View Single Post
Old February 16, 2013, 11:17 PM   #180
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
When I last looked at Ezell (Dec. 13, 2012), the plaintiffs had motioned for leave to file a SAC (second amended complaint). Doc 194 is the motion and the reasons for the motion. Doc 194.5 is the intended SAC.

Of course, Chicago came up with all kinds of specious reasons why the plaintiffs should not be allowed a SAC and also why the court should effectively stop the plaintiffs from pursuing the full breadth of their challenge (see Doc 188 for the motion and Doc 197 for the reply).

After some shuffling of times and schedules, a hearing was held on Feb 4, 2013 before Judge Kendall where she denied Chicagos 188 motion and granted plaintiffs 194 motion.

Plaintiffs promptly filed their SAC (Doc 200) before the court clerk could even file the Judges orders (Doc 202)! Quite frankly, the way things had been going, I was stunned that Judge Kendall sided with Gura and Sigale. But perhaps I shouldn't been.

Back on Dec 11th, Luger_Carbine had this to say about the news from the Moore decision:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luger_Carbine View Post
I think Moore changes Ezell...

Chicago has been handed a loss with Moore, but now there will be trickle down as the lower courts are forced to follow CA7's ruling, and Chicago will be handed one defeat after another.
I have to think that this turn-about can only have come with the added pressure of Judge Posner's decision in Moore. This may also be the beginning of the end of this saga with Chicago.

The full docket is on the Internet Archive, but here is the relevant portions and links:

Quote:
12/03/2012 194 MOTION by Plaintiffs Action Target, Inc., Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. for leave to file Second Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Sigale, David) (Entered: 12/04/2012)

12/04/2012 195 NOTICE of Motion by David G. Sigale for presentment of motion for leave to file, 194 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 12/10/2012 at 09:00 AM. (Sigale, David) (Entered: 12/04/2012)

12/10/2012 196 MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Plaintiff's motion for extension of time 192 is granted. MOTION by Plaintiffs Action Target, Inc., Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. for leave to file Second Amended Complaint 194 is taken under advisement. Defendant to file a combined response/reply by 12/13/2012. Status hearing set for 1/29/2013 @ 9:00 a.m.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 12/10/2012)

12/13/2012 197 REPLY by Defendant City Of Chicago In Support Of Motion To Bar Additional Claims and Response To Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint (Hirsch, Rebecca) (Entered: 12/13/2012)

01/28/2013 198 MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall: Status hearing set for 1/29/2013 is stricken and reset to 2/4/2013 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/28/2013)

01/28/2013 199 MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Ruling on motion to strike 188 is reset to 2/4/2013 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/28/2013)

02/04/2013 200 SECOND AMENDED complaint by Illinois State Rifle Association, Rhonda Ezell, Action Target, Inc., William Hespen, Joseph I. Brown, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. against City Of Chicago (Sigale, David) (Entered: 02/04/2013)

02/04/2013 201 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs re amended complaint 200 (Notice of FiIing) (Sigale, David) (Entered: 02/04/2013)

02/04/2013 202 MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall: Status hearing held on 2/4/2013. For the reasons set forth in the Court's forthcoming Memorandum Opinion and Order, Defendant City of Chicago's motion to strike interrogatory responses and bar plaintiff from introducing new claims 188 is denied and Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file second amend complaint 194 is granted. Plaintiffs' second amended complaint is due by February 7, 2013. Defendant's answer is due by March 4, 2013. A status hearing is set for 2/28/2013 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (meg, ) (Entered: 02/05/2013)
Al Norris is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03389 seconds with 8 queries