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

[Librarian]

https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploa...ompl-FILED.pdf

and TTAG - https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/sa...l-regulations/

The complaint asserts the law violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It also says the new California law enables government defendants to recover fees if a firearms plaintiff loses on any claim in the case, while the plaintiff can only avoid liability for fees if it prevails on every claim in the case. Therefore, firearms plaintiffs cannot be “prevailing parties” under Section 1021.11, meaning they are never entitled to recover fees and costs.

[MissiontoMars]

Wow, I hadn't heard of that law being enacted. What a load of horse pies. Glad this complaint was filed.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by MissiontoMars

Wow, I hadn't heard of that law being enacted. What a load of horse pies. Glad this complaint was filed.

They're trying different things to try to address this in all the cases. In the Renne case they said it violated 1A because you have right to petition your government for a redress of grievances. Anything that chills or stop the petition process if unconstitutional.

[Dirtlaw]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

They're trying different things to try to address this in all the cases. In the Renne case they said it violated 1A because you have right to petition your government for a redress of grievances. Anything that chills or stop the petition process if unconstitutional.

Lots of ways this can be attacked. But still, they grab for the moon and thumb their nose at the Supreme Court. I wonder, in politics are smackdowns even allowed any more?

[kuug]

Notice of related case in the southern district of CA

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...2089.134.0.pdf

Defendant's objection to the motion of related case

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...2089.135.0.pdf

[TruOil]

California will argue that it is simply a procedural statute, not substantive law, and therefore not subject to the supremacy clause. Thus, it is likely to be argued, it doesn't prevent anyone from filing an action against the State or its officials. That there is fee shifting after the case is over is of no constitutional significance. I don't see what else they may be able to argue. I do note in this context that although the Civil Rights statute contains a costs to the prevailing party clause, it has always been interpreted as granting attorneys fees and costs to prevailing plaintiffs in all cases but to public entities only in extreme cases, thus stating a public policy favoring the filing of claims against .gov.

[Dirtlaw]

Effectively a sanction for asserting a Constitutional right. Think of the consequences if the argument stands.

[Foothills]

Governments tried lots of ways to bankrupt and intimidate the NAACP too.

See NAACP vs. Claiborne Hardware

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/art...ne-hardware-co

[kuug]

Transfer to judge Benitez has been approved

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...43320.13.0.pdf

[GetMeCoffee]

Originally Posted by kuug

Transfer to judge Benitez has been approved

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...43320.13.0.pdf

Fantastic. I'm looking forward to a thoughtful review and well crafted decision. All with appropriate deference to constitutional principles.

[JiuJitsu]

Somewhere at this moment Rob Bonta is having a temper tantrum.

[homelessdude]

Couldn't happen to a more deserving person.

[bruss01]

SB 1327 was recently signed into law by Navin Gruesome.

This is the new law stipulating that if you sue the state over an unconstitutional gun law, and win your case on ten points but lose on one point, you end up footing the bill for the state's legal costs (hundreds of thousands or maybe millions in some cases) in defending their unconstitutional law.

The new law (Section 1021.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure) has been challenged in court.

The case has been assigned to be heard by Judge Roger Benitez because it touches on similar and related issues of other cases he has and is handling.

Apologies to the dup police if this is old news, did a quick scan but did not see a thread on this.

[curtisfong]

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1821271

[Roswell Saucer]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

They're trying different things to try to address this in all the cases. In the Renne case they said it violated 1A because you have right to petition your government for a redress of grievances. Anything that chills or stop the petition process if unconstitutional.

Which is why the concept of Article III standing as it applies to suing the government is complete nonsense. The 1A supersedes the case or controversy clause in Article III. If only SCOTUS would stop allowing federal courts to avoid ruling on cases because of lack of standing.

[SmallShark]

unbelievable.

[abinsinia]

preliminary injunction was requested,

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...43320.14.1.pdf

[michigander]

I hope plaintiffs rack up attorneys fees in this case. Would be nothing better than the state having to pay up, ironically defeating a phase where they tried to make it almost impossible for plaintiffs to do so. Of course the taxpayers in me has a small reaction to that, but this state needs to feel pain for wantonly violating so many rights for so long.

[ProfChaos]

I know CA is trying everything in their failed state to prevent 2A cases, but how can anyone look at how something like this goes into effect immediately against cases that are already going through the process?

[abinsinia]

Oct 11, 2022

MINUTE ORDER OF RECUSAL. Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt is no longer assigned. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin for all further proceedings. The new case number is 22cv1446-BEN-MDD.(no document attached) (anh) (Entered: 10/11/2022)

Oct 11, 2022

Order of Judge Transfer

some sort of recusal happened.

[FNGGlock]

Originally Posted by michigander

I hope plaintiffs rack up attorneys fees in this case. Would be nothing better than the state having to pay up, ironically defeating a phase where they tried to make it almost impossible for plaintiffs to do so. Of course the taxpayers in me has a small reaction to that, but this state needs to feel pain for wantonly violating so many rights for so long.

Unfortunately the state never feels the pain as the costs are simply passed on to the taxpayers. The state has very deep pockets as they can just keep raising and collecting more taxes.

[Texas Boy]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

some sort of recusal happened.

I'm confused....didn't this get assigned to Benitez?

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Texas Boy

I'm confused....didn't this get assigned to Benitez?

I thought so. I'm not sure what happened with this recusal.

[GetMeCoffee]

Originally Posted by Texas Boy

I'm confused....didn't this get assigned to Benitez?

On all of the cases I've seen something like this in the case summary:

Assigned To: Roger T. Benitez
Referred To: Jill L. Burkhardt

The "Referred to" seems to be a magistrate judge, but then the hearings/opinions are done by Benitez. In this case, the "Referred to" was changed, but not the "Assigned" (Benitez). Perhaps someone who is familiar with the court processes can provide more details on how this works and what this means.

[marcusrn]

I wonder about that, we have Antifa girls, BLM girls and Third Wave Feminists demanding equity but none demanding membership in Selective Service roles? It's been 100 yrs they've been dodging the draft and the volunteer fireperson jobs. They always loudly flap their gums but crickets now. These types of females should not be allowed to vote until we have true equalty and shared responsibility!

[robertfchew]

Originally Posted by FNGGlock

Unfortunately the state never feels the pain as the costs are simply passed on to the taxpayers. The state has very deep pockets as they can just keep raising and collecting more taxes.

yep it needs to come directly from the pocket of those responsible. no more of this immunity stuff.

[robertfchew]

Originally Posted by marcusrn

I wonder about that, we have Antifa girls, BLM girls and Third Wave Feminists demanding equity but none demanding membership in Selective Service roles? It's been 100 yrs they've been dodging the draft and the volunteer fireperson jobs. They always loudly flap their gums but crickets now. These types of females should not be allowed to vote until we have true equalty and shared responsibility!

When it comes to voting nobody who doesnt financially support themselves aka anybody on welfare should be barred from voting period. return this world to sanity.

[Odd_Ball]

Originally Posted by FNGGlock

Unfortunately the state never feels the pain as the costs are simply passed on to the taxpayers. The state has very deep pockets as they can just keep raising and collecting more taxes.

Agreed, they have no disincentive when the taxpayers pay the bills, quite the opposite in fact.

Its not an easy claim to make, but it is theoretically possible to pierce qualified immunity where a government official denies a "clearly established right", as shown by the County Clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples after the Obergfell decision.

The case is Ermold v Davis from the 6th Circuit.

https://lawandcrime.com/lgbtq/anti-g...couples-again/

It is a very difficult claim to make because "clearly established" is read so narrowly by the courts. Cali officials would have to directly violate a clear mandate from the courts on a given issue. It would have to be something very clear like violating the injuction staying enforcement of the magazine ban against Freedom Week and pre-ban owners of standard magazines.

So far, they have been pretty good about playing dirty without directly violating a clear court mandate, and even then the 9th Circuit would bend over backwards to hold something was not "clearly established". But still, it might be worth raising the argument where relevant as it would at least be something that some anti-2A people could relate to.

[Lanejsl]

Originally Posted by GetMeCoffee

On all of the cases I've seen something like this in the case summary:

Assigned To: Roger T. Benitez
Referred To: Jill L. Burkhardt

The "Referred to" seems to be a magistrate judge, but then the hearings/opinions are done by Benitez. In this case, the "Referred to" was changed, but not the "Assigned" (Benitez). Perhaps someone who is familiar with the court processes can provide more details on how this works and what this means.

Just got assigned to Benitez.

[abinsinia]

NOTICE of Change of Hearing on 14 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction : Motion Hearing reset for 11/28/2022 10:30 AM in Courtroom 5A before Judge Roger T. Benitez. All parties are ordered to appear in-person(no document attached) (gxr) Modified on 11/7/2022 (gxr). (Entered: 11/07/2022)

Hearing on Nov. 28

[abinsinia]

MINUTE ORDER issued by the Honorable Roger T. Benitez: The Court makes the following tentative ruling in advance of the November 28, 2022 hearing: There exists a live case or controversy between these plaintiffs and the defendant(s). Notwithstanding the defendants statement that he does not intend presently to enforce the state attorneys fee statute at issue, the case is not moot. First, defendant has stated that he will enforce the statute if certain events occur in the future. Second, the defendant cannot bind a successor if he leaves office for any reason. Third, defendants position on non-enforcement does not bind county counsel, city attorneys, or private parties in the state that may seek to employ the benefit of the statute at issue. On December 16, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. a trial on the merits will be consolidated with a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 65(a)(2). Bench Trial set for 12/16/2022 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5A before Judge Roger T. Benitez.(no document attached) (gxr) (Entered: 11/15/2022)

Tentative ruling ?

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Tentative ruling ?

Yes, he is telling Bonta not to waste his time with BS moot arguments.

[TruOil]

Trial on the merits this soon is great. Either Benitez reads the nonopposition as an admission that the statute is indefensible, or that the issue is a pure question of law that may be decided on the papers and without an evidentiary hearing. So an early appeal on this issue when he dumps it. (Hopefully.)

[f80vm]

https://mobile.twitter.com/MorosKost...5782216769537#.

No ruling on the MPI in 1327 today, but Judge Benitez refused to delay the Dec 16 bench trial like the state practically begged him to do. So we will get it.

He asked the Deputy AG point blank if they would admit the law was unconstitutional. They wouldn't answer ��

https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/stat...31794914725888

Judge Benitez joked about how much fun a full trial could be cuz he could put Newsom on the stand and ask him why Newsom said Benitez is "beholden to the NRA"

He also made a crack about his "sainthood" in referring to the upcoming Dec 12 2A hearings. Can't wait.

[curtisfong]

I hope Benitez is watching his back. The DoJ and CA legislature don't take kindly to judges who don't follow orders.

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Trial on the merits this soon is great. Either Benitez reads the nonopposition as an admission that the statute is indefensible, or that the issue is a pure question of law that may be decided on the papers and without an evidentiary hearing. So an early appeal on this issue when he dumps it. (Hopefully.)

If deprivation of rights always constitutes irreparable harm (doesn't it???) why do we have to wait???

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Trial on the merits this soon is great. Either Benitez reads the nonopposition as an admission that the statute is indefensible, or that the issue is a pure question of law that may be decided on the papers and without an evidentiary hearing. So an early appeal on this issue when he dumps it. (Hopefully.)

If deprivation of rights always constitutes irreparable harm (doesn't it???) why do we have to wait???

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

If deprivation of rights always constitutes irreparable harm (doesn't it???) why do we have to wait???

Delaying a ruling on the preliminary injunction allows him to resolve the entire case in one hearing and one ruling. Most importantly, it prevents the State from taking an intermediate appeal from an issuance of a preliminary injunction, and thus limits the State to a single appeal. Saves a bunch of time down the road. He knows that the State wants to delay a final ruling as long as it can to leave that sword hanging over potential plaintiffs heads.

[abinsinia]

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Roger T. Benitez: Motion Hearing held on 11/28/2022 re 14 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Court to issue written order. Hearing date of 12/16/2022 is confirmed and counsel is ordered to be present for oral arguement, unless otherwise notified. The Court will allow defendant to file a supplemental brief no later than seven (7) days before the 12/16/2022 hearing date. Opposition brief due three (3) days before the hearing date. (Court Reporter/ECR Juliet Eichenlaub). (Plaintiff Attorney Bradley A. Benbrook). (Defendant Attorney Ryan Richard Davis, Matthew Wise). (no document attached) (gxr) (Entered: 11/29/2022)

Docket entry added.

[Flight4]

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Roger T. Benitez: Motion Hearing held on 11/28/2022 re 14 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Court to issue written order

Soooo...does anyone know what happened at the hearing regarding the injunction? Is it possible that at any moment an order will be posted that enjoins Section 1021.11?