McDonald v Chicago Part Deux

krucam · Feb 17, 2011

Remember Gura and DC and the $3M Question? http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=39317

He's at it again, this time with Chicago. Recently, posted from http://www.chicagoguncase.com/ they have a blurb:

Did we prevail?

Published by Alan Gura under Uncategorized

The District Court didn’t think so, and rejected our request to be paid our attorney fees and expenses.

On Valentine’s Day, we filed our opening brief on appeal.

Here is Gura's Appeal to the 7th for McDonald, squabbling over the ticket: http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/mcdonald_fee_appellants_brief_final_e.pdf

The District Court actually said the prevailing party wasn't entitled to fees under 1988. Wow is all I can say. I knew that the 2A was a bit of a red headed step child in the pecking order of rights with these folks, but to say that competent legal counsel can't be secured to fight Civil Rights violations because that counsel might not get paid? Fail...

1983 and 1988 were written for a reason....

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/mcdonald_fee_appellants_brief_final_e.pdf

Gray Peterson · Feb 17, 2011

The District Court’s response to McDonald counsel’s request to be
heard included, “Are you – you think you are a better lawyer than they
are?”

This judge, after this is all said and done, should have a complaint filed against him for misconduct with the Judicial Conference of the United States.....

press1280 · Feb 17, 2011

There needs to be a serious smackdown with this. These folks are still playing games. Gura's 3 million dollar bill needs to turn into a 10 million dollar bill as an example.

Patrick · Feb 18, 2011

And when they win it will be remanded back to the same District Court judge, who will decide that the SAF's efforts in McDonald were worth about three Big Macs and a diet Coke. Then the fight will continue anew.

Hope Gura isn't hoping to retire soon.

frozencesium · Feb 18, 2011

Patrick said:
And when they win it will be remanded back to the same District Court judge, who will decide that the SAF's efforts in McDonald were worth about three Big Macs and a diet Coke. Then the fight will continue anew.

Hope Gura isn't hoping to retire soon.

Not for a long while hopefully. We still need the MD beat down to run it's course. We then need the payment chain beat down so Gura and the SAF can be compensated by MD.

While I'm (unfortunately) a MD tax payer, I don't mind one bit that my tax dollars will eventually pay Gura's bill.

Al Norris · Feb 19, 2011

Remember last Sept. when Chris Cox (NRA-ILA director) wrote that article in which the NRA took full credit for the McDonald decision?

Perhaps this explains much of that.

Al Norris · Feb 20, 2011

I've updated the docket for the NRA/McDonald district court proceedings. Docket 1:08-cv-03645. Document #87 is the courts opinion on the SAF/Gura request.

I reported this over at TFL, earlier, and a member there asked: What IS the going price for a district court these days, anyway?

:lol:

krucam · May 10, 2011

This case currently sits in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (Case 11-1016).

Since 3/10, we have the following events on the Docket:

03/10/2011 20 Order issued GRANTING motion to extend time to file appellee's brief. [19] Appellee's brief due on or before 04/15/2011 for City of Chicago and Village of Oak Park. Appellant's reply brief, if any, is due on or before 04/29/2011 for Appellant Brett Benson, Appellant National Rifle Association of America, Incorporated, Appellant Kathryn Tyler, Appellant Van F. Welton, Appellant Gene A. Reisinger, Appellant Colleen Lawson, Appellant David Lawson, Appellant Otis McDonald, Appellant Adam Orlov and Appellant Second Amendment Foundation, Incorporated. CMD [20] [6292972] [10-3957, 10-3965, 11-1016] (AD)

04/08/2011 21 Motion filed by Appellee City of Chicago in 10-3957, Appellee Village of Oak Park in 10-3965, 11-1016 to extend time to file appellees' brief. [6299934] [10-3957, 10-3965, 11-1016] (KH)

04/12/2011 22 Order issued GRANTING motion to extend time to file appellee's brief only to the extent that briefing will proceed as follows: [21] Appellee's brief due on or before 04/29/2011 for City of Chicago and Village of Oak Park. Appellant's reply brief, if any, is due on or before 05/13/2011 for Appellant Brett Benson, Appellant National Rifle Association of America, Incorporated, Appellant Kathryn Tyler, Appellant Van F. Welton, Appellant Gene A. Reisinger, Appellant Colleen Lawson, Appellant David Lawson, Appellant Otis McDonald, Appellant Adam Orlov and Appellant Second Amendment Foundation, Incorporated. CMD [22] [6300352] [10-3957, 10-3965, 11-1016] (AM)

04/21/2011 23 NOTICE: Attorney Benna Ruth Solomon for Appellee City of Chicago in 10-3957 will not be available for oral argument May 11-13; May 31 - June 3, 2011. [23] [6302969] [10-3957, 10-3965, 11-1016] (AB)

04/25/2011 24 NOTICE: Attorney Mr. Alan Gura for Appellants Otis McDonald, Adam Orlov, Colleen Lawson, David Lawson and Second Amendment Foundation, Incorporated will not be available for oral argument May 31 - June 9, 2011. [24] [6303504] [11-1016] (AB)

04/29/2011 25 Appellee's brief filed by Appellee City of Chicago in 10-3957, Appellee Village of Oak Park in 10-3965, 11-1016. [6305057] [25] Disk Filed. [25] [6305057] [10-3957, 10-3965, 11-1016] (LB)

05/04/2011 26 Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Stephen P. Halbrook for Appellant National Rifle Association of America, Incorporated and Dr. Gene A. Resisinger in 10-3957. [26] [6305798] [10-3957, 10-3965, 11-1016]--[Edited 05/04/2011 by AD to reflect all parties attorney Halbrook represents.] (Halbrook, Stephen)

05/04/2011 27 Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Stephen P. Halbrook for Appellant National Rifle Association of America, Incorporated, Dr. Kathryn Tyler, Van F. Welton and Brett Benson in 10-3965. [27] [6305800] [10-3957, 10-3965, 11-1016]--[Edited 05/04/2011 by AD to reflect all parties and correct appeal attorney Halbrook represents.] (Halbrook, Stephen)

05/04/2011 28 Appearance Form filed by Attorney(s) Suzanne M. Loose for party(s) Appellee City of Chicago, in case 10-3957 Attorney(s) Suzanne M. Loose for party(s) Appellee City of Chicago, in case 11-1016. [28] [6305814] [10-3957, 10-3965, 11-1016]--[Edited 05/04/2011 by CD to reflect appearance form, add Attorney Suzanne M. Loose as counsel for Appellee City of Chicago, and terminate Attorney Mara S. Georges as counsel for Appellee City of Chicago] [28] [6305814] (Loose, Suzanne)

05/04/2011 29 Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Stephen P. Halbrook for Appellant National Rifle Association of America, Incorporated in 10-3965 and Dr. Gene A. Reisinger--[Edited 05/04/2011 by CD to reflect all parties attorney represents]. [29] [6305842] [10-3965, 10-3957, 11-1016] (Halbrook, Stephen)

Very interesting....

1) Chicago/Oak Park are stalling again, the Judge granted them an extension to file the Appellee Brief (25) till 4/29. They met that date, the pdf is attached.
2) Oral Arguments appear to be on the horizon in the very near future...
3) Gura is representing Plaintiff McDonald, Stephen Halbrook representing Plaintiff NRA. Talk about a couple of heavy weights. :party29:

Ok...Chicago/Oak Park's brief, all I can say they're anything but lazy...resourceful and clever come to mind.

ISSUE PRESENTED
Whether plaintiffs are “prevailing parties” entitled to attorney’s fees when their claims were dismissed as moot after a Supreme Court decision reversing judgment for defendants and remanding for further proceedings, but before any judgment or other order materially altering the legal relationship of the parties was entered in their favor on the merits of any of their claims.

From Defendant/Appellee/Chicago perspective: District (Win), Circuit (W), SC (Reversed/Remanded back to Circuit). Got it? They didn't "Lose" at Supreme Court, the SC remanded back therefore they don't have to pay the 1988 fees.

They claim that they now allow handguns so long as you have your FOID. Funny they don't mention the range requirement to the folks at the 7th Circuit. :innocent0

Gura and Halbrook should tear this up I'm guessing.

Thoughts on Halbrook joining in?
It looks like the Appellant Response is due this Friday, 5/13.

Wraith · May 11, 2011

Well considering that having to pay would mean both DC, and Chicago would have to concede that they did in fact LOSE, it comes as no surprise with their actions in the wake of both decisions, they are still jamming their fingers in their ears, and claiming they didn't.

Paying up means admitting defeat. They will do everything to avoid it.

EL1227 · May 11, 2011

It's the Chicago way ...

Gura needs to pull an 'Untouchables' ... This judge clearly is in the pocket of the Daley 'machine'.

Al Norris · Jun 2, 2011

A decision from the 7th Cicuit on fees for Gura and the NRA: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/8E0PHS5R.pdf

By the time defendants bowed to the inevitable, plaintiffs had in hand a judgment of the Supreme Court that gave them everything they needed. If a favorable decision of the Supreme Court does not count as “the necessary judicial imprimatur” on the plaintiffs’ position (Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 605), what would?

The district court’s decision is reversed, and the cases are remanded for awards of reasonable attorneys’ fees under §1988.

Judge Easterbrook wrote this. Gotta love the smack-down, even from an anti-2A judge!!

ezliving · Jun 2, 2011

Good! BTW, did Gura ever get paid by DC for Heller?

krucam · Jun 2, 2011

Al Norris said:
A decision from the 7th Cicuit on fees for Gura and the NRA: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/8E0PHS5R.pdf

Judge Easterbrook wrote this. Gotta love the smack-down, even from an anti-2A judge!!

Great news! They'll still be squabbling back at the District level over "how much" is fair, but at least Gura/Clement will get paid.

ezliving said:
Good! BTW, did Gura ever get paid by DC for Heller?

Still outstanding. I check the DC District & Circuit for opinions daily (Heller II, Palmer, Schrader, Dearth) and nada.

I check the 7th Ckt fairly frequently as well (awaiting an Ezell Opinion) but TFL beat us to it...

Al Norris · Jun 2, 2011

Mark, I have Thrusdays off and ming (user at TFL) even beat me! Hence posting it here.

Oh, and Calguns hasn't had it posted (as of 5 min. ago) ... Someone want to post it there? (no related thread that I could see (used the VB search and the Google site search)).

yellowfin · Jun 2, 2011

I'm really surprised Posner and Easterbrook felt up to doing the right thing here, as they're slimier than two snakes in a barrel full of bacon grease.

Al Norris · Jun 2, 2011

I suppose the only "saving grace" here is that both Easterbrook and Posner are sticklers for precedent.

Dogabutila · Jun 3, 2011

"guys, the Supreme Court said they won. Just get over it and pay them the money."

Patrick · Jun 3, 2011

Al Norris said:
I suppose the only "saving grace" here is that both Easterbrook and Posner are sticklers for precedent.

Apellate judges are going to be more aware of the impact of their decisions. Siding with Chicago on this one would have weakened Section 1988 claims for Civil Rights awards everywhere. Not to mention the Supreme Court would have overturned it.

Now we get to the see the same District judge who thought Gura lost also decide on how "important" the case was and how well it merits pay. Expect at least one more round of appeals before this is over, as Chicago argues the case really didn't change much. In a way, they might even be right (as Chicago delays, thwarts and fights everything we do). But only for now...

krucam · Jun 3, 2011

John at Only Guns and Money is reporting the NRA-ILA report from the 7th Circuit decision. Needless to say, coming from the NRA-ILA it may be a bit one-sided.

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Holds NRA Entitled to Attorneys’ Fees in Lawsuits Against Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois

Thursday, June 02, 2011

Fairfax, VA—Today, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals conclusively and forcefully held, without need for oral argument, that the National Rifle Association has the right to recover attorneys’ fees in its lawsuits against the city of Chicago's and the village of Oak Park’s unconstitutional gun bans. The court held that the NRA was a prevailing party in the case of National Rifle Association v. City of Chicago and Village of Oak Park.

“This is a Second Amendment victory and a civil rights victory. The National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment prevailed against those who sought to deny the right to keep and bear arms in Chicago and Oak Park,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “The attempt to avoid paying the NRA’s attorneys’ fees was rightly found to be unjust by the Court."

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right to keep and bear arms for all Americans in the historic McDonald v. Chicago and NRA v. Chicago and Oak Park cases, it remanded them for the purpose of issuing an injunction against Chicago and Oak Park's unconstitutional gun ordinances. Before that injunction was issued, however, those ordinances were repealed. The City and the Village then argued that the NRA was not a prevailing party and should not be allowed to recover attorneys’ fees. The District Court, which originally ruled against the NRA, agreed and denied the fee award.

Today’s Seventh Circuit decision overturns that ruling, holding instead that the NRA is indeed a prevailing party and is entitled to receive reimbursement for attorneys’ fees. The amount to be recovered will be established by the District Court.

“This is a major victory for the NRA. While we are grateful to recover our attorneys’ fees, however, we remain steadfast in our belief that Chicago and Oak Park continue to circumvent the law of the land and deny their law-abiding residents the Second Amendment freedoms protected by the Constitution. We will continue to fight those efforts until the Second Amendment is fully respected," concluded Cox.

In his blog, John utters the 4-syllables that the NRA-ILA can't seem to mention: http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2011/06/nra-ila-statement-on-courts-decision-on.html

"Let me say it for him - AH-lin Grrr-AH"

:innocent0

Al Norris · Jun 3, 2011

Ya just have to read it the right way, Mark! Here, let me help ya...

Chris Cox said:
... holding instead that the NRA is indeed a prevailing party ...

See? They did mention that they isn't the only one! [/sarcasm]

McDonald v Chicago Part Deux

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

MSI Executive Member

BBQ Czar

Spud Head

Spud Head

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Active Member

R.I.P.

Spud Head

Besieger

Ultimate Member

Spud Head

Pro 2A Gastronome

Spud Head

Ultimate Member

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

Spud Head

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics