View Single Post
Old November 17, 2011, 01:58 PM   #145
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,524
On August 16, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed for an MPI (Doc #4). In support of the Motion, the plaintifs filed Memorandums of Law for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc #5) with supporting declarations and a Memorandum of Law for a Permanent Injunction (Doc #6) with supporting declarations:

Declaration of Richard Pearson (Doc #'s 5.4 and 6.4); Declaration of William Hespen (Doc #'s 5.5 and 6.5); Declaration of Joseph I. Brown (Doc #'s 5.6 and 6.6); Declaration of Rhonda Ezell (Doc #'s 5.7 and 6.7) and Declaration of Chris Hart (Doc #'s 5.8 and 6.8).

All of this established who the plaintiffs were.

In its response to Motion 4 (doc #15), Chicago lists the plaintiffs by name and assumes they can "simply travel outside of Chicago" to get their mandated training. This is an explicit recognition of the plaintiffs and their standing. Nowhere in that document does the city entertain the idea that they don't know who the plaintiffs are.

Further, Each and Every Plaintiff was deposed by the city.

Now, 15 months after the start of this litigation, the Chicago finally responds to the complaint (there was never a response to the original complaint) and alleges they know nothing of the plaintiffs.

The city apparently feels that the prior record doesn't exist. Even to the extent that the plaintiffs won at the circuit... The city responds that they won nothing of any significance. Let me break down the paragraph 22 text:

Plaintiff: On July 6, 2011, Plaintiffs obtained a judicially-ordered change in the relationship among the parties to this litigation, when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that a preliminary injunction be issued against enforcement of the provisions initially challenged by this litigation.

Defendant: Defendant admits that, on July 6, 2011, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that a preliminary injunction be issued against the enforcement of certain provisions of the Responsible Gun Owners Ordinance initially challenged by this litigation, but deny that any such relief remains appropriate now that the gun range ban has been repealed.

Plaintiff: Plaintiffs are therefore, as of July 6, 2011, prevailing parties for purposes of 42 USC ยง1983.

Defendant: Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 22.
That more than anything else in this response, tells me that the city is going to fight this, all the way to whatever court it gets into. Chicago has just thumbed its collective nose at the 7th Circuit. Further, they are going to fight paying out a dime... No matter what it costs (the taxpayers) to do this.

It's going to be interesting to read the reply. I wonder who will write it. David Sigale or Alan Gura?

The docket can be seen here, to verify everything I just stated.
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.03313 seconds with 7 queries