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

[homelessdude]

Just did some researc. The law firm is Olson-Remcho. They have a website where there is a bio on all of them. They call themselves " Calif. Political and Government Law Firm". Mostly Gov. law cases concerning initiatives & referenda, elections & redistricting, litigation & appeals and other similar areas. Didn't see any 2nd amendment stuff. Seems like this is there area. Will be interesting to see how they attack this.

[lemonherb]

Originally Posted by taperxz

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

There's no point anymore with Roe V Wade gone. Texas can just straight out ban abortions without the legal fees gimmick they used pre-Casey.

[bigstick61]

Originally Posted by ritter

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

In California it's not "his" AG since we have the dumb constitutional design of having the cabinet offices all be independently elected.

[L84CABO]

Chuck Michel giving an update...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHdPHPnL7n0

[Dirtlaw]

There is a concept, at least in some courts, that an attorney can be punished for bringing an action in "bad faith." I don't know if that issue is in play here, but if it is, it would be a good reason for the AG to step away from continued prosecution.


Further information here:


https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/ca...-shifting-law/

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by Dirtlaw

There is a concept, at least in some courts, that an attorney can be punished for bringing an action in "bad faith." I don't know if that issue is in play here, but if it is, it would be a good reason for the AG to step away from continued prosecution.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11 permits sanctions against attorneys for bad faith tactics and improper pleadings. California has similar rules.

[abinsinia]

Supplemental MOTION by Gavin Newsom. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Willis, Thomas)Attorney Thomas A. Willis added to party Gavin Newsom(pty:intvd) (Entered: 12/12/2022)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...43320.35.0.pdf

[Dorzak]

Originally Posted by TruOil

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11 permits sanctions against attorneys for bad faith tactics and improper pleadings. California has similar rules.

I am not a lawyer, but doesn't the ABA have some similar professional ethics rules? Judge Benitez mentioning them in his previous statements might be a factor in this.

[gunuser17]

The ABA puts forth a set of model rules that are not binding on any attorney. Each state adopts its own ethics rules for lawyers and many use much or all of the model ABA rules. Also, some courts/government agencies have ethics rules that govern the attorneys that practice there. I suspect that every court has the ability to sanction a lawyer for making an argument in bad faith.

[Libertarian777]

Originally Posted by 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.

Thats like arguing you can't arrest me for murder if you see me stabbing someone until after he's dead. So stab away and post hoc arrest me...

[homelessdude]

They might be able to arrest you but not for murder if the guy is still alive. To be charged with murder somebody needs to be dead.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...43320.35.0.pdf

Horrid. Esp as his argument is 'magazines are not firearms' etc arguments.

Even if we separated out detachable magazines as their own entities...
Many Heller/Bruen guns (i.e, protected by text/history/tradition) have
fixed, nondetachable magazines - quite a few not separable from gun
without ruining gun's function. These magazines - esp tubular ones -
are often 'high capacity' when shorter rounds are used (shorty shotshells,
wadcutter ammo vs ammo with exposed bullets, etc.)

[mshill]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...43320.35.0.pdf

The entire brief reads like a teenager whining to his parents "well Bobbies parents are letting him [do such and such], it's not fair. If he gets to do it so should I." The nail in the coffin for this brief is that they acknowledge that the fee shifting of SB8 in Texas is wrong, yet they insist on the argument above.

My response to my kids was always "just because other parents allow such behavior doesn't mean it is proper." I can only hope the judge tells them as much and rules on the merits right then and there and then rails on them for them wasting the courts time with this garbage intervention brief.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by mshill

The entire brief reads like a teenager whining to his parents "well Bobbies parents are letting him [do such and such], it's not fair. If he gets to do it so should I." The nail in the coffin for this brief is that they acknowledge that the fee shifting of SB8 in Texas is wrong, yet they insist on the argument above.

My response to my kids was always "just because other parents allow such behavior doesn't mean it is proper." I can only hope the judge tells them as much and rules on the merits right then and there and then rails on them for them wasting the courts time with this garbage intervention brief.

Also found this passage amusing. "That is so notwithstanding that S.B. 1327 addresses firearms regulations, which receive heightened constitutional scrutiny." I guess they missed NYSRPA v Bruen.

[abinsinia]

NOTICE Stipulation To Waive Objections To Admission Of Documentary Evidence And Declarations In Lieu Of Live Testimony At Hearing 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: 12/14/2022)

I guess CRPA is ok if there is no hearing, or no evidence at the hearing.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I guess CRPA is ok if there is no hearing, or no evidence at the hearing.

That has nothing to do with CRPA

[abinsinia]

RESPONSE in Support re 35 Supplemental MOTION , 14 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Plaintiffs Consolidated Brief In Response To Defendants And Intervenor-Defendants Supplemental Briefs filed 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: 12/14/2022)

I guess this is from Newsom's attorneys.

[homelessdude]

Striiiike two

[gunuser17]

Regarding "Stipulation To Waive Objections To Admission Of Documentary Evidence And Declarations In Lieu Of Live Testimony" - I would understand this to mean that rather than require a witness to come to court and (1) testify as to the authenticity of documents that a party may wish to put into evidence, or (2) put the witness that signed a declaration on the stand to face cross examination, the parties have agreed that the documents or declarations can be placed into evidence without the live witness. Not unusual - especially if the person signing the declaration has had a depsotion taken.

[Ocdlaw]

Originally Posted by gunuser17

Regarding "Stipulation To Waive Objections To Admission Of Documentary Evidence And Declarations In Lieu Of Live Testimony" - I would understand this to mean that rather than require a witness to come to court and (1) testify as to the authenticity of documents that a party may wish to put into evidence, or (2) put the witness that signed a declaration on the stand to face cross examination, the parties have agreed that the documents or declarations can be placed into evidence without the live witness. Not unusual - especially if the person signing the declaration has had a depsotion taken.

You are required to meet and confer and to stipulate to the authenticity and admission of the documents that are not subject to dispute to save everybody time.

[abinsinia]

Combined gun rights groups withdrew their opposition,

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF DOCUMENT 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 re 39 Response in Support of Motion,, filed by Dillon Law Group, P.C., Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, Ryan Peterson, James Miller, PWGG, L.P., Second Amendment Foundation, George M. Lee, John Phillips, John W. Dillon, California Gun Rights Foundation, 38 Notice (Other), filed by Dillon Law Group, P.C., Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, Ryan Peterson, James Miller, PWGG, L.P., Second Amendment Foundation, George M. Lee, John Phillips, John W. Dillon, California Gun Rights Foundation . (Duvernay, Stephen) (Entered: 12/15/2022)

Then re-filed it,

RESPONSE in Support re 35 Supplemental MOTION, 14 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Plaintiffs Consolidated Brief In Response To Defendants And Intervenor-Defendants Supplemental Briefs filed 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: 12/15/2022)

Must have been a mistake in it or something was missing.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

CRPA withdrew their opposition,



Then re-filed it,



Must have been a mistake in it or something was missing.

Again, this is not a CRPA case. Try FPC

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Again, this is not a CRPA case. Try FPC

It's both, this is two cases combined for the same purpose.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

It's both, this is two cases combined for the same purpose.

Dillon?

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Dillon?

I'll change it to "combined gun right groups"

[Paladin]

Is anyone attending tomorrow?

[homelessdude]

Where is the courthouse? After going back and reading it appears this is in Judge Benitez's court. Too far to drive for me.

[eaglemike]

Originally Posted by homelessdude

Where is the courthouse? This isn't a Benitez case is it?

Yes, it's being heard today. I looked at the court website Wednesday, but it didn't show anything. Now It shows that there's quite a bit going on, starting at 10. I wish I could go.

Could be a big deal.

pdf attached

[GetMeCoffee]

Originally Posted by eaglemike

Yes, it's being heard today. I looked at the court website Wednesday, but it didn't show anything. Now It shows that there's quite a bit going on, starting at 10. I wish I could go.

Could be a big deal.

pdf attached

I sure hope someone can go and report. Given some prior comments I've heard purportedly from Benitez regarding Newsom... It could be an entertaining session.

I'd love to see him thread the needle to enjoin the CA fee shifting while not implicating the TX statute at all. Just to be clear, I do not support the legislative f***ery with the TX law, but I still want to see Newsom come away from this empty handed and looking foolish.

[Bill_in_SD]

I know Kostas is in here, can't wait to see transcript :-)

"He beatdown Newsom's attorney in a way I doubt I'll see again. I'd feel bad for that lawyer, except he represents a wannabe tyrant."

https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/stat...-ZrNJX-OgI5wKw

[madstyle1]

https://youtu.be/u3FV5ev1gR0

[abinsinia]

It seems we will win this one, at least with Benitez.

[ritter]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

It seems we will win this one, at least with Benitez.

I suspect Newsom has pushed the steaming pile further than even CA9 can swallow. At least I hope.

[JiuJitsu]

The beatdown was well-earned. I just wish Gavin was there himself to hear it first hand from Benitez.

Now I wonder if Benitez strikes this down as expected, will Mr Wannabe Tyrant Newsom appeal and whine up to the 9th like the state of CA always does?

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by JiuJitsu

The beatdown was well-earned. I just wish Gavin was there himself to hear it first hand from Benitez.

Now I wonder if Benitez strikes this down as expected, will Mr Wannabe Tyrant Newsom appeal and whine up to the 9th like the state of CA always does?

He may not, as he wants badly to shoot down the Texas law. Or he may appeal just to get an affirmance as that would be authority that the trial court in Texas would have to look at.

[flhxxx]

From feedback I just heard on this it looks like this indeed will be struck down as Newsom's lawyer was unable to defend it I guess he didn't like being asked if he'd be willing to pay all the fees for this suit if he lost the case. LoL

Gotta love the honorable Judge Benitez

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by madstyle1

https://youtu.be/u3FV5ev1gR0

I’m glad Mark is keeping close watch on what’s going on in California and sharing it nationwide/worldwide.

[L84CABO]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I’m glad Mark is keeping close watch on what’s going on in California and sharing it nationwide/worldwide.

He's VERY good! I'm glad he decided to start doing the YouTubes.

[GetMeCoffee]

Originally Posted by madstyle1

https://youtu.be/u3FV5ev1gR0

Per Mark's video, Benitez is going to enjoin the fee shifting provisions. It will be interesting to see if this is appealed to the 9th. They always find a way to back California's gun laws, but in this case they would be tacitly endorsing Texas' similar fee shifting laws.

I think this will either not be appealed, or if it is that the 9th will do their best to take no action whatsoever (i.e. delay).

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by GetMeCoffee

Per Mark's video, Benitez is going to enjoin the fee shifting provisions. It will be interesting to see if this is appealed to the 9th. They always find a way to back California's gun laws, but in this case they would be tacitly endorsing Texas' similar fee shifting laws.

I think this will either not be appealed, or if it is that the 9th will do their best to take no action whatsoever (i.e. delay).

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.