CRPA et all v City of Glendale - Challenge to Sensitive Places Ordinance

[N0b0dy]

Did not see a thread about this on this forum so I am starting a new one. Seems very relevant for CCW.

On October 10, CRPA and GOC have filed suit against the City of Glendale challenging their sensitive places ordinance. My understanding is that this was done in anticipation of California introducing a new version of SB 918 with its own definition of sensitive places. If a judge would find Glendale’s ordinance unconstitutional, it should make it a lot more difficult for the state to introduce similar restrictions.

Link to case on courtlistener:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...y-of-glendale/

[pacrat]

The more the merrier. The sooner we can get these NO LONGER LEGAL infringements before the courts. The sooner new precedents are set using "THT" as criteria.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by N0b0dy

Did not see a thread about this on this forum so I am starting a new one. Seems very relevant for CCW.

On October 10, CRPA and GOC have filed suit against the City of Glendale challenging their sensitive places ordinance. My understanding is that this was done in anticipation of California introducing a new version of SB 918 with its own definition of sensitive places. If a judge would find Glendale’s ordinance unconstitutional, it should make it a lot more difficult for the state to introduce similar restrictions.
/[/url]

You don't actually believe that the State cares about a niggling little county ordinance do you?

[abinsinia]

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.: The Court GRANTS the Stipulation 27 . Defendants are to respond to the complaint on or before 1/6/2023. The Court continues the Mandatory Scheduling Conference to 1/6/2023 at 08:30 AM before Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr. The parties' Joint Rule 26(f) Report remains due 12/6/2022. (gk) (Entered: 11/23/2022)

The judge granted an extension to move the cities response to January 6.

Judge was appointed by Trump.

[Maltese Falcon]

Dang! I live in Glendale, how is this the focal point?

.

[abinsinia]

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 13 by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.: The motion is DENIED. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. (jgr) (Entered: 12/05/2022)

The judge is playing dumb. He didn't even try to do a historic analysis.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...64874.31.0.pdf

[N0b0dy]

This is very unfortunate and I hope it does not embolden Portantino when he re-introduces SP918. I've been following Antonyuk v Hochul very closely and the attorneys in that case have done a much better job picking plaintiffs with standing (at least the 2nd time around) and in arguing their case.

[DolphinFan]

Judge didn’t follow the court’s guidance.

[M1A Rifleman]

Originally Posted by DolphinFan

Judge didn’t follow the court’s guidance.

Yep, and this will continue.

[abinsinia]

it seemed like they could re-file the motion, because the Judge just pretended like he didn't know what was going on, or what was being requested. If they tighten up the request and maybe add some additional people to the case they should be able to get the judge to really rule.. but who knows he may still refuse.

[ojisan]

Thanks for posting this, I didn't know this was going on.
I would be applying for a CCW to Glendale.
Does anybody know if they are issuing?

[clb]

It's BAAAACK
As sb 2
Time to cal your gvt. Officials

[N0b0dy]

Joint report was filed with the court today. CRPA intends to file a more narrowly focused motion for preliminary injunction identifying the specific sensitive places which they challenge. This might happen as soon as the court ordered conference between CRPA and Glendale’s attorneys has taken place. The places that Glendale bans and that might be challenged are parks and recreation facilities, open spaces, community centers, libraries, parking lots and structures, city buildings and playgrounds (that are owned or controlled by the city).

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...64874.35.0.pdf

[meanspartan]

Hey guys, Kostas Moros here, one of the attorneys handling this case. Duplicating my reddit post here:

As you guys are aware given the existence of this thread, CRPA, SAF, and Gun Owners of California have filed a lawsuit against Glendale's Ordinance which bans guns on all city property (except streets and sidewalks) even if you have a CCW permit. The list includes parks, parking garages, vague "open spaces", and much more. The judge denied our first motion for preliminary injunction because he believes we have to proceed with an as-applied challenge only, and he wants us to re-frame our motion to challenge each individual piece of City Property and file it again.

While the judge felt the associational plaintiffs had standing, there were hints standing may still be in dispute going forward. To not have a long drawn-out fight over standing issues, it would be helpful to have one of two things, or both:

1. Individuals with valid carry permits who either live in Glendale, or go there sometimes, to be plaintiffs.

2. Individuals with valid carry permits who either live in Glendale, or go there sometimes, to sign declarations as members of one of the three associational plaintiffs. You would basically just confirm you have a carry permit, are a member of one of the three associations, and describe which city property you would carry on, but for the ordinance.

Let me know if anyone is interested, it would be greatly appreciated. This lawsuit is important not only to stop Glendale's unconstitutional ordinance, but also to have what we hope to be a good ruling to cite when the state tries to pass SB 918 again.

We didn't include individuals when we filed this lawsuit because of CCP 1021.11. With the ruling we got yesterday from Benitez, that shouldn't be a concern any more.

Reply here or email me at kmoros@michellawyers.com

[Foothills]

Originally Posted by meanspartan

Hey guys, Kostas Moros here, one of the attorneys handling this case. Duplicating my reddit post here:

As you guys are aware given the existence of this thread, CRPA, SAF, and Gun Owners of California have filed a lawsuit against Glendale's Ordinance which bans guns on all city property (except streets and sidewalks) even if you have a CCW permit. The list includes parks, parking garages, vague "open spaces", and much more. The judge denied our first motion for preliminary injunction because he believes we have to proceed with an as-applied challenge only, and he wants us to re-frame our motion to challenge each individual piece of City Property and file it again.

While the judge felt the associational plaintiffs had standing, there were hints standing may still be in dispute going forward. To not have a long drawn-out fight over standing issues, it would be helpful to have one of two things, or both:

1. Individuals with valid carry permits who either live in Glendale, or go there sometimes, to be plaintiffs.

2. Individuals with valid carry permits who either live in Glendale, or go there sometimes, to sign declarations as members of one of the three associational plaintiffs. You would basically just confirm you have a carry permit, are a member of one of the three associations, and describe which city property you would carry on, but for the ordinance.

Let me know if anyone is interested, it would be greatly appreciated. This lawsuit is important not only to stop Glendale's unconstitutional ordinance, but also to have what we hope to be a good ruling to cite when the state tries to pass SB 918 again.

We didn't include individuals when we filed this lawsuit because of CCP 1021.11. With the ruling we got yesterday from Benitez, that shouldn't be a concern any more.

Reply here or email me at kmoros@michellawyers.com

Good Luck With the Suit!

[Maltese Falcon]

Originally Posted by Foothills

Good Luck With the Suit!

Yes, free bump. I wish I had a CCW permit.

.

[clb]

Sounds like judgeboi is stalling...
Free bump from the far north

[N0b0dy]

Originally Posted by meanspartan

Hey guys, Kostas Moros here, one of the attorneys handling this case.

I’d love to help but I’m not in or around Glendale. Good luck with this case! I’ve posted a link to this thread and your request in the LA County specific CCW forum, perhaps someone reading this over there may be able to help.

[Maltese Falcon]

Originally Posted by Maltese Falcon

Yes, free bump. I wish I had a CCW permit.

Does Anyone have standing to push this forward,?

I want to do CCW so badly on my pooch patrols.

Cannot legally.

EDIT: Cold weather and hoodies…..GTG., not quite there yet but pretty close.

.

[Maltese Falcon]

Another bump.

EDiT: Odd thought, what if someone with a valid somewhere CCW is invited to Glendale 91206 by resident, and we do a few walkable things?

.

[Maltese Falcon]

Originally Posted by Maltese Falcon

Another bump.

EDiT: Odd thought, what if someone with a valid somewhere CCW is invited to Glendale 91206 by resident, and we do a few walkable things?

.

All “kinds” of city property available not “streets or sidewalks” and very low key as they say.

PM me.

.

[GetMeCoffee]

Originally Posted by Maltese Falcon

Another bump.

EDiT: Odd thought, what if someone with a valid somewhere CCW is invited to Glendale 91206 by resident, and we do a few walkable things?

.

I don't think they need (or want) anyone to actually go down there and test (violate) the law, but just someone who will state "which city property you would carry on, but for the ordinance"

I would do that except that being a named party in a lawsuit (let alone this one) would impact my employment. When (if?) I am retired, I'd be all over this :-)

[Fjold]

I'm sorry not to be in California any longer.

I had my CCW, disabled vet, clean record, etc. I would have loved to be a plaintiff.

[Maltese Falcon]

Originally Posted by GetMeCoffee

I don't think they need (or want) anyone to actually go down there and test (violate) the law, but just someone who will state "which city property you would carry on, but for the ordinance"

That is the best part of this plan.

No one has to actually carry anything, just establish you were in fact here visiting me on a certain date, which I will attest to, and we visit a few walkable city spots. Carry your CCW permit please.

I have a city library card that needs to be renewed...dang need to find it though.

.

[Maltese Falcon]

Two day after Xmas bump.

Library card found, lol.
.

[abinsinia]

Third STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to 03/07/2023 filed by Defendants Suzie Abajian, City of Glendale, Carl Povilaitis. (Attachments: # 1 [Proposed] Order)(Kang, Edward) (Entered: 12/30/2022)

ORDER RE: STIPULATION TO EXTEND ANSWER DEADLINE by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.: The parties represent that such an extension is warranted in light of Plaintiffs' anticipated amended complaint and renewed motion for preliminary injunction, both of which would address issues Defendants must otherwise raise in their anticipated motion to dismiss. Because the current answer deadline is 1/6/2023, the same day as the mandatory scheduling conference (MSC), the Court GRANTS the Stipulation 36 in part and extends the answer deadline to 1/13/2023. The Court will decide whether to allow the full 60-day extension requested by the parties after the parties have the opportunity at the MSC to better explain why such a lengthy extension is justified. (gk) (Entered: 01/03/2023)

Looks like both parties wanted more time, and now have some.

[N0b0dy]

CRPA now has additional plaintiffs, files stipulation to have them added. Well done team Michel!

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...64874.38.0.pdf

[ojisan]

Thanks for the update.

[N0b0dy]

Amended complaint filed today. I’m a bit surprised the complaint does not identify specific “sensitive places” as done in the Antonyuk case but instead focuses on the entire municipal code again. Also, no declaration by the parties that they met and conferred about what locations they agree are sensitive (as per judge Blumenfeld’s order on 12/5).

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...64874.39.0.pdf

[ClaimToAim]

Originally Posted by Foothills

Good Luck With the Suit!

I live in Glendale and would love to help if I had my ccw here. That’s the problem which I think should also be added to the lawsuit. Glendale is intentionally stalling and not processing applications. I have emails from them, for 6 months telling me they can’t accept my application right now until the city attorney updates the policies. They’ll let me know once they can according to the officer, but then he just stopped responding to emails. I then personally went in and just gave it to them. I watched where they put it to the side, and I know that it will probably never be looked at.

[abinsinia]

There were a bunch of filings for this one.

40

Jan 6, 2023

MINUTES OF Mandatory Scheduling Conference held before Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.: The Court heard from the parties on the status of their efforts to narrow or resolve the disputed issues in this case. The joint stipulation for leave to file the First Amended Complaint (FAC) 38 is GRANTED, and the FAC is deemed filed. By agreement of the parties, the Court ORDERS that before Plaintiff files a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction, the parties shall first file a request for a status conference. The Court expects to set a status conference and/or provide further instructions upon review of the parties' filing. Because the parties agree that the Court should rule on the anticipated preliminary injunction motion before addressing the arguments Defendants wish to raise in a motion to dismiss, the Court--by agreement of the parties--ORDERS that Defendants' obligation to answer or otherwise respond to the FAC is stayed until the anticipated status conference or until further order of the Court. The Court will enter a separate case management order. Court Reporter: Katherine Stride. (gk) (Entered: 01/09/2023)

Main Doc*ument

~Util - Link Non-Motion Documents to Minutes AND Scheduling Conference - optional html form

41

Jan 6, 2023

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.: The DOE defendants remaining after 3/10/2023 are dismissed by operation of this Order and without further notice. The Court has reviewed the Joint Rule 26(f) Report and sets the pretrial and trial dates noted in this order based on an evaluation of the complexity of the case. Jury Trial set for 12/4/2023 08:30 AM before Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr. Final Pretrial Conference and Hearing on Motions in Limine set for 11/17/2023 10:00 AM before Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr. Motion to Amend Pleadings/Add Parties (Hearing Deadline) 3/10/2023. Non-Expert Discovery cut-off 7/14/2023. Discovery Motion Hearing Deadline 8/11/2023. Non-Discovery Motion Hearing Deadline 8/25/2023. Settlement Conference Deadline 9/8/2023. Post-Settlement Status Conference set for 9/22/2023 08:30 AM before Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr. Status Report due by 9/15/2023. Trial Filings (First Set) Deadline 10/20/2023. Trial Filings (Second Set) Deadline 11/3/2023. See document for further details. (gk) (Entered: 01/09/2023)

Main Doc*ument

~Util - Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings AND Scheduling Order

42

Jan 9, 2023

PRETRIAL AND TRIAL ORDER by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. (pk) (Entered: 01/09/2023)

Main Doc*ument

43

Jan 9, 2023

ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. (pk) (Entered: 01/09/2023)

[DolphinFan]

So they kick the can until March, then November.
All because the city of Glendale California does not want to accept the Bruen Decision/

I’m amused they continue to ignore the real issue, THT between 1790-1869. Glendale municipal code means NOTHING here.

[N0b0dy]

Glendale conceded that parking lots and open spaces (whatever that means) are not sensitive places, yet everything else such as parks and libraries are still disputed. Kudos to Michel lawyers (especially Kostas Moros) for getting any kind of concession from the Glendale (I’m not aware of any concessions in the recent sensitive places lawsuits) Overall, I don’t think this is going to be that helpful against SB 2 though it might set the stage for action against other municipalities such as LA and their desire to enact their own sensitive place laws.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...64874.44.0.pdf

[abinsinia]

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.: The Court sets this matter for an in-person status conference on March 3, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 6C. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jgr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 02/10/2023)

Status report, gets you in chambers status conference.

[abinsinia]

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.: On its own motion, the Court ADVANCES the time of the status conference to 8:00 a.m. on March 3, 2023 in Courtroom 6C. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (jgr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/02/2023)

I wonder if CRPA will tell us what happened in the status conference.

[abinsinia]

[Minutes of] Status Conference (Held and Continued) before Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. For the reasons indicated on the record, the Court continues the status conference to March 14, 2023 at 9:30 a.m. The parties are ordered to meet and confer and no later than March 9, 2023 to file a joint status report. See minutes for details. Court Reporter: Amy Diaz. (lom) (Entered: 03/03/2023)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...64874.48.0.pdf

[abinsinia]

STATUS REPORT (Joint) filed by Plaintiffs California Rifle and Pistol Association, Incorporated, Nelson F Gibbs, Gun Owners of California, Inc., John Leyba. (Moros, Konstadinos) (Entered: 03/09/2023)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...64874.49.0.pdf

[DolphinFan]

So, basically, hearing on July 7, 2023.

[abinsinia]

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND VACATING STATUS CONFERENCE by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.: The Court has reviewed the Joint Status Report filed on 3/9/2023 49 . The Court VACATES the continued status conference set for 3/14/2023, and adopts the briefing schedule proposed by the parties. Plaintiffs shall file their renewed motion for a preliminary injunction by 5/26/2023, to be set for hearing on 7/7/2023. Defendants' opposition will be due 6/9/2023 and Plaintiffs' reply, along with the final joint chart, will be due 6/16/2023. The Court defers deciding whether to consolidate the motion with trial on the merits. (gk) (Entered: 03/10/2023)

Ok, so now the court agreed to the scheduling.