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

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Flight4

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?

I think post #34 describes some of it with twitter links.

[chris]

Originally Posted by f80vm

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

California will never admit any of their gun laws are unconstitutional. If they did it would legitimize every single gun owner's opinion as fact. We know the laws are unconstitutional. It would also damage this states' rating as the gun control icon for the nation.

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.

Newsom would find a way not to show up in court and have what he says on court record period.

I would love to hear him make jokes about his sainthood. He's right though NYSPRA proved him right in his previous rulings and it also showed the 9th was wrong about it all the time.

[chris]

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.

25 billion in the hole now. Conveniently after the midterms it's announced.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by chris

25 billion in the hole now. Conveniently after the midterms it's announced.

Not just that, but in the hole AFTER Governor Brown left us with a $100 billion surplus. Amazing how fast the Legislature and Gavin burned through that. I have to assume that it would be much the same if Greasy gets elected President. Just horrible.

[Drivedabizness]

All that $$$ and what to show for it??

[JiuJitsu]

You see, that money helped pay for Newsom and Bonta to keep taking away your civil rights to keep and bear arms. You’re welcome.

[Flight4]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I think post #34 describes some of it with twitter links.

Thank you, missed that!

[abinsinia]

ORDER. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 12/1/2022.(ddf) (Entered: 12/01/2022)
ORDER. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 12/1/2022.(ddf) (Entered: 12/01/2022)

Orders from the court.

here is one.,

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...43320.27.0.pdf

and the other,

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...43320.28.0.pdf

[abinsinia]

These looks like a response to a request to dismiss .. He seems to be saying that the case is not moot, and the trial is still needed.

He's said as much in smaller orders directly on the docket.

[abinsinia]

Does jurisdiction continue to exist in light of the Defendant Attorney General’s statement of non-enforcement? In other words, is the case now moot? No. A state actor’s voluntary cessation of unconstitutional conduct does not moot a case

It might be sufficient if the Defendant Attorney General had issued an official opinion that the statute was unconstitutional.

It's a pretty intricate explanation of why the case will move forward.

A hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction will be combined with a trial
on the merits on December 16, 2022

[Drivedabizness]

Is it too early for schwing?

[pratchett]

Newsom looked his wife in the eyes and said "trust me" while he committed sex acts with an employee he managed, who also happened to be the wife of his own best friend. Anything he says should be considered perjury the moment it leaves his mouth - and every sane person should openly laugh at him every time he speaks.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

Is it too early for schwing?

Given what he's said in those filings, I think that this fee shifting is going to end soon.

[madstyle1]

This came out from The Four Boxes Diner

http://https://youtu.be/lOjOVtJt-h0

[homelessdude]

I agree with Abin. The times they are a changin.

[DolphinFan]

Originally Posted by Dirtlaw

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

^^^THIS^^^

[jcwatchdog]

So is this effectively dead now? CPRA sent an email.



Tonight, CRPA was notified that DOJ will drop its defense of SB 1327. This is the law that attempts to shift attorney fees to force parties and attorneys who challenge gun control measures to pay the State’s legal fees. CRPA and others filed a lawsuit to challenge the fee shifting provisions of the law (South Bay Rod and Gun Club v. Bonta)

The Attorney General is refusing to continue defending against the CRPA lawsuit and they have notified the Governor of this. It seems even Governor Newsom’s own Attorney General knows this law is indefensible and a losing proposition. Now the AG has abandoned Newsom and is forcing the Governor to defend against the law that he championed.

Speculation is that this move by the Attorney General may have been brought on by a Rule 11 sanction motion that was served on the state by CRPA earlier today. This motion requested monetary sanctions from the court against the state if they continued to defend SB 1327.

We will have more information on this development, but for tonight this is a huge win for gun owners! Thank you for your continued support.

[Sputnik]

Sounds like Bonta finally had to give up on an un-winnable case. That’s gotta stick in his throat.

[abinsinia]

Bonta already claimed the law was unconstitutional in the Texas case, I guess going up against Benitez put them in a seriously bad spot ..

[abinsinia]

OOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH!

I know what it is .. Benitez in his ruling gave them specific instructions..

Originally Posted by Saint Benitez

It might be sufficient if the Defendant Attorney General had issued an official opinion that the statute was unconstitutional. See e.g., Wis. Right to Life, Inc. v. Schober, 366 F.3d 485, 492 (7th Cir. 2004) (“[A] case is moot when a state agency acknowledges that it will not enforce a statute because it is plainly unconstitutional, in spite of the failure of the legislature to remove the statute from the books.”);

Benitez told them what to do in his order to make the case moot.. It looks like Bonta is doing as told.

This case look like it is moot now, or may be.

[homelessdude]

I also received that email. It was a nice read. Does this mean that the judge will declare it unconstitutional to make it go away completely? Is declaring it moot the same as striking it down forever or must the judge act?

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

I also received that email. It was a nice read. Does this mean that the judge will declare it unconstitutional to make it go away completely? Is declaring it moot the same as striking it down forever or must the judge act?

I read someplace that Newsom's office may defend it.

[Gator15]

Might is the key word from Benitez. He may still rule on the merits and stick a knife through the heart of the statute to remove all doubt.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by Gator15

Might is the key word from Benitez. He may still rule on the merits and stick a knife through the heart of the statute to remove all doubt.

Here's hoping. SCOTUS' GVR route hasn't worked out swimmingly so far. Better to just put a fork in it when given the opportunity.

[randomBytes]

I wouldn't trust CA to not backflip anytime they think they can get away with it so a definitive ruling would seem safer.

Yes, hopefully SCOTUS has learned that GVR is counter productive when dealing with rebellious lower courts.

[pbreed]

Governor says he wants to take over...
Case is NOT dead...

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...43320.31.1.pdf

[Squatch]

Originally Posted by pbreed

Governor says he wants to take over...
Case is NOT dead...

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...43320.31.1.pdf

Oh I cant wait to see him get eviscerated.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[ritter]

Originally Posted by pbreed

Governor says he wants to take over...
Case is NOT dead...

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...43320.31.1.pdf

What a prick. His AG has said the provision is unconstitutional as contained in Texas' law. I believe Newsom has as well.

[N0b0dy]

This filing sounds more like Newsom trying to put a knife in the heart of Texas' SB 8 by having a Federal Judge rule this sort of fee shifting unconstitutional instead of defending California's SB 1327....

[ritter]

Originally Posted by N0b0dy

This filing sounds more like Newsom trying to put a knife in the heart of Texas' SB 8 by having a Federal Judge rule this sort of fee shifting unconstitutional instead of defending California's SB 1327....

That doesn't work. Texas and California are in two different Court of Appeals districts.

[N0b0dy]

I understand the jurisdiction issue, but given how many times Newsom's filing references Texas SB8, it sure seems like he wants this to be ruled upon on December 16 (instead of Benitez potentially declaring this case is moot because Bonta has stated he won't defend the law). He is not even asking for a delay and he can't be so dumb to think that Benitez will rule in his favor. Well, strike that last part...

[ritter]

You may be right.

[Gravelman]

Newsom is using this as a political grandstanding photo opportunity. 1327 will go down, then he’s going to claim victory and the national media will celebrate his clever methods of helping to the Texas law overturned.

The Texas abortion law was garbage to start with, it just pisses me off that Newsom used the 2A as leverage.

[pbreed]

>he can't be so dumb to think that Benitez will rule in his favor.
Err...
Seems you are assuming facts not in evidence. :-)

[natman]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I read someplace that Newsom's office may defend it.

From Bonta's brief where he throws in the towel:

California Attorney General Rob Bonta stops trying to defend SB 1327's fee-shifting scheme:
In light of the position the Attorney General has taken regarding the nearly identical fee-shifting provision in SB 8, and consistent with his commitment to avoid seeking fees under SB 1327 unless SB 8 is upheld as constitutional, Defendants are not in a position to defend SB 1327’s constitutionality on the merits.

California Governor Gavin Newsom plans to continue to defend a law that even his Attorney General can't support:
The Governor’s Office has indicated that it intends to intervene in this case for the purpose of addressing the merits of SB 1327’s fee-shifting provision.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1670558703

[Gator15]

Originally Posted by natman

From Bonta's brief where he throws in the towel:

California Attorney General Rob Bonta stops trying to defend SB 1327's fee-shifting scheme:
In light of the position the Attorney General has taken regarding the nearly identical fee-shifting provision in SB 8, and consistent with his commitment to avoid seeking fees under SB 1327 unless SB 8 is upheld as constitutional, Defendants are not in a position to defend SB 1327’s constitutionality on the merits.

California Governor Gavin Newsom plans to continue to defend a law that even his Attorney General can't support:
The Governor’s Office has indicated that it intends to intervene in this case for the purpose of addressing the merits of SB 1327’s fee-shifting provision.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1670558703

Delay ploy

[abinsinia]

MOTION to Shorten Time and Adjust Dates by Gavin Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of T. Willis, # 2 Proof of Service)(Johansen, Robin) (Entered: 12/09/2022)

I guess he wants to do this sooner.. I'm fine with that.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I guess he wants to do this sooner.. I'm fine with that.

Newsom knows this is unconstitutional. He is doing this to get some kind of standing for the Texas abortion bill. He wants this law to go down to integrate standing to go after Texas

[abinsinia]

ORDER Granting Motion For Leave To Intervene 31 . Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 12/9/2022. (ddf) (Entered: 12/09/2022)

Here comes the NewScum.

[homelessdude]

Anyone know anything about the lawyers from Oakland that the Gov. hired?