View Single Post
Old November 21, 2010, 05:03 PM   #96
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,541
Weekend Update

Peterson v. LaCabe
When I last looked, on 10-20-2010, the Judge dismissed Peter Weir (Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Public Safety), and enjoined the Colorado AG, John Suthers, to act as an intervenor party to the case. The AG was to file his response to the plaintiffs MSJ against defendant LaCabe (who's cross-MSJ was denied).

Since then, the AG has requested (and was unopposed) for an extension in time to file. The AG further requested leave to file a cross-motion at the same time. On 11-19-2010 the Court agreed:

The Attorney General’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response Brief to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [filed November 17, 2010; docket #28] is granted. The Attorney General shall respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on or before December 10, 2010. Plaintiff may reply within fourteen days of the Attorney General’s response.
So now we will get to see how the State will argue that there is in fact Equal Protection (14th amendment) between residents and non-residents as regards the 2A claim of self-defense.
Benson v. Chicago
Earlier, I hinted that the NRA was behind the City of Chicago's claim (and motion) that Ezell was related to Benson. To be blunt, I was entirely wrong! It now appears that the NRA is indeed "playing by the rules" in the litigation strategy of the SAF and CGF.

After filing briefs, showing conclusively that Ezell and Benson are not related, Chicago is now trying to relate the Second Amendment Arms v. Chicago case to Benson. On 11-12-2010, the NRA filed a brief in opposition to Chicago's motion to relate.

The practical purpose of Chicago is clear. If it can relate the cases to a single judge, and then consolidate all three cases, it will be years before any resolution can be reached.... Delay, delay, delay!
Ezell v. Chicago
On 11-02-2010, Chicago requested a motion to stay further proceedings until after the 7th Circuit has ruled on the appeal of the denial of the preliminary injunction. On 11-16-2010, the judge has effectively granted that motion.
D'Cruz v. BATFE
ORDER GRANTING Unopposed MOTION to set briefing schedule. It is therefore ORDERED that the following schedule is established in this matter: 12/17/2010: Defendants' Answer and/or dispositive motion due; 1/14/2011: Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' dispositive motion due; Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment due; 2/14/2011: Defendants' reply in support of dispositive motion due; Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment due; 3/11/2011: Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for summary judgment due. It is further ORDERED that while no discovery will proceed at this time, Plaintiffs reserve the right to seek discovery after Defendants file a dispositive motion or a response to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Defendants reserve the right to oppose any such discovery. Plaintiffs' willingness to agree to this schedule at this time will not be a legitimate basis for resisting later discovery. (Ordered by Judge Sam R Cummings on 11/8/2010) (lkw) (Entered: 11/08/2010)

* While filed on 11-08-2010, it was not added to the docket until 11-11-2010. Docket was then RECAPped this morning.
D'Cruz v. McCraw
The motion to withdraw the amicus brief was granted by Judge Cummings.
After this, I will probably only update these posts on a weekly basis, unless something really good (or bad) happens....
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.03417 seconds with 7 queries