View Single Post
Old December 5, 2010, 12:30 PM   #105
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,548
Weekend Update 12-05

The RECAPped dockets are now in place for the Birdt (LA County) case, the Muller (New Jersey) case and the Wisconsin Carry v. Brookfield case (Karen Sutterfield).

On 11-24-2010, the City of Chicago filed their MTD in the Second Amendment Arms v. Chicago case. Motion briefing now due on 12-08-2010 (this, despite the fact that the City was still pressing to consolidate this case with Benson). The MTD is well written and spells doom for this case.

On 11-29-2010, in Jackson v. San Francisco, an order extending time for defendants file their response was issued. Defendant San Francisco has 20 days to file after the motion to consolidate (Pizzo v. Newsom) is heard on 12-09-2010.

On 11-29-2010, in Benson v. Chicago, the City filed its response and reaffirmed its motion to consolidate Second Amendment Arms (SAA).

On 12-01-2010, in Wisconsin Carry v. Brookfield, documents were filed on stipulated agreement on times of discovery and possible settlement options.

On 12-02-2010, Judge Morrison C. England, Jr dismissed both OOIDA v. Lindley and State Ammunition v. Lindley as not being ripe. The order in both are almost identical.

On 12-02-2010, in D'Cruz v. McCraw, an agreed stipulation of dismissal of defendants was submitted. The remaining defendant in this case is Steven MCCraw.

On 12-03-2010, in Benson v. Chicago, the Judge denied the City's motions to consolidate Ezell and SAA:
Plaintiffs seek to have Ezell v. City of Chicago, 10 C 5135, pending before Judge Kendall, and Second Amendment Arms v. City of Chicago, 10 C 4257, pending before Judge Dow, reassigned to this Court. The case before Judge Kendall is in a different procedural posture than this one. She has already held a hearing on and denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, a ruling that is currently pending before the Seventh Circuit. The case before Judge Dow is broader in scope than this one. The plaintiffs in that case seek restitution, damages and a writ of mandamus, claims not asserted here. Given the substantial differences between those cases and this one, reassignment is not appropriate. See Local Rule 40.4.

On a side note. I did not anticipate (I guess I should have - hindsight) that the number of cases would exceed the character limit for a single post. I should have reserved a couple of posts to hold this. I didn't and can no longer update the OP. sigh. I will have to figure out a way to do this, in a more efficient manner....

Edited to add: Problem solved by a very simple means that I didn't come close to thinking of... Thank you Mal!
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.03265 seconds with 7 queries