And Extension Of Time For Submission Of Fee Application by California Gun Rights Foundation, John W. Dillon, Dillon Law Group, P.C., Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, George M. Lee, James Miller, PWGG, L.P., Ryan Peterson, John Phillips, San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, Second Amendment Foundation. (Benbrook, Bradley) (Entered: 03/17/2023)

From the docket. Looks like related to the new San Diego case and the lawyers need more time to file.