Search

Press Releases

2/15/2017 - NRA Got Spanked for Valentine’s Day!

2/3/2017 - President Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch

1/24/2017 -A Concealed Carry Case SCOTUS Can’t Refuse

1/23/2017 -President Trump’s Judicial Opportunity and Conundrum

1/13/2017 -NRA Tells Supreme Court Open Carry is Perverse

1/11/2017 - NRA Drops Supreme Court Concealed Carry Appeal

12/30/2016 - NRA Asks US Supreme Court To Hear Two Concealed Carry Lawsuits

12/10/2016 - National Concealed Carry Snake Oil Law Will Fail

11/29/2016 - What Lies Ahead for the Second Amendment?

11/10/2016 - The Second Amendment and President Trump

10/03/2016 - A Federal 9th Circuit Judge Finally Finds a Right to Bear Arms in Public

9/28/2016 - Are You Protected by the Fourth Amendment if You Carry a Firearm?

9/20/2016 - Two Concealed Carry Cases Fire Blanks in U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

9/8/2016 - Another Second Amendment Appeal Crashing and Burning in 9th Circuit

8/24/2016 - Concealed Carry Snake Oil and Kool-Aid Peddlers Leave Town for DC

8/18/2016 - The NRA Files Legal Challenge To California Open Carry Bans – But Not Really

8/17/2016 - The Battle for the Second Amendment Moves to Hawaii

8/15/2016 - There is No Right to Concealed Carry – 9th Circuit Denies Full Court Petitions

8/5/2016 - Did California Lie to 11 Federal Judges in Second Amendment Lawsuits?

7/15/2016 - God Save The US From The Second Amendment Lawyers

7/8/2016 - NRA Segregation Now, Tomorrow, and Forever Position Must Fail

7/4/2016 - Try Recalling California’s Anti-Gun Politicians Before Starting Your Revolution

6/27/2016 - NRA Head Wayne LaPierre Really, Really Hates the Second Amendment

6/24/2016 - Judges Who Uphold Bans on Concealed Carry Are Not the Same as Judges Who Look the Other Way When Police Murder People in the Street

6/15/2016 - Where is the NRA’s California Open Carry Lawsuit?

6/13/2016 - What’s Next for the Right to Carry Firearms in Public?

6/8/2016 - Florida Supreme Court Justices Voice Contempt for the Second Amendment

6/5/2016 - Florida Supreme Court to Hear Second Amendment Carry Case with National Ramifications

5/17/2016 - The Second Amendment and the Concealed Carry Problem

5/11/2016 - Federal Court of Appeals Goes Berserk During Second Amendment Gun Case Hearing

5/10/2016 - California Supreme Court Shoots Itself In Foot Over Gun Case

4/25/2016 - Second Amendment Foundation Files Another Concealed Carry Lawsuit: May Backfire

4/13/2016 - Has the NRA Come to Bury the Second Amendment or to Defend It? -

4/6/2016 - Second Amendment Must Wait A Bit Longer In 9th Circuit

3/26/2016 - Concealed Carry of Concealable Firearm in a Vehicle Now a Crime of Moral Turpitude

3/21/2016 - Supreme Court decision wasn’t about stun guns – It was about the Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller which is bad news for concealed carry

3/7/2016 - How to Stop Anti-Gun Bills in California from Becoming Law

3/3/2016 - The California Supreme Court Case Which Could Upend the Gun-Groups Concealed Carry Lawsuits

2/24/2016 - The Second Amendment - Checkmate in Four Moves?

2/10/2016 - Why California's Waiting Period to Purchase a Firearm Will Be Upheld

2/3/2016 - Florida House of Representatives Passes Handgun Open Carry Bill

1/27/2016 - The NRA Thinks Not Getting Caught In A Lie Is The Same Thing As Telling The Truth

12/11/2015 - Why Were the San Bernardino Shooting Victims Unarmed?

11/20/2015 - Attorney Alan Gura May Have Fumbled Another Second Amendment Case

11/20/2015 - HELP WANTED: Competent Second Amendment Lawyer - Inquire Within

11/9/2015 - The Supreme Court may have Finally Found its Next Second Amendment Case

9/2/2015 - Full Derp Battle over Concealed Carry in District of Columbia

9/1/2015 - National Rifle Association Drops Lawsuit against San Francisco

8/31/2015 - The Future of the Second Amendment in California and Hawaii

8/25/2015 - Yes, America, the Second Amendment is a Universal Right!

8/14/2015 - Will this be the Supreme Court’s Next Second Amendment Case?

7/3/2015 - The Future of Open Carry in California Looks Bright

6/16/2015 - State of California Concedes Second Amendment Extends Outside the Home

6/8/2015 - The Second Amendment is Now in the Hands of these Eleven Judges

6/8/2015 - Supreme Court Won’t Hear Second Amendment Cases Until there is a Circuit Split

5/29/2015 - NRA Opposes Open Carry – NRA Now Takes Credit for New Texas Handgun Open Carry Law

5/26/2015 - Four Years Ago Today: Is Open Carry The Right Guaranteed By The Second Amendment

5/18/2015 - Why the Second Amendment Keeps Losing in Court

5/2/2015 - Black Panther Party Invades California Capitol – 48 Years Ago Today

5/1/2015 - The NRA Rearranges Deck Chairs on the Titanic

4/22/2015 - Chief Judge of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Grants Motion of Lone Voice Defending the Second Amendment Open Carry Right

4/11/2015 - An Open Letter to the Orange County Register's Editorial on Concealed Carry

4/03/2015 - Another Shoe Drops on the California Concealed Carry Lawsuits

2/27/2015 - Federal Judge Says No Second Amendment Right To Own Firearms

12/6/2014 - The First Shoe Drops On California Concealed Carry Lawsuits

11/30/2014 - Open Carry Gunfight At The California Corral: Start Of Year Four

11/30/2014 - California Open Carry Gunfight Begins Its Fourth Year

11/12/2014 - California Concealed Carry Permits - The Fat Lady Still Hasn’t Sung in Peruta v. San Diego

10/17/2014 - It may be Legal to Carry a Handgun in the Nation’s Capitol by Christmas

10/3/2014 - Another California Concealed Carry Lawsuit Loses before a Federal Judge

8/18/2014 - District of Columbia asks Court for More Time to Enact New Handgun Carry Ban

8/13/2014 - California Concealed Carry Case Peruta v. San Diego – Poised to Move or Stuck in the Mud?

7/30/2014 - Federal Judge Reluctantly Stays his Ruling in DC Handgun Ban

7/28/2014 - The DC Handgun Carry Decision – Throwing Victory into the Jaws of Defeat

7/26/2014 - Ban on Carrying Firearms in Public is Unconstitutional says DC Judge

7/21/2014 - The non-repeal of D.C., Gun-Control

7/2/2014 - US Supreme Court Still Silent On Second Amendment

6/28/2014 - Federal Judge Says Minorities Barred From Bringing Civil Rights Lawsuits

6/7/2014 - The NRA Supports Open Carry Except When The NRA Opposes Open Carry

6/2/2014 - NRA Lawyer Says California Concealed Carry Decision Likely To Be Overturned

6/1/2014 - NRA leadership Comes Out Of The Closet In Its Opposition To Open Carry

Please donate $10, $25, $50 or $100 to the legal fund to restore your right to openly carry a loaded firearm in California.

Click here to donate to the legal fund

(Credit or Debit cards – Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover or eCheck)

Please donate $10, $25, $50 or $100 to the fight to restore your right to openly carry a loaded firearm in California.

Click here to donate.

(Credit or Debit cards – Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover or eCheck)

1AdtAJfcdBkA777fwtVhmCwSwCKGTFrgGz Press@CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

Garcia v. Becerra (formerly Harris) Brought to you by CalGuns.nuts - LOST

Share

Garcia v. Harris (CalGuns.nuts)

The case was dismissed with prejudice.  An appeal has been filed.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 16-56125

On May 1, 2016 it will be two years since district court judge S. James Otero issued his final judgment in my California Open Carry lawsuit. A lawsuit which contained a number of legal challenges including various rational basis challenges.

I filed an opening brief attached to a motion to exceed the type volume limitations in which I cited Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F. 3d 1052 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (2002) ten times.  Unlike the other so called gun-rights groups, I’m using 9th Circuit and US Supreme precedents regarding rational basis review to attack the laws I am challenging in my California Open Carry lawsuit on every level and from my initial filing in the district court until my California Open Carry lawsuit cannot be taken any higher.

Brandon Combs of CalGuns.nuts must have read my briefs given nobody else had cited Silveria before I did in a post-Heller Second Amendment case.  It must have eventually occurred to him that he too could file a lawsuit under the same legal theory because here we are, he filed a lawsuit today (April 14, 2016) seeking to strike down part of the California Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995 which exempts retired police officers.

Combs told his furry footed, pointy headed minions at the CalGuns.nuts forum that he went to Sacramento and told the various powers that be that if they passed various bills, including the bill which removed the automatic exemption for CCW holders to carry on school grounds he would file a lawsuit to eliminate all retired police officer exemptions wherever they may be.
Combs, which is to say CalGuns, his front group the FPC, the Madison Society (famous for filing the worst Amicus brief I ever read anywhere in the Peruta en banc) and a bunch of his pointy headed associates just filed a lawsuit to strike down the retired police officer exemption (PC 626.9(o)) here in the Central District.
If there is a god, this case will be assigned to Judge Otero and Segal will be the magistrate judge.
I can hardly wait to write my Amicus brief.  😀

P.S. Combs didn’t tell the Kool-Aid drinkers at CalGuns.nuts that his “foundation” paid him around $$48,188.45 for his brief trip to Sacramento in 2013.
P.P.S. I just gave the Complaint a thorough read. There are numerous defects in the pleading, not the least of which is they plaintiffs forgot to tell the court why they have legal standing to obtain the relief they requested (lawsuits get dismissed for lack of standing quite often).

Here is a link to the Complaint.  Given the number of fatal defects in the Complaint I suspect that it will be replaced and perhaps replaced sooner than later.  Perhaps even before AG Harris files a motion to dismiss instead of an Answer.

The case was dismissed with prejudice.  An appeal has been filed.  Here is the Order dismissing the Complaint with prejudice.

CalGuns.nuts

Friends don’t let friends belong to CalGuns.nuts




Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 22,  2017 – There is a new briefing schedule for the appeal.  The docket as of today is below.  I won’t be following this case very closely.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – August 8,  2016 – This is odd.  The hearing was still scheduled to take place today when I last checked it five days ago.  And so I checked the docket only to discover that not only was the motion to dismiss granted on Friday, it was granted with prejudice.  By law, a plaintiff is allowed to file at least one amended complaint unless the complaint is frivolous or otherwise incapable of amendment.  The judge said the complaint is incapable of amendment.  A notice of appeal has already been filed.

From the date of filing to a dismissal with prejudice was just 3 months and 22 days.  This must be a new record.

As much as I dislike CalGuns.nuts and would like to blame their shoddy lawyering for the loss, any competent judge would know that the court of appeals is going to eventually kick this case back to the district court judge.  Which means Judge O’Connell is either playing politics or is incompetent, or both.

Order dismissing Complaint with prejudice.




General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 16-56125 Docketed: 08/08/2016
Nature of Suit: 3950 Constitutionality of State Statutes
Ulises Garcia, et al v. Kamala Harris
Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Central California, Los Angeles
Fee Status: Paid
Case Type Information:
     1) civil
     2) private
     3) null
Originating Court Information:
     District: 0973-2 : 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM
     Court Reporter: Hilda Avila, Court Reporter Supervisor
     Trial Judge: Beverly Reid O’Connell, District Judge
     Date Filed: 04/14/2016
     Date Order/Judgment:      Date Order/Judgment EOD:      Date NOA Filed:      Date Rec’d COA:
     08/05/2016      08/05/2016      08/08/2016      08/08/2016
Prior Cases:
     None
Current Cases:
     None

 

ULISES GARCIA
Plaintiff – Appellant,
Bradley A. Benbrook, Attorney
Direct: 916-447-4900
[COR LD NTC Retained]
Benbrook Law Group
400 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814Stephen M. Duvernay, Attorney
Direct: 916-444-7573
[COR LD NTC Retained]
Klinedinst PC
801 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
JORDAN GALLINGER
Plaintiff – Appellant,
Bradley A. Benbrook, Attorney
Direct: 916-447-4900
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Stephen M. Duvernay, Attorney
Direct: 916-444-7573
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)
BRIAN HILL
Plaintiff – Appellant,
Bradley A. Benbrook, Attorney
Direct: 916-447-4900
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Stephen M. Duvernay, Attorney
Direct: 916-444-7573
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)
BROOKE HILL
Plaintiff – Appellant,
Bradley A. Benbrook, Attorney
Direct: 916-447-4900
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Stephen M. Duvernay, Attorney
Direct: 916-444-7573
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)
CRAIG DELUZ
Plaintiff – Appellant,
Bradley A. Benbrook, Attorney
Direct: 916-447-4900
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Stephen M. Duvernay, Attorney
Direct: 916-444-7573
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)
SCOTT DIPMAN
Plaintiff – Appellant,
Bradley A. Benbrook, Attorney
Direct: 916-447-4900
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Stephen M. Duvernay, Attorney
Direct: 916-444-7573
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)
ALBERT DUNCAN
Plaintiff – Appellant,
Bradley A. Benbrook, Attorney
Direct: 916-447-4900
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Stephen M. Duvernay, Attorney
Direct: 916-444-7573
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)
TRACEY GRAHAM
Plaintiff – Appellant,
Bradley A. Benbrook, Attorney
Direct: 916-447-4900
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Stephen M. Duvernay, Attorney
Direct: 916-444-7573
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)
LISA JANG
Plaintiff – Appellant,
Bradley A. Benbrook, Attorney
Direct: 916-447-4900
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Stephen M. Duvernay, Attorney
Direct: 916-444-7573
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)
DENNIS SERBU
Plaintiff – Appellant,
Bradley A. Benbrook, Attorney
Direct: 916-447-4900
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Stephen M. Duvernay, Attorney
Direct: 916-444-7573
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)
MICHAEL VEREDAS
Plaintiff – Appellant,
Bradley A. Benbrook, Attorney
Direct: 916-447-4900
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Stephen M. Duvernay, Attorney
Direct: 916-444-7573
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)
FIREARMS POLICY FOUNDATION
Plaintiff – Appellant,
Bradley A. Benbrook, Attorney
Direct: 916-447-4900
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Stephen M. Duvernay, Attorney
Direct: 916-444-7573
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)
FIREARMS POLICY COALITION
Plaintiff – Appellant,
Bradley A. Benbrook, Attorney
Direct: 916-447-4900
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Stephen M. Duvernay, Attorney
Direct: 916-444-7573
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)
MADISON SOCIETY FOUNDATION
Plaintiff – Appellant,
Bradley A. Benbrook, Attorney
Direct: 916-447-4900
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Stephen M. Duvernay, Attorney
Direct: 916-444-7573
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)
THE CALGUNS FOUNDATION
Plaintiff – Appellant,
Bradley A. Benbrook, Attorney
Direct: 916-447-4900
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Stephen M. Duvernay, Attorney
Direct: 916-444-7573
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)
   v.
KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California
Defendant – Appellee,
Mark Randolph Beckington, Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Direct: 213-897-1096
[COR LD NTC Dep State Aty Gen]
California Department of Justice
Suite 1702
300 S. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013John Darrow Echeverria, Attorney
Direct: 213-897-4902
[COR LD NTC Dep State Aty Gen]
California Department of Justice
Suite 1702
300 S. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013

ULISES GARCIA; JORDAN GALLINGER; BRIAN HILL; BROOKE HILL; CRAIG DELUZ; SCOTT DIPMAN; ALBERT DUNCAN; TRACEY GRAHAM; LISA JANG; DENNIS SERBU; MICHAEL VEREDAS; FIREARMS POLICY FOUNDATION; FIREARMS POLICY COALITION; MADISON SOCIETY FOUNDATION; THE CALGUNS FOUNDATION,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

v.

KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California,

Defendant – Appellee.

08/08/2016  1 
16 pg, 1.5 MB
DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Mediation Questionnaire due on 08/15/2016. Transcript ordered by 09/07/2016. Transcript due 12/06/2016. Appellants Craig DeLuz, Scott Dipman, Albert Duncan, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Jordan Gallinger, Ulises Garcia, Tracey Graham, Brian Hill, Brooke Hill, Lisa Jang, Madison Society Foundation, Dennis Serbu, The Calguns Foundation and Michael Veredas opening brief due 01/17/2017. Appellee Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General answering brief due 02/16/2017. Appellant’s optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. [10079288] (JN) [Entered: 08/08/2016 02:33 PM]
08/15/2016  2 
4 pg, 1.93 MB
Filed (ECF) Appellants Craig DeLuz, Scott Dipman, Albert Duncan, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Jordan Gallinger, Ulises Garcia, Tracey Graham, Brian Hill, Brooke Hill, Lisa Jang, Madison Society Foundation, Dennis Serbu, The Calguns Foundation and Michael Veredas Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 08/15/2016. [10086630] [16-56125] (Benbrook, Bradley) [Entered: 08/15/2016 10:30 AM]
08/22/2016  3 
2 pg, 194.68 KB
Filed Mediation order: This case is NOT SELECTED for inclusion in the Mediation Program. Counsel may contact circuit mediator to discuss services available through the court’s mediation program, to request a settlement assessment conf, or to request a stay of the appeal for settlement purposes. Also, upon agreement of the parties, the brfing sch can be modified or vacated to facilitate settlement discussions. Csl are requested to send copies of this order to their clients. Info regarding the mediation program may be found at www.ca9.uscourts.gov/mediation. [10095812] (CL) [Entered: 08/22/2016 03:13 PM]
01/05/2017  4 
3 pg, 208.6 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellants Craig DeLuz, Scott Dipman, Albert Duncan, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Jordan Gallinger, Ulises Garcia, Tracey Graham, Brian Hill, Brooke Hill, Lisa Jang, Madison Society Foundation, Dennis Serbu, The Calguns Foundation and Michael Veredas Unopposed Motion to extend time to file Opening brief until 04/03/2017. Date of service: 01/05/2017. [10256081] [16-56125] (Benbrook, Bradley) [Entered: 01/05/2017 02:08 PM]
01/13/2017  5 
2 pg, 34.65 KB
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: TAH): The appellant’s motion (Docket Entry No. [4]) for an extension of time in which to file the opening brief is denied without prejudice to a renewed motion that includes the declaration set forth at Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(b). The parties are informed that extensions of time for filing briefs are granted only upon the showing of good cause, and not by stipulation. 9th Cir. R. 31-2.2(b). In the absence of a renewed motion, the opening brief will be due January 23, 2017, the answering brief will be due February 22, 2017, and the optional reply brief will be due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. [10265519] (WL) [Entered: 01/13/2017 01:28 PM]
01/13/2017  6 
8 pg, 243.24 KB
Filed (ECF) Appellants Craig DeLuz, Scott Dipman, Albert Duncan, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Jordan Gallinger, Ulises Garcia, Tracey Graham, Brian Hill, Brooke Hill, Lisa Jang, Madison Society Foundation, Dennis Serbu, The Calguns Foundation and Michael Veredas Unopposed Motion to extend time to file Opening brief until 04/03/2017. Date of service: 01/13/2017. [10265869] [16-56125] (Duvernay, Stephen) [Entered: 01/13/2017 03:28 PM]
01/17/2017  7 
1 pg, 183.99 KB
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: th): Granting the Appellant’s Unopposed Renewed Motion [6] (ECF Filing) to extend time to file the opening brief. The appellants’ opening brief is due 04/03/2017. Appellee Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General answering brief due 05/03/2017. The optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. [10267078] (TH) [Entered: 01/17/2017 10:18 AM]

 

 

 

 


 



2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Ulises Garcia et al v. Kamala Harris
Beverly Reid O’Connell, presiding
Alexander F. MacKinnon, referral
Date filed: 04/14/2016
Date terminated: 08/05/2016
Date of last filing: 08/08/2016

History

 

Doc.
No.
Dates Description
21
Filed & Entered:   08/08/2016
Docket Text Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
20
Filed & Entered:   08/05/2016
Docket Text Order on Motion to Dismiss
19
Filed & Entered:   07/25/2016
Docket Text Reply (Motion related)
16
Filed & Entered:   07/18/2016
Docket Text Objection/Opposition (Motion related)
17
Filed & Entered:   07/18/2016
Docket Text Objection/Opposition (Motion related)
18
Filed & Entered:   07/18/2016
Docket Text Proof of Service (subsequent documents)
14
Filed & Entered:   06/10/2016
Terminated: 08/05/2016
Docket Text Motion to Dismiss (cause or other)
15
Filed & Entered:   06/10/2016
Docket Text Request for Judicial Notice
13
Filed & Entered:   05/11/2016
Docket Text Stipulation Extending Time to Answer (30 days or less)
12
Filed & Entered:   04/27/2016
Docket Text Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days)
11
Filed & Entered:   04/20/2016
Docket Text Summons Issued (Attorney Civil Case Opening)
4
Filed & Entered:   04/18/2016
Docket Text Notice of Assignment to United States Judges(CV-18) – optional html form
5
Filed & Entered:   04/18/2016
Docket Text Notice to Parties of Court-Directed ADR Program (ADR-8) – optional html form
6
Filed & Entered:   04/18/2016
Docket Text Initial Order upon Filing of Complaint – form only
7
Filed & Entered:   04/18/2016
Docket Text Notice of Deficiency in Request to Issue Summons
8
Filed & Entered:   04/18/2016
Docket Text Deficiency in Attorney Case Opening – optional html form
9
Filed & Entered:   04/18/2016
Docket Text Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties
10
Filed & Entered:   04/18/2016
Docket Text Summons Request
1
Filed & Entered:   04/14/2016
Docket Text Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening)
2
Filed & Entered:   04/14/2016
Docket Text Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71)
3
Filed & Entered:   04/14/2016
Docket Text Summons Request

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – August 3,  2016 – Nothing new.  It looks like the motion to dismiss hearing is still scheduled for Monday.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 28,  2016 – New activity.  The motion to dismiss hearing is scheduled for August 8th.

19 – CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL KAMALA D. HARRIS’S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT

Full docket text for document 16:
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION To Motion To Dismiss re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Complaint [14] filed by Plaintiffs Craig DeLuz, Scott Dipman, Albert Duncan, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Jordan Gallinger, Ulises Garcia, Tracey Graham, Brian Hill, Brooke Hill, Lisa Jang, Madison Society Foundation, Dennis Serbu, The Calguns Foundation, Michael Veredas. (Benbrook, Bradley)

Full docket text for document 17:
PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION To Defendant’s Request For Judicial Notice In Support Of Motion To Dismiss re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Complaint [14] filed by Plaintiffs Craig DeLuz, Scott Dipman, Albert Duncan, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Jordan Gallinger, Ulises Garcia, Tracey Graham, Brian Hill, Brooke Hill, Lisa Jang, Madison Society Foundation, Dennis Serbu, The Calguns Foundation, Michael Veredas. (Benbrook, Bradley)

Full docket text for document 19:
REPLY in Further Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Complaint [14] filed by Defendant Kamala D. Harris. (Echeverria, John)

Doc.
No.
Dates Description
19
Filed & Entered:   07/25/2016
Docket Text Reply (Motion related)
16
Filed & Entered:   07/18/2016
Docket Text Objection/Opposition (Motion related)
17
Filed & Entered:   07/18/2016
Docket Text Objection/Opposition (Motion related)
18
Filed & Entered:   07/18/2016
Docket Text Proof of Service (subsequent documents)

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 12,  2016 – Nothing new but there is a local rule for the Central District requiring a decision on motions within 120 days.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 30,  2016 – Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 27,  2016 – Nothing new.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 11,  2016 – Motion to dismiss and Request for Judicial Notice filed.  14 – Motion to Dismiss 15 – Request for Judicial Notice

Doc.
No.
Dates Description
14
Filed & Entered:   06/10/2016
Docket Text Motion to Dismiss (cause or other)
15
Filed & Entered:   06/10/2016
Docket Text Request for Judicial Notice

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 27,  2016 – Nothing new since May 11th, which is odd given that failure to file a timely Answer to a Complaint can result in a default judgment.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 17,  2016 – Nothing new, which is odd given that failure to file a timely Answer to a Complaint can result in a default judgment.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 11,  2016 – Extensions of  time are supposed to be requested via a motion.  Instead, a stipulation of time to extend the date to file the Answer was filed.  Judges have sanctioned lawyers for presuming they can set the schedule for the court.  We’ll see what happens here.

Doc.
No.
Dates Description
13
Filed & Entered:   05/11/2016
Docket Text Stipulation Extending Time to Answer (30 days or less)

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 29,  2016 – Well, this CalGuns.nuts lawsuit is stumbling as it leaves the starting gate.  The Plaintiffs’ attorney has already been smacked with two notices of deficiencies including one threatening sanctions for noncompliance with the local rules.  The judge assigned to this case is an Obama appointee, Beverly Reid O’Connell.

Full docket text for document 7:
NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Request to Issue Summons RE: Summons Request, [3]. The following error(s) was found: The caption of the summons must match the caption of the complaint verbatim. If the caption is too large to fit in the space provided, enter the name of the first party and then write see attached.Next, attach a face page of the complaint or a second page addendum to the Summons. The summons cannot be issued until this defect has been corrected. Please correct the defect and re-file your request. (jtil)

Full docket text for document 8:
NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening. The following error(s) was found: No Notice of Interested Parties has been filed. A Notice of Interested Parties must be filed with every partys first appearance. See Local Rule 7.1-1. Counsel must file a Notice of Interested Parties immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 83-7. (jtil)

 

 

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 14,  2016 – Complaint filed.

 




2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Ulises Garcia et al v. Kamala Harris
Beverly Reid O’Connell, presiding
Alexander F. MacKinnon, referral
Date filed: 04/14/2016
Date terminated: 08/05/2016
Date of last filing: 08/08/2016

History

 

Doc.
No.
Dates Description
21
Filed & Entered:   08/08/2016
Docket Text Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
20
Filed & Entered:   08/05/2016
Docket Text Order on Motion to Dismiss
19
Filed & Entered:   07/25/2016
Docket Text Reply (Motion related)
16
Filed & Entered:   07/18/2016
Docket Text Objection/Opposition (Motion related)
17
Filed & Entered:   07/18/2016
Docket Text Objection/Opposition (Motion related)
18
Filed & Entered:   07/18/2016
Docket Text Proof of Service (subsequent documents)
14
Filed & Entered:   06/10/2016
Terminated: 08/05/2016
Docket Text Motion to Dismiss (cause or other)
15
Filed & Entered:   06/10/2016
Docket Text Request for Judicial Notice
13
Filed & Entered:   05/11/2016
Docket Text Stipulation Extending Time to Answer (30 days or less)
12
Filed & Entered:   04/27/2016
Docket Text Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days)
11
Filed & Entered:   04/20/2016
Docket Text Summons Issued (Attorney Civil Case Opening)
4
Filed & Entered:   04/18/2016
Docket Text Notice of Assignment to United States Judges(CV-18) – optional html form
5
Filed & Entered:   04/18/2016
Docket Text Notice to Parties of Court-Directed ADR Program (ADR-8) – optional html form
6
Filed & Entered:   04/18/2016
Docket Text Initial Order upon Filing of Complaint – form only
7
Filed & Entered:   04/18/2016
Docket Text Notice of Deficiency in Request to Issue Summons
8
Filed & Entered:   04/18/2016
Docket Text Deficiency in Attorney Case Opening – optional html form
9
Filed & Entered:   04/18/2016
Docket Text Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties
10
Filed & Entered:   04/18/2016
Docket Text Summons Request
1
Filed & Entered:   04/14/2016
Docket Text Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening)
2
Filed & Entered:   04/14/2016
Docket Text Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71)
3
Filed & Entered:   04/14/2016
Docket Text Summons Request

 

Share