Let's look at the timeline of what's happened in this case:
Complaint was filed.
Injunctive relief was motioned for (MPI).
TRO was motioned for.
MTD was motioned for.
Fought off consolidation with Benson.
Appealed to 7th Circuit.
That's the record.
We now need to get into the record, the merits of the lawsuit. This will be done with MTD's and cross-MSJ's, after the ordinary Standing and Associational Standing and ripeness arguments are made (by way of the Reply to the Response)
Expect an MTD from Chicago, right after the reply to the response is filed. Also expect Gura/Sigale to file an MSJ right after that. <- all of this before "discovery" starts, despite the orders from the court, setting up the timeline. Chicago will then file their cross-MSJ.
Chicago has pretty much ignored the previous timelines/orders and I expect them to continue with this. On the other hand, Gura/Sigale have respected the timelines and look what it got them. I don't expect them to make that mistake twice.
All of this will force Judge Kendall's hand. The rope being played out, is not just to Chicago. Gura/Sigale want to get back to the 7th again, but with more of a record than they had last time.
Now, having said all of that, something has popped up in another case that some people think might have a (bad) bearing on Ezell II.
In Benson v. Chicago,
there is a joint statement
and Chicago have stipulated that Count III is now moot and should be stricken from the complaint. Count III is the Gun Range Ban.
Despite the hand-wringing (on other websites), I don't believe this will affect Ezell II
The ILA attorney failed to amend that portion of their complaint when the laws changed, whereas Ezell
did. That is their (Benson
) mistake and Chicago is now properly enforcing a point of mootness. All this does is to show that the ILA is still not up to the task of properly strategizing civil rights litigation.
Of course, I'm just an amateur at these things. What do I know about how the court works or of litigation strategies?