View Single Post
Old March 8, 2013, 08:33 PM   #187
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
Another small update on this case. From the Docket:

Quote:
02/22/2013 203 MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Enter MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth above, the Citys Motion to Strike Interrogatory Responses and Bar Plaintiffs from Introducing New Claims is denied, in part, and granted in part. The Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint is granted. The City is granted leave to take additional fact discovery. That limited fact discovery is ordered closed by April 1, 2012. The Expert Discovery Schedule is amended so that expert discovery is now ordered closed by April 29, 2012.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/22/2013)

02/22/2013 204 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 2/22/2013.Mailed notice(tsa, ) (Entered: 02/22/2013)

02/28/2013 205 MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Minute entry 203 is amended to correct the following sentences with the correct dates: That limited fact discovery is ordered closed by April 1, 2013. The Expert Discovery Schedule is amended so that expert discovery is now ordered closed by April 29, 2013. The rest of the order shall stand.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/28/2013)

02/28/2013 206 MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Status hearing held on 2/28/2013 and continued to 8/13/2013 @ 9:00 a.m. Limited fact discovery is ordered closed by 6/3/2013. Expert discovery cut off set for 7/19/2013. Defendant expert disclosure report by 5/31/2013. Any plaintiff expert disclosures by 6/21/2013. Expert depositions by 7/31/2013. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 8/26/2013. Responses due by 9/23/2013. Replies due by 10/7/2013. Ruling will be made by mail. Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/28/2013)

03/01/2013 207 ANSWER to amended complaint by City Of Chicago(Hirsch, Rebecca) (Entered: 03/01/2013)
Of course, the City denies everything. The City is treating this as if nothing at all has occurred in the interim. They deny knowing Rhonda Ezell, they deny standing, as if this is an issue that hasn't already been determined. And the court is going along with this and has set new dates for discovery. The case has nowe been pushed back to October of 2013.

Here's an example of something that should be a settled matter, by now:

Quote:
1. Plaintiff Rhonda Ezell is a natural person and a citizen of the United States residing in Chicago, Illinois.

Answer: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1.
The City's "Answer" goes on to say the same about the rest of the plaintiffs. I would have thought this was a settled matter by this time. This is not the original complaint. We have been up to the 7th Circuit and back.

Starting on Pp. 14 of the Mandate from the circuit, the panel discusses the issue of standing. In its analysis, the court notes that the individuals do have standing and therefore, so do the organizations (footnote #3, Pp. 17). On Pp. 19, the panel addresses the irreparable harms the plaintiffs suffer. On Pp. 26, the panel decides that the plaintiffs have a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. On Pp. 48, the panel addresses the Balance of harms and concludes in the plaintiffs favor by remanding the case back to the districts with the mandate to issue the injunction.

I bring this up, because when I read the City's Affirmative Defenses, it struck me rather odd:

Quote:
Defendant hereby asserts the following affirmative defenses to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint:

First Affirmative Defense: Justiciability/Ripeness

Plaintiffs’ claims are not justiciable under the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution because none of the claims asserted in this case are ripe for adjudication.

Second Affirmative Defense: Justiciability/Standing

Plaintiffs lack standing under the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution because none of the Plaintiffs suffered an injury-in-fact and, in the alternative, the injuries alleged were not caused by the actions or conduct of Defendant.
I'm not understanding how these defenses can be used, when the 7th Circuit panel has already swept them from the room!

Fact is, the entire "Answer" is a childish attempt to rehash everything that has went before. I could be wrong, as I'm sure the real attorneys here will educate me.



Pettifoggery is a word that comes to mind.
Al Norris is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02898 seconds with 8 queries