View Single Post
Old July 28, 2011, 04:36 PM   #219
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,546
I've just updated several docket entries (they were getting old and I just had to see if there was movement on them), when I came across this one from the Second Amendment Arms v. Chicago case.

First there was this response by the Court on 07-12, after the plaintiff filed a Motion for Additional Authority and For Finding of Estoppal (The Ezell opinion):

MINUTE entry before Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: The Court has before it Plaintiffs motion for leave to file and cite supplemental authority in opposition to Defendants motion to dismiss and for a finding of collateral estoppel 37 . The Court is aware of the Ezell decision and thus grants the motion in part as to the filing and citation of supplemental authority. In regard to the other relief requested a finding of estoppel the Court enters and continues the motion to the next status hearing, which is set for 7/27/2011 at 10:30 a.m. At the status hearing, the Court would like the parties to be prepared to discuss, among other things, the first amended complaint, the pending motion to dismiss, the Ezell case, and the recent amendment to the Citys gun ordinance. The notice of motion date of 7/13/2011 is stricken and no appearances are necessary on that date. Notices Mailed by Judge's Staff (tbk, ) (Entered: 07/12/2011)
OK... So then we have an entry for yesterday's hearing:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: Status hearing held on 7/27/2011. As discussed on the record, Plaintiffs are given to and including 8/17/2011 to file an amended complaint. Defendants are given until 9/14/2011 to file responsive pleading to amended complaint. MOTION by Defendants to dismiss 18 Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is stricken as moot. Notices Mailed by Judge's Staff (tbk, ) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
The very last entry (immediately after the above) was the Court granting an Oral request to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC).

So unless you were at the hearing, the above is rather cryptic!

Krucam, over at MDShooters had linked the following from Todd Vandermyde of Illinois Carry, the NRA Rep in IL:

Court was interesting today for the challenge to the gun shop ban in Chicago.

· The judge opened op with having some thoughts about how to proceed. Later he made it clear that the case was put on hold while the Court of Appeals sorted out Ezell.

· The judge said he had read Ezell, and either implied thoroughly or a couple times.

· He said that anyone paying attention to Ezell’s oral arguments it was clear that a lot of guidance seemed to be on its way from the Court. And he wanted to give that Court time to act before hearing this case.

· He said the plaintiffs should file an amendment complaint that “tightens” up the facts they are pleading and issues they raise. It would be helpful to the court in deciding the case in a way that makes sense.

· He asked them to identify each specific section of the Ordinance they seek to challenge, by whom, on what grounds and the specific relief sought.

· He gave them three weeks to file an amended complaint. The City will reply by 8/28.

To the City:

· When a judge (the Ezell court) says your thumbing your nose at the Court, take note of it.

· You may want to think about if you really want to move to dismiss every count.

· Reevaluate the organizational standing arguments.

· Think seriously about whether you have grounds to diss each count.

· Made note about Easterbrook’s ruling on fees in McDonald and how the city has acted. Capitulating in light of judgment and modifying ordinances

· Judge says Ezell is a very important decision. He looks to other courts for their decisions, but when the 7th circuit says something and when the Supreme Court says something, it’s important for me to consider and look at.

· He also said that he could not remember any law professor using the Second and Amendment in the same sentence.

The city said it was interesting that something written in 1787 is now “new” in 2011.

Observations, the City’s legal team, two of them were very accommodating and humble. Not like Mara Gorges before.

The Judge was versed in Ezell and had spent some time studying it. He also took note of the way Easterbrook read them the riot act in the fees decision in McDonald. And that the Court had taken notice of the City thumbing their nose at the McDonald decision.

The judge wants an amended complaint cleaned up and this case is going forward. He seemed to admonish the City that their past absolute positions as in Ezell and McDonald didn’t seem like they were going to carry weight and that it was a new day.

I think he was actually hinting at the City that if they were going to change the ordinance, they should do so before the court rules. The Easterbrook comment seemed to be aimed at this.
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.03739 seconds with 7 queries