Ezell v. Chicago (SAF/Gura)

Plaintiffs lack standing under the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution because none of the Plaintiffs suffered an injury-in-fact and, in the alternative, the injuries alleged were not caused by the actions or conduct of Defendant.
Click to expand...

Obviously they have a different grasp of english or are living on some alternate plane of existance. This sentence would be laughable under almost any other circumstances.

Are we to assume they believe their laws were passed by someone else? Willful ignorance and more bad faith on the part of Chicago..
 
Last edited:
So, I read: they weren't hurt and we didn't do it.
Like, they didn't suffer under the Chicago law and we didn't write the law.
Geez, what a bunch of numbskulls.

Rick
 
Given the amount of information and knowledge the city is lacking, how did they have enough knoweldge to generate the regulation.

It appears the lack of knowledge makes the regulations arbitary and capricious. Might want admend the fileing and seek a summary judgement based on the admision that the City does not have enough information and knowledge to regulate the ranges.

I think it is going to be fun in the courtroom.
 
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 §1983.

Defendant: Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 22.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I thought they had no money to fight these cases?

Oh, right, tomorrow I have to make a payment on my parking tickets so they can spend money bantering back and forth for years in the courts.

I am obviously no lawyer, but am just as fed up with Chicago's laws as anyone else.
 
Chicago has a serious budget shortfall as does Cook County. Mayor Eman is short on cash but he won't raise property taxes for fear of being thrown out of office.

Tickets, fines and fees are becoming abother thing - like gun control, that only affects law abiding citizens in Chicago / Cook County. There is a whole class of people now in Chicago that just don't pay any fines, tickets or fees... they just say screw it.

City Hall is willing to shut down the CTA to try to save a few bucks, but I guess it's OK to to pay the city lawyers in perpetuity for this kind of horse ****...




.
 
City Hall is willing to shut down the CTA to try to save a few bucks, but I guess it's OK to to pay the city lawyers in perpetuity for this kind of horse ****...
Click to expand...

Ha! If only Chicago was just paying city attorneys. Chicago is going to hire outside law firms with that taxpayer money and pay them to fight this every step of the way. And doing my best imitation of a psychic, I predict that they mayoral campaign will receive generous donations from the lawyers at these firms.
 
Being a lawyer for the city or a law firm for the city is like getting a no-bid contract.

Big bucks $$$ :)

There isn't much of a way to combat it except with public opinion.

If the ISRA had the money they could run ads showing how much money is being wasted on the effort it might have a slight impact.

The money being spent on this could be used to hire more police officers, fix the broken down sqaud cars or even add more sqaud cars to the fleet. A lot of ways the money could be spent to enhance public safety if that's what they're claiming that they're worried about.
 
Let's look at the timeline of what's happened in this case:

Complaint was filed.
Injunctive relief was motioned for (MPI).
TRO was motioned for.
MTD was motioned for.
Fought off consolidation with Benson.
MPI's denied.
Appealed to 7th Circuit.

That's the record.

We now need to get into the record, the merits of the lawsuit. This will be done with MTD's and cross-MSJ's, after the ordinary Standing and Associational Standing and ripeness arguments are made (by way of the Reply to the Response)

Expect an MTD from Chicago, right after the reply to the response is filed. Also expect Gura/Sigale to file an MSJ right after that. <- all of this before "discovery" starts, despite the orders from the court, setting up the timeline. Chicago will then file their cross-MSJ.

Chicago has pretty much ignored the previous timelines/orders and I expect them to continue with this. On the other hand, Gura/Sigale have respected the timelines and look what it got them. I don't expect them to make that mistake twice.

All of this will force Judge Kendall's hand. The rope being played out, is not just to Chicago. Gura/Sigale want to get back to the 7th again, but with more of a record than they had last time.

Now, having said all of that, something has popped up in another case that some people think might have a (bad) bearing on Ezell II. In Benson v. Chicago, there is a joint statement where Benson and Chicago have stipulated that Count III is now moot and should be stricken from the complaint. Count III is the Gun Range Ban.

Despite the hand-wringing (on other websites), I don't believe this will affect Ezell II one bit.

The ILA attorney failed to amend that portion of their complaint when the laws changed, whereas Ezell did. That is their (Benson) mistake and Chicago is now properly enforcing a point of mootness. All this does is to show that the ILA is still not up to the task of properly strategizing civil rights litigation.

Of course, I'm just an amateur at these things. What do I know about how the court works or of litigation strategies?
 
How long does Judge Kendall get to string this out? It seems obvious to me that she has no problem with letting the proceedings go on for as long as the City cares to go. At some point, does Gura get to demand that the Court get on the ball?

Maybe I'm seeing this wrong, but it strikes me that the judge is entirely on the side of Chicago, but knows that there's not a legal leg to stand on. So, she's willing to just let the case carry on forever, effectively keeping the ordinances in effect as if there had been no challenge at all.
 
Both Judge Kendall and Chicago are relying upon the technicality that the Firing Range Ban has been dropped from the law.

Judge Kendall knows that the mandate from the 7th puts her on notice. That's why she dismissed Chicago's MTD for mootness. She knows that the current ordinances are a virtual ban, but she wants the suit to play out.

Chicago, on the other hand, has played a very stupid hand by responding to the complaint as if there is no record before the court.

I suspect the Plaintiffs can play this in one of several different ways. None of which bode well for Chicago. All of which will force Judge Kendall's hand. Look at what she is up against:

The plaintiffs asked the district court to enjoin the enforcement of Chicago Municipal Code § 8-20-280—the prohibition on “hooting galleries, firearm ranges, or any other place where firearms are discharged.” They are entitled to a preliminary injunction to that effect. ... ... To be effective, however, the injunction must also prevent the City from enforcing other provisions of the Ordinance that operate indirectly to prohibit range training. Similarly, the injunction should prohibit the City from using its zoning code to exclude firing ranges from locating anywhere in the city.
Click to expand...


The above is from pg 49 of the Certified Decision. It is the second part that the judge virtually ignored. All the plaintiffs have to show is that the current ordinances indirectly prohibit ranges, by being so burdensome that a range could not operate as a business.

Considering the onerous requirements, it will be a cakewalk. Comparatively speaking.
 
Looks like Ezell has awakened!
03/23/2012 134 MOTION by Plaintiffs Action Target, Inc., Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. for protective order and to quash depositions (Sigale, David) (Entered: 03/23/2012)

03/23/2012 135 NOTICE of Motion by David G. Sigale for presentment of motion for protective order 134 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 4/3/2012 at 09:00 AM. (Sigale, David) (Entered: 03/23/2012)

03/23/2012 MOTION by Plaintiffs Action Target, Inc., Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. to quash deposition subpoenas and notices. (Omitted Relief from motion 134 .) (smm) (Entered: 03/26/2012)

03/25/2012 136 MOTION by Plaintiffs Action Target, Inc., Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. to compel discovery responses (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defendant's Answers to Interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit Defendant's Responses to Request for Production, # 3 Exhibit Defendant's Answers to Request to Admit)(Sigale, David) (Entered: 03/25/2012)

03/25/2012 137 NOTICE of Motion by David G. Sigale for presentment of motion to compel, 136 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 4/3/2012 at 09:00 AM. (Sigale, David) (Entered: 03/25/2012)

03/26/2012 138 TRANSMITTED to the USCA for the 7th Circuit supplemental record on appeal 81[RECAP] (USCA no. 10-3525) consisting of one volume of transcripts. (smm) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
Click to expand...

#134 is plaintiffs complaining about the tactics the defendants are using that amounts to duplicative depositions and outright harassment of the plaintinffs and their witnesses.

#136 is the plaintiffs playing tit-for-tat, Chicago style, in compelling the depositions for all 50 aldermen who had any part in or voted for the new revised ordnances.

#138 is simply telling the appeals court what the heck is going on, at the district court, by supplementing the record (perhaps for later use at appeals?).

This bit of activity would appear to be aimed at forcing Judge Kendall's hand.
 
Here are the filings in this game of tit-for-tat. Please read them carefully.

2012-04-03 139 MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Plaintiff's motion for protective order 134 and to quash depositions is denied for the reasons stated on the record in open court. Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses 136 is entered and briefed as follows: Response by 4/17/2012. Plaintiff to reply by 4/24/2012. Ruling will be made by mail. Fact Discovery is extended and ordered closed by 6/29/2012. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 9/21/2012. Responses due by 10/19/2012. Replies due by 11/9/2012. Ruling will be made by mail. Expert discovery cut off set for 8/31/2012. Status hearing stricken for 4/23/2012 and reset for 7/9/2012 at 09:00 AM. The Court allows two (2) hours more for each deposition. Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
2012-04-05 140 MOTION by Plaintiff Rhonda Ezell to quash Subpoenas (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Muchoney, Andrew) (Entered: 04/05/2012)
2012-04-05 141 NOTICE of Motion by Andrew Athis Muchoney for presentment of motion to quash 140 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 4/12/2012 at 09:00 AM. (Muchoney, Andrew) (Entered: 04/05/2012)
2012-04-12 142 MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall: MOTION by Plaintiff Rhonda Ezell to quash Subpoenas 140 is denied for the reasons stated on the record in open court. Alternative motion for protective order is granted. The subpoena is narrowed to July.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
2012-04-17 143 RESPONSE by City Of Chicagoin Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiffs Action Target, Inc., Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. to compel discovery responses 136 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Worseck, Andrew) (Entered: 04/17/2012)
2012-04-16 144 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case referred to the Honorable Morton Denlow pursuant to Local Rule 72.1 to perform such additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States: Motion to compel 136 . Signed by Executive Committee on 4/16/12.(smm) (Entered: 04/18/2012)
2012-04-18 145 MINUTE entry before Honorable Morton Denlow:This matter has been referred to Judge Denlow for ruling on a pending motion. If no briefing schedule has been set or if no briefing is desired, the parties are to notice the motion up on Mondays or Wednesdays at 9:15 a.m. Judge Denlow does not desire briefs on discovery disputes. Otherwise, the parties are to appear for status or argument at 10:00 a.m. on 5/10/2012. Mailed notice (ldg, ) (Entered: 04/18/2012)
2012-04-23 146 MINUTE entry before Honorable Morton Denlow:Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery responses 136 is set for 5/2/2012 at 09:15 AM.Mailed notice (ldg, ) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
2012-04-23 147 MINUTE entry before Honorable Morton Denlow:Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery responses 136 set for 5/2/2012 is stricken. Status hearing set for 5/10/2012 at 10:00 A.M. to stand.Mailed notice (ldg, ) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
2012-04-24 148 REPLY by Action Target, Inc., Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. to MOTION by Plaintiffs Action Target, Inc., Joseph I. Brown, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. to compel discovery responses 136 (Sigale, David) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
Click to expand...

Normally, disputes at discovery are handled by a magistrate judge. This is something that Judge Kendall should have ordered, right out of the gate. She didn't. Instead, she has personally handled this discovery dispute and sided almost exclusively with the City.

So notice that 3-26 entry (Doc #138)? The transmittal of a supplemental record? That was not Gura, as I had previously supposed. This action was taken by the Chief Clerk of the District Court. He does not act on his own. I strongly suspect that someone at the 7th ordered this, because of the nature of what was sent: The transcript of the open court proceedings of Oct. 26th. The result of that hearing, was the denial of the injunction mandated by the Circuit.

Then on Apr. 16th, we have Doc #144, an EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER, assigning the discovery dispute to a magistrate.

This suggests to me that someone in a much higher pay grade, has just slapped the hands of Judge Kendall. Her bias is evident, at least to me. It will be telling if this case does not go back to her.
 
The City looks (depending on your view) either grossly incompetent or like they have no basis to defend the law... No science.. nothing..

#136 was laughable... I loved reading it..
 
Last edited:
Then on Apr. 16th, we have Doc #144, an EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER, assigning the discovery dispute to a magistrate.

This suggests to me that someone in a much higher pay grade, has just slapped the hands of Judge Kendall. Her bias is evident, at least to me. It will be telling if this case does not go back to her.
Click to expand...
Does anyone know what the Executive Committee is? Is it at the circuit level or at the district level?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top