Birdt v. Beck Los Angeles CCW suit

krucam · Jan 7, 2011

This is a lawyer going it alone for a concealed carry permit. Strike 1.

He is challenging this in California (Strike 2) and...in particular the City of Los Angeles (Strike 2.75).

Earlier posts were in my Post-McDonald 2A thread, but it's time for Mr Birdt to get his own thread...

Some of the earlier posts, starting back in November:

krucam said:
Added under the "Bear" Section in Post #1.

Birdt v. Beck, (CA, CCW in Los Angeles County)
Filed: October 29, 2010. California Central District
http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/filed047.pdf

Calguns and CalgunsFoundation are fighting many fights in...I think California. They are working a county by county resolution towards inconsistent CCW issuance. One of the big targets is of course Los Angeles county.

Jon Birdt is an attorney who was denied a CCW in LA County. He's going this one on his own, without SAF or NRA or CGF help.
Complaint: http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/filed047.pdf

On http://www.calccw.com/Forums/announcements/17265-lapd-lasd-lawsuit.html
his screen name is jonbirdt, read for more info...

I'll dig up more shortly, but my OP has been updated.

Welcome to the jungle....

Patrick said:
This lawyer is an idiot. He was previously suspended from the bar due to ethical issues, including lying to the court (perjury).

And to top it off, he actually brought up 14th Amendment Due Process issues in his complaint (fine), but then stipulated, through quoting a rational basis case, that rational basis is the scrutiny involved. He obviously is unaware of even the core issues here. All he can do is whine that he wants his gun and he wants it now.

He obviously knows less than we do, and we're just voices on the net. Maye he should have hung around this forum a while before doing stupid things. LA is going to eat this guy up.

Who knows...he might get lucky and find a 2A-friendly judge looking to make a point. LA County does have conservatives in it.

krucam said:
He is being eaten alive over at Calguns as well, having a whopping 3-post career on that forum. He's been contacted by some of the CGF lawyers as well...another loose cannon ala Gorski...

Patrick said:
For those who do not recognize my old Sheriff's anme (Baca), this is being fought in Los Angeles.

Clean, clear, concise and carefully written. I am forwarding to some friends out there. Thanks, EZ.

The Plaintiff is an attorney who wants a permit. He was careful. The following words are going to irk some folks here, but it important to have all the same:

He's saying "I recognize the need for a permit, I simply want you to issue one based on passing a criminal background check for self defense."

To help everyone irked as to why this is important - it derails a defense that the government could make over the "need" for a permit. That fight would take years and at its conclusion, we would then still need to fight the "good cause" requirements. This is a short-cut.

Nothing says we cannot go back and fight it later. But for now, we target the things we need most. Even is that means we go through the state to exercise our rights. Again: for now.

Well, the Docket was just uploaded: http://ia700104.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.486807/gov.uscourts.cacd.486807.docket.html

This is what has been happening since November:

11/30/2010 6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendant Lee Baca, Charlie Beck, Does, The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, The Los Angeles Police Department amending Complaint - (Discovery) 1[RECAP] ,filed by Plaintiff Jonathan Birdt (shb) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
12/02/2010 4 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Jonathan Birdt, upon Defendant All Defendants. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Kathleen Camach in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy. Original Summons NOT returned. (Birdt, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/02/2010)
12/03/2010 5 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Jonathan Wesley Birdt counsel for Plaintiff Jonathan Birdt. Adding Jonathan W. Birdt as attorney as counsel of record for Jonathan W. Birdt for the reason indicated in the G-06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Plaintiff (Birdt, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
12/17/2010 7 ANSWER to Amended Complaint 6 filed by Defendants Lee Baca, The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department.(Lehman, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/17/2010)
12/17/2010 8 Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendants Lee Baca, The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, identifying Jonathan Birdt, Charlie Beck, Los Angeles Police Department, Leroy Baca, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (Lehman, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/17/2010)
12/20/2010 9 ANSWER to Amended Complaint 6 with JURY DEMAND filed by Defendant The Los Angeles Police Department.(Robbins, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
12/20/2010 10 CERTIFICATION AS TO of Interested Parties filed by Defendant The Los Angeles Police Department, (Robbins, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
12/21/2010 11 ANSWER to Amended Complaint 6 filed by DEFENDANTS Charlie Beck, The Los Angeles Police Department.(Mitchell, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/21/2010)
12/21/2010 12 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by DEFENDANTS Charlie Beck, The Los Angeles Police Department, (Mitchell, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/21/2010)
12/23/2010 13 First REQUEST to Dismiss Does 1-50 Does filed by Plaintiff Jonathan Birdt. (Birdt, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
12/23/2010 14 NOTICE Rule 26(f) meeting of counsel filed by Plaintiff Jonathan Birdt. (Birdt, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
12/27/2010 15 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice (Other) 14 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Trial & Pretrial docs - Joint Rule 206(f) Report. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (shb) (Entered: 12/27/2010)
12/29/2010 16 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge R. Gary Klausner. See document for details. (sw) (Entered: 12/29/2010)
12/30/2010 17 [DOCUMENT STRICKEN] NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Complaint filed by Plaintiff Jonathan Birdt. Motion set for hearing on 1/31/2011 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration of Jonathan W. Birdt, # 3 Supplement separate Statement)(Birdt, Jonathan) Modified on 1/3/2011 (shb). (Entered: 12/30/2010)
12/30/2010 19 ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: the following document(s) be STRICKEN for failure to comply with the Local Rules, General Order and/or the Courts Case Management Order: MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Complaint 17 , for the following reasons: Hearing information is missing, incorrect, or not timely. Motion date of January 31, 2011 was closed on December 28, 2010.; (shb) (Entered: 01/03/2011)
01/02/2011 18 Amendment to MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Complaint 17 corrected p&a's filed by Plaintiff Jonathan Birdt. (Birdt, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/02/2011)
01/04/2011 20 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's complaint Jonathan Birdt. Motion set for hearing on 4/4/2011 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Points & Authorities, # 2 Supplement Separate Statement, # 3 Declaration of jonathan W. Birdt)(Birdt, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/04/2011)
01/06/2011 21 NOTICE AND REQUEST of Settlement Procedure Selection (Sp1); parties request to Appear Before Judge Klausner for settlement proceedings. Filed by Plaintiff Jonathan Birdt. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Birdt, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/06/2011)
01/07/2011 22 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES AND ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: On January 6, 2011, the parties electronically filed form ADR-1, "Settlement Procedure Selection: Notice, Request and Order" (DE 21). The parties selected Settlement Procedure No. 1, District Judge. Judge Klausner does not conduct settlement conferences on matters where he is the trier of fact. Therefore, the parties shall confer, select a different settlement option, and resubmit form ADR-1 (and proposed order) before or at the February 14, 2011 Scheduling Conference. (shb) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
01/07/2011 23 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge R. Gary Klausner: Not later than January 14, 2011, plaintiff shall lodge a proposed judgment (pursuant to Local Rule 56-1) in connection with the motion for summary judgment (DE 20). (shb) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

In Summary:

Items 4, 5 & 6 are out of order. All are Plaintiff docs so he fugged something up.
Plaintiff Amended Complaint 11/30
Had to correct spelling of himself as Attorney of Record 12/03
Item 15 is interesting, from the Court...
Item 17. Birdt files a MSJ on 12/30.
Item 19. Judge Strikes Birdt's MSJ on 12/30.
Item 18 (yeah, out of order again) Birdt Amends his MSJ on 1/2.
Item 20. 1/4/2011 - Hearing scheduled for 4/4/2011? Hard to tell with this guy.
Item 21. 1/6/2011 - Settlement conference set up by plaintiff Birdt.
Item 22. 1/7/2011 - The Judge says that "He does not conduct settlement conferences...." Yeah, you get the picture.
Item 23. Something will happen by Jan 14...this wears me out. Apparently his MSJ is missing the J, what is the Judgement proposed in your MSJ?

:lol2:

This folks is CLEARLY how you do not run a 2A Civil Rights claim in Federal Court.

MDFF2008 · Jan 7, 2011

Poorly run cases like this are anti-gunners wet dreams.

Patrick · Jan 7, 2011

Hell, even Marsha Clark couldn't lose this case on behalf of LA.

Al Norris · Jan 7, 2011

Oh My!

That is one fustercluck!

Al Norris · Mar 20, 2011

I checked in just long enough to update the docket (which hadn't been updated since early last January).

01/09/2011 24 NOTICE AND REQUEST of Settlement Procedure Selection (Sp1); parties request to Appear Before Magistrate Judge for settlement proceedings. Filed by Plaintiff Jonathan Birdt. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Birdt, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/09/2011)

01/09/2011 25 DECLARATION of Jonathan W. birdt in support of MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's complaint 20 filed by Plaintiff Jonathan Birdt. (Birdt, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/09/2011)

01/09/2011 26 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's complaint 20 [proposed] judgment filed by Plaintiff Jonathan Birdt. (Birdt, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/09/2011)

01/10/2011 27 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial 2-3 days, filed by Defendants Charlie Beck, The Los Angeles Police Department.. (Mitchell, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/10/2011)

01/27/2011 28 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Jonathan C McCaverty counsel for Defendants Lee Baca, The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. Adding Jonathan McCaverty as attorney as counsel of record for Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and Lee Baca for the reason indicated in the G-06 Notice. Filed by Defendants Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and Lee Baca (McCaverty, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/27/2011)

02/04/2011 29 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan SUPPLEMENTAL FRCP RULE 26(f) JOINT REPORT ; estimated length of trial 2-3 DAYS, filed by Defendants Charlie Beck, The Los Angeles Police Department.. (Mitchell, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/04/2011)

02/14/2011 30 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Stay Case pending the appeal to the Ninth Circuit Defendant City of Los Angeles' Notice of Motion and Motion to Stay the Declaratory Relief Action; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Defendants Charlie Beck, The Los Angeles Police Department. Motion set for hearing on 3/14/2011 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shapero, Wendy) (Entered: 02/14/2011)

02/14/2011 31 DECLARATION of Elizabeth Mitchell In Support Of MOTION to Stay Case pending the appeal to the Ninth Circuit Defendant City of Los Angeles' Notice of Motion and Motion to Stay the Declaratory Relief Action; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 30 filed by Defendants Charlie Beck, The Los Angeles Police Department. (Shapero, Wendy) (Entered: 02/14/2011)

02/14/2011 32 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION to Stay Case pending the appeal to the Ninth Circuit Defendant City of Los Angeles' Notice of Motion and Motion to Stay the Declaratory Relief Action; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 30 Defendant City of Los Angeles' Request for Judicial Notice; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Exhibits; Declaration of Wendy Shapero [F.R.E. 201] filed by Defendants Charlie Beck, The Los Angeles Police Department. (Shapero, Wendy) (Entered: 02/14/2011)

02/14/2011 33 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to motion for stay filed by Plaintiff Jonathan Birdt. (Birdt, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/14/2011)

02/14/2011 36 MINUTES OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held before Judge R. Gary Klausner: Court and counsel confer. The Scheduling Conference is held. The Court sets the following dates: Jury Trial (Est.2-3 days): October 4, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.; Pretrial Conference: September 19, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.; Motion Cut-Off (last day to file): July 19, 2011; Discovery Cut-Off: July 6, 2011. Last day to motion the Court to add parties or amend complaint is March 5, 2011. Counsel inform the Court that they have selected Settlement Option 1, Magistrate Judge. Court Reporter: Nichole Rhynard. (ake) (Entered: 02/16/2011)

02/15/2011 34 NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION MOTION to Stay Case pending the appeal to the Ninth Circuit Defendant City of Los Angeles' Notice of Motion and Motion to Stay the Declaratory Relief Action; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 30 filed by Defendants Lee Baca, The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. (Lehman, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/15/2011)

02/16/2011 35 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION to Stay Case pending the appeal to the Ninth Circuit Defendant City of Los Angeles' Notice of Motion and Motion to Stay the Declaratory Relief Action; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 30 Defendant City of Los Angeles' Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Stay; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Defendants Charlie Beck, The Los Angeles Police Department. (Shapero, Wendy) (Entered: 02/16/2011)

02/16/2011 37 ORDER FOR JURY TRIAL by Judge R. Gary Klausner: Pretrial Conference: September 19, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. Jury Trial: October 4, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. (ake) (Entered: 02/16/2011)

02/16/2011 38 AMENDED ORDER FOR JURY TRIAL by Judge R. Gary Klausner, re Order 37 . Jury Trial is set for 10/4/2011 at 09:00 AM, and the Pretrial Conference is set for 9/19/2011 at 09:00. (See order for further details) (shb) (Entered: 02/17/2011)

03/01/2011 39 REQUEST to Continue MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT from 04/04/2011 to 05/16/2011 filed by Defendants Charlie Beck, The Los Angeles Police Department. Request set for hearing on 5/16/2011 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mitchell, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/01/2011)

03/01/2011 40 REQUEST to Continue Motion for Summary Judgment from 04/04/2011 to 05/16/2011 filed by Defendant Lee Baca, The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. Request set for hearing on 5/16/2011 at 09:00 AM before Judge R. Gary Klausner. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lehman, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/01/2011)

03/01/2011 41 to rule 56f request for extension In opposition re: REQUEST to Continue MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT from 04/04/2011 to 05/16/2011 39 filed by Plaintiff Jonathan Birdt. (Birdt, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/01/2011)

03/03/2011 42 ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: Granting the NOTICE AND REQUEST of Settlement Procedure Selection (Sp1) to Appear Before the Magistrate Judge for settlement proceedings. (shb) (Entered: 03/03/2011)

03/03/2011 43 MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) SCHEDULING OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott: The parties, having elected to have Magistrate Judge McDermott conduct a settlement conference of this matter, are directed to contact Judge McDermott's clerk, ShaRon Anthony, at (213) 894-0216, to schedule the conference at an appropriate time. The parties are advised that they should contact the clerk so as to allow sufficient time for the court to schedule the settlement conference. See attached order for further details. (es) (Entered: 03/03/2011)

03/07/2011 44 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Ruling on ON DEFENDANTS' REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCE UNDER F.R.C.P. 56(f) filed by DEFENDANTS Lee Baca, Charlie Beck, The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, The Los Angeles Police Department.(Lehman, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/07/2011)

03/08/2011 45 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND LEE BACA'SREQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge R. Gary Klausner: GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, the Court hereby continues Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment for six (6) weeks. The hearing date will be May 16, 2011. 40 (ake) (Entered: 03/09/2011)

03/08/2011 46 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS CHARLIE BECK AND LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENTS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge R. Gary Klausner: GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, the Court hereby continues Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment for six (6) weeks. The hearing date will be May 16, 2011. 39 (ake) (Entered: 03/09/2011)

03/08/2011 48 ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: denying 30 Motion to Stay Case (shb) (Entered: 03/09/2011)

03/09/2011 47 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner: taking under submission 30 Motion to Stay Case Pending Appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Court hereby advises counsel that the above-referenced motion, noticed for hearing on March 14, 2011, has been taken under submission and off the motion calendar. No appearances by counsel are necessary. The Court will issue a ruling after full consideration of properly submitted pleadings. (shb) (Entered: 03/09/2011)

03/15/2011 49 ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott. IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a settlement conference onApril 27, 2011 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom C 8th floor. Each party shall deliver to the chambers of Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott at 312 N. Spring Street, 8th floor, Los Angeles, California, a Confidential Settlement Conference Statement on or before April 20, 2011. [See attached order for further details.] (es) (Entered: 03/15/2011)

No. 47 & 48 are out of order, so I suspect a clerk messed up.

I didn't capture any of the filings, above, as I still think this is a fustercluck... Although, it may have been better (for Birdt) to stay the case.

Patrick · Mar 20, 2011

OK, I am curious what the heck LA wanted to appeal to the Ninth so soon. Or were they waiting on another case they lost???

Why else would LA appeal something?

Will get to pacer soon. On an iPad right now.

krucam · Mar 20, 2011

Thanks for the Docket Recap Al...Birdt IS one of the red-headed-stepchild cases out there and I've been hesitant to poke in AND especially to upload ($$) pdfs in this one.

30-34 are interesting, but appear to have been mitigated by the issue of LA's asking for delays in the District....some analysis or intel is needed.

Not tonight for me.

yellowfin · Mar 20, 2011

It's really a shame but I certainly understand impatience as it feels like it's a century waiting for all the stupid baby steps for something that should be very, very simple because it's very, very obvious to you, me, and everyone. The whole May Yeah Right When Hell Freezes Over Issue problem in L.A. and the rest of populated CA is due to Hickman v. Block which hinges on the pre-Heller "collective right" nonsense so you'd think it'd be pretty simple to wipe it out based on that alone, but apparently not so. Waiting on Richards v. Prieto is excruciating, even more so with Kachalsky v. Cacace.

Al Norris · Mar 21, 2011

Attached is 30-Motion to Stay.

It is as I thought... L.A. wants to wait and see what happens with Peruta.

press1280 · Mar 21, 2011

Al Norris said:
Attached is 30-Motion to Stay.

It is as I thought... L.A. wants to wait and see what happens with Peruta.

Which is probably a good thing for this guy, because even with the problems with Peruta's case, it's better than what he's got.

jonbirdt · Apr 11, 2011

Motion to stay was denied. MSJ is 5/16.

krucam · Jan 9, 2012

Strange....

Its been quiet and thought I'd catch up on some of the cases. This one, according to the docket, had no activity since October.

2011-10-24 94 0 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge John A Kronstadt. The Court, on its own motion, takes the 10/31/2011 Status Conference off calendar and sets a non-appearance case review for 11/7/2011, at which time it will issue its ruling or determine if further briefing or a hearing is necessary. (vdr) (Entered: 10/25/2011)

That was the last thing on the Docket. There was to be a non-appearance review on 11/7/11. Hmm...

I refreshed PACER/RECAP and there's an entry for today and its the last item since the 10/24/2011 entry. If is filed by Plaintiff, Mr Birdt...

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.486807/gov.uscourts.cacd.486807.95.0.pdf

Short & sweet:

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue a ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment originally filed January 4, 2011 and set for hearing April 27, 2011. The parties have stipulated there are no disputes of material fact and the Court took the matter under submission as of September 19, 2011. Non-appearance review dates were set for 10/31/11 and 11/7/11, but no current dates appear to be set. Plaintiff respectfully reminds this Court that his Fundamental Civil Rights are at issue herein and requests that the Court issue an order on the motion.
January 8, 2012 __/s/ Jonathan W. Birdt_____________
By Plaintiff Jonathan W. Birdt

Wow...

Hopalong · Jan 10, 2012

So basically the Plaintiff filed a motion asking the judge to hurry up their ruling? You can do that?

Al Norris · Jan 10, 2012

Sure you can... But it is a tactical mistake. Akin to goading the tiger on its home grounds.

krucam · Jan 10, 2012

I was curious as to whether the 11/7 event happened. Apparently Mr Birdt was as well...and he grew a mighty pair....

Inigoes · Jan 10, 2012

krucam said:
he grew a mighty pair....

This!

If the courts don't wish to answer the question, they need to say so in a timely manner. Instead of hanging on until someone somewhere comes up with an answer that they like.

rambling_one · Jan 10, 2012

Al Norris said:
Sure you can... But it is a tactical mistake. Akin to goading the tiger on its home grounds.

Along the lines of Maryland telling SCOTUS to say what it means? Didn't seem to bother the big nine.

Al Norris · Jan 29, 2012

Did I not say that asking was a tactical mistake? LACSD had more aces up their sleeves!

I've taken the liberty to show what has actually been happening in Mr. Birdt's case against the LACSD (taken from my catalog of cases).

33. Birdt v. Beck: Challenges CCW rules for the County of Los Angeles. Filed in the US District Court for the Central District of CA; October 29, 2010. Jon Birdt is an attorney and is acting pro se.

01-13-2012 - Defendants MSJ granted, Plaintiffs MSJ denied.

01-14-2012 - Notice of Appeal, 9th CCA. Case #12-55115

01-18-2012 - Notice and Motion of related Cases by Defendants:

Robert Thomson v. Torrance Police Department, et al.Case No. CV 11-06154 SJO(JCx).

Sigitas Raulinaitis, et al. v. LACSD,Case No. CV 11-08026 JHN(JCGx).

01-19-2012 - Mem P&A in opposition to relate.

01-20-2012 - Reply by Defendants.

Internet Archive

The two cases that the LACSD wants to relate are cases brought by Mr. Birdt, same district court, just different Judges (they also argue the exact same points and request the same remedy). Of course, LA wants them consolidated at this stage (my quess is that they have been waiting for the first case to get dismissed)!

The Judge will grant relatedness (um, because they are the same) and consolidate the cases, with the just dismissed and appealed case as the lead case. This in effect, dismisses the other two cases and all three will go up to the 9th CCA as one case.

There is a lot of danger here. Not the least of which is the further consolidation of these cases with one of our good cases (it is within the realm of possibilities: Peruta or Richards.), now stayed at the 9th, pending Nordyke VI!

The stronger case, in my opinion, is Richards v. Prieto and is the case, if I were the CA AG, would want the Birdt cases to be related to.

This may just turn out to be a real mess, all because of a Lone Wolf, who thinks he is an experienced civil rights litigator, not listening to the major players.

jonbirdt · Jan 31, 2012

Al,
You have always been so polite and educated i am really surprised by your post and how wrong your analysis is. Please, dont take my word for it, read the judge's ruling that said how wrong you are and denied the request to relate. The Scocca case will likely be stayed because of the serious flaws in their legal arguments by the supposed experts. I would submit there is no expert here, we all have opinions and we all are doing something. if you want to see something good, look at the Thomson case, that is what LASD was scared of and the reason they tried to consolidate. We may very well have a good district ruling by the end of February and we already have a ruling that says these cases aren't similar and can't be related, but that doesnt apply to scocca because they are pursuing a different theory i would argue is flawed, but i wont becaus i am very glad they are out there doing something as well. I applaud anyone out there doing something, no matter how wrong they are, and as such, i applaud you too. Thank you for the mostly good work you do.
Jon

jonbirdt · Jan 31, 2012

Also, Judge Kronstadt was a state court judge who was just appointed and inherited the case. Thomson is before Judge Otero who has been on the bench about ten years, following his appointment by George Bush. He is also a CCW holder.

Birdt v. Beck Los Angeles CCW suit

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

MSI Executive Member

Spud Head

Spud Head

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

Pro 2A Gastronome

Spud Head

Attachments

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Man of Many Nicknames

Spud Head

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Spud Head

Member

Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics