Peruta v. County of San Diego (CCW Case)

[krucam]

Is there anything to hold them to their word in unstaying these cases, to prevent them from putting more hurdles and delays in front of things? If they were honest they wouldn't have been such a pain in the first place.

Nothing is needed outside of a gentle nudge/reminder. The 9th is not a totally hostile circuit IMHO, given their early "Individual" right (vs Collective) of the 2A and Incorporation through the 14A...before McDonald at the Supreme Court.

 

[krucam]

On the road again...

06/19/2012 89 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: GS): The appellants’ motion to lift the stay of appellate proceedings in No. 11- 16255 is granted. The stay of appellate proceedings is lifted in No. 11-16255. [8220426] [10-56971, 11-16255] (SM)

This was found while looking up Peruta, Case 10-56971 in CA9.

The referenced 11-16255 is the Richards v Prieto case, another CA CCW proceeding. Strange....there WAS a motion to consolidate Richards w/Peruta...more digging needed.

 

[esqappellate]

On the road again...



This was found while looking up Peruta, Case 10-56971 in CA9.

The referenced 11-16255 is the Richards v Prieto case, another CA CCW proceeding. Strange....there WAS a motion to consolidate Richards w/Peruta...more digging needed.

Kurcam you are VERY good at this!!

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

On the road again...



This was found while looking up Peruta, Case 10-56971 in CA9.

The referenced 11-16255 is the Richards v Prieto case, another CA CCW proceeding. Strange....there WAS a motion to consolidate Richards w/Peruta...more digging needed.

Probably another NRA attempt to jump in front of the parade and take credit.

 

[Kharn]

Peruta started first with an independent, then he saw the light and copied a lot of Richards' brief (to Calgun's surprise) in a later filing. My understanding is Calguns is now managing both cases, but trying to keep them separate as they raise slightly different issues.

 

[Al Norris]

Hmmm...

Of the CA cases at circuit and district, how many are related - not in the strict legal sense perhaps, but in the sense of what they are asking?

 

[Gray Peterson]

Peruta started first with an independent, then he saw the light and copied a lot of Richards' brief (to Calgun's surprise) in a later filing. My understanding is Calguns is now managing both cases, but trying to keep them separate as they raise slightly different issues.

Not correct.

CGF manages Richards, CRPA Foundation (and the NRA by extension) is managing Peruta.

Peruta filed a suit independently, using the Sykes v. McGinness complaint. Then after winning a motion to dismiss the suit was amended with 4 more plaintiffs and a change of arguments, that was now essentially Chuck Michel's personal work product.

 

[Gray Peterson]

There are now 6 carry cases at the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

There is Richards v. Prieto, Peruta v. County of San Diego, Baker v. Honolulu Police (HI), Mehl v. Blanas (Gorski), Rothery v. Blanas (Gorski), and Birdt v. Baca.

In the district courts, there is:

There is also Jacobs v. Reed/San Jose PD (Gorski in CAED), two or three more Birdt-represented cases in CACD, plus Nichols v. Redondo Beach.

 

[press1280]

Hmmm...

Of the CA cases at circuit and district, how many are related - not in the strict legal sense perhaps, but in the sense of what they are asking?

Will these all get consolidated, or will Peruta and Richards move forward and the others get remanded based on Peruta/Richards?

 

[Al Norris]

We now have an answer for the question asked by press1280, back in June.

Appellants’ Notice of Additional Related Cases and Status Therof

The Peruta attorneys are noticing the court of all the cases that are somewhat related and are suggesting that all but Peruta and Richards be stayed. They are suggesting that a decision in these two cases will make or break the other cases. Think, Judicial Economy.

 

[Patrick]

Many eggs. Two baskets.

 

[krucam]

09/24/2012 94 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: SM): Pursuant to the Motion for Clarification & Coordination of Appeals in Related Cases filed by Appellants in 10-56971, it is hereby ORDERED that arguments in 10-56971, 11-16255, and 12-16258 will be scheduled to be heard by the same panel on the same day. The date and time of the arguments will be determined in due course by subsequent order. [8335002] [10-56971, 11-16255, 12-16258] (SM)

So it is written...so it shall, ah, forget that...

Peruta (10-56971), Richards (11-16255) & Baker (12-16258) are set to be argued before the same panel on the same day, that is yet TBD.

 

[press1280]

9th circuit calendar is booked until mid-November, hopefully these cases get late November.

 

[esqappellate]

9th circuit calendar is booked until mid-November, hopefully these cases get late November.

i would be shocked if they got an argument this year.

 

[Funtimes]

i would be shocked if they got an argument this year.

When we spoke to the clerk, they signaled first week in December. Whether or not that holds true, we won't know until we really know heh.

*Note* This was relayed to me by my attorneys when he called and spoke with the head clerk. Since all 3 of us (Richards, Baker, Peruta) will be on the same day - it will apply to them if the person was correct.

 

[esqappellate]

When we spoke to the clerk, they signaled first week in December. Whether or not that holds true, we won't know until we really know heh.

*Note* This was relayed to me by my attorneys when he called and spoke with the head clerk. Since all 3 of us (Richards, Baker, Peruta) will be on the same day - it will apply to them if the person was correct.

That would be great if it happens. Thanks for the update

 

[Gray Peterson]

That would be great if it happens. Thanks for the update

Now scheduled for December 6th at 9AM in the 9th Circuit Courthouse (Browning Courthouse) in San Francisco.

Luckily for you folks, Southwest Airlines fired the first salvo in an airfare war, so you might be able to get a flight from IAD, DCA, or BWI for cheap to San Francisco. I also suggest Virgin America Airlines.

-Gray

 

[esqappellate]

Now scheduled for December 6th at 9AM in the 9th Circuit Courthouse (Browning Courthouse) in San Francisco.

Luckily for you folks, Southwest Airlines fired the first salvo in an airfare war, so you might be able to get a flight from IAD, DCA, or BWI for cheap to San Francisco. I also suggest Virgin America Airlines.

-Gray

I like going to SF; I have been there many times. But it is best when it is on someone else's dime. Besides, you can get the tape from the 9th Circuit, unlike the DC circuit.

 

[wolfwood]

Do you guys have an idea of how hectic these hearing are going to be? I've never attended a appellate argument but I can't imagine they attract a lot of people. 1 being no different from Circuit Court on any given day. 10 being thousands of pro gun and anti gun people hosting rallies outside the court. I am just curious

 

[press1280]

Do you guys have an idea of how hectic these hearing are going to be? I've never attended a appellate argument but I can't imagine they attract a lot of people. 1 being no different from Circuit Court on any given day. 10 being thousands of pro gun and anti gun people hosting rallies outside the court. I am just curious

Kind of doubt there will be a bunch of antis there, maybe just a few talking heads from the Bradys is about all I would expect.