Peruta v. San Diego

Status
Not open for further replies.
No fat ladies , this is far from over . There is something like 36+ judges on the 9th . Any one of them can ask to rehear . IMHO the ruling destroys the dissent but I can see more then a few judges on the 9th agreeing with the dissent . No way this is over .
 
Metal god said:
No fat ladies , this is far from over . There is something like 36+ judges on the 9th . Any one of them can ask to rehear . IMHO the ruling destroys the dissent but I can see more then a few judges on the 9th agreeing with the dissent . No way this is over .
Click to expand...
Does anybody know how long the window is open for an en banc review?
 
The Betting at Calguns

Ran through the threads this morning and it appears the weight of those opinions is:
+ Harris has been denied standing for her active disinterest in the case until Gore gave up. The case law cited in the denial and the facts make it very unlikely she could gain standing at the 9th or with SCOTUS.
+ En banc at the 9th, even on sua sponte, has a big glitch...there is no one to argue for the defense without Harris or Gore.
+Peruta is likely to stand. It doesn't hurt that it is part of decisions in other circuits, notably the DC circuit. That case may get interesting on 11.22.14 if the judge finds the "may issue" law passed by the Council inadequate and tosses it. That is going to weigh against CA agencies that want to ignore Peruta
+Richards and/or Baker can be granted en banc, but must show Peruta was flawed as the substance of the current decisions is "you lose, see Peruta".
+If Peruta stands, San Diego must comply. Other agencies currently playing the same game are going to be on thin ice by denying "self-defense". They may decide the cost of a lawsuit is not worth it, and just slow-roll applications, but there is a statutory limit to that, which invites a civil suit.

The proggies in CA are running out of other people's money. Political buffoonery on CCW may be enough of a loser that they stop fighting "self-defense" and look for other means to issue as few permits as possible.
 
Usually, the timing for a sua sponte en banc is 21 days, which would have started yesterday.

The court has latitude to play with that number to extend it, or will take it if they want.

Given the glitch in the pursuing en banc on Peruta, which would require overruling the panel on the denial of intervention to Harris et al, it seems unlikely. Legal Buffoonery of that level seems too hard, even for the 9th.

More likely is granting en banc on Richards and/or Baker and attack Peruta through them. Both agencies have said they would ask for en banc but have not filed, pending Peruta and the motions. They are running out of time to file, but I dunno how much time they have, or that the stay on San Diego would remain in place.

Gore is said to have started processing "self defense" applications in SD.
 
I don't think they can do sua sponte without someone to defend Gore's position, and there is no one with standing to do that. Gore passed and (I understand) can't change his mind or be compelled, Harris et al are denied.

That said, I have no remote idea why Michel said sua sponte is still on the table.

Richards or Baker can go en banc, but neither agency has filed yet and a review takes a while. The panel can issue its mandate to Gore within 7-14 days (heard both) and if the other cases don't go en banc and renew the stay, the cat will really be amongst the pigeons.

Not only will the 9th be issuing another stay, jerking everyone around, but it also will muck up rulings in other CA's that cite Peruta.

Strange things happen, but I think we are cruising with the tide in our favor.
 
I thought the whole idea of a "sua sponte" en banc call was that the court was doing it itself - not a party. So why would there need to be a party for a sua sponte en banc call?
 
That's my understanding as well . The court/judge can ask to hear and or review the case . They have the option to ask all party"s to respond or they can just review the case with out asking for anything else from either party .

The thing that gets me is the AG was denied the ability to intervene and yet she can still intervene by asking for even more appeals . Seems odd to me why ask to intervene . If granted she was going to ask for en banc anyway , It seems like a waisted step . I assume it's just something she had to do first .
 
I thought the whole idea of a "sua sponte" en banc call was that the court was doing it itself - not a party. So why would there need to be a party for a sua sponte en banc call?
Click to expand...

Someone would have to provide briefs for each side; someone would have to appear for oral arguments.

The appellants would be happy, more or less, to do that.

But if Sheriff Gore refuses to participate (he has directed his legal team not to, http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/04/04/10-56971 - Letter.pdf) and the court has already ruled the applicants to intervene are not eligible, there seems to be no one willing and able to take on the appellee's role.
 
But the Richards case does have defendants who called for en banc. The 9th could basically hear Richards en banc and dissolve Peruta.
 
I don't think there has been a formal filing on either Richards or Baker. Threats, but no paper.

IF today is the day the mandate is supposed to issue, which is in contention, there is not time to issue another stay based on a filing.


I dunno. :confused:
 
I believe when the AG was denied . That started a 14 day clock for her to appeal . The rules say THE LOSING PARTY has 14 day to ask for en-banc . The question seems to be , is the AG a losing party or nobody because she was denied intervening status .

If the losing party does not file a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, a judge may
call for an en banc vote sua sponte so long as it is within 7 days of the expiration of the party’s
time for filing a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. G.O. 5.4(c)(3). This means that the
sua sponte call must ordinarily be made within 21 days
Click to expand...

This means there are two time lines to work off of and no one seems to know which is correct . If by being denied the AG is done in this case . Then the judges have/had 7 days to call for en-banc or to stop the clock so to have more time to get the en-banc vote together . The max the clock can be stopped is only 14 days

How ever if the AG can still appeal the denied intervention . Then that clock does not stop till the 26th and then the judges still have 7 more days from the 26th to either call for en-banc or stop the clock .

Also : I'm not sure Gore's 14 day clock ever started . Yes he put in writing he was done with the case and would not appeal the ruling . How ever does his clock still need to run out or as soon as he stated he would not appeal the judges 7 day clock starts ??? ?

So this could be done tomorrow or could drag on into the first part of Dec

All that being said . Someone on calguns forum just posted that they called the 9th circuit and a clerk informed them the mandate will be handed down on Fri . Now thats a clerk so who knows how accurate that is .
 
Last edited:
Three calls by different people, three different answers with a trend toward issuing the mandate tomorrow.

It also appears that motions for en banc have been filed in Richards and Baker. Any stay that arises from those cases will relate only to those venues, it is said, The rest of the 9th's jurisdiction will have to deal with Peruta as ruling law, exposing bastions like Lost Angles to lawsuits they cannot win if they don't comply. The Legislature may try to pass something new to save their fellow travelers.

And in other news, the Israelis and Russians are both seeing increases in violent crime at the citizen level. Both have announced that among other responses, easing the rules for citizens to carry are going to be made. How about them apples?
 
Motorhead...I should have retracted the comment. Gore is not taking any such action until he gets an order from the local court, which needs the mandate from the 9CA PANEL.

He made an announcement subsequent to the rumor. Pardon me for not correcting things.
 
Can anyone explain the logic to me?

Quoting from the order:

Intervention, both of right and by permission, can occur
only “[o]n timely motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)–(b).
Timeliness is determined with reference to three factors:
“(1) the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks
to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the
reason for and length of the delay.” United States v. Alisal
Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 921 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Cal.
Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v. Commercial Realty
Projects, Inc., 309 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2002)).
Click to expand...

Does this mean that if the other judges deem that Kamala Harris loses on the timeliness issue, then her petition will be denied - meaning 28 U.S.C. § 2403 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 will not be considered because - well because she was too late?

Or is it the case that if she prevails either on her argument for timeliness or in her argument that 28 U.S.C. § 2403 / Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 provides a basis for her intervention, then she will get an en banc hearing on her motion to intervene?
 
My understanding of it is she has asked for en-banc review of her denial to intervene and not the complete decision .That's it at this point , well and not to hand down the mandate which they can do at any time . So what the court must do is determine if they will except or deny that request . As for timeliness . I can see the court saying she did not ask to be apart of the case in a timely manner . How ever I can see them also saying until Gore/San Diego dropped the ball and said they would no longer appeal the case . The AG had no reason to be apart of the case . Gore had been fighting the case tooth and nail from the start . Why would the AG think he was going to just up and quit . I'm sure to her surprise he did just that and as soon as she found out the AG ask to intervene with in the time expected for such an appeal . Maybe it's the independent in me but I see a good argument for both .

Or is it the case that if she prevails either on her argument for timeliness or in her argument that 28 U.S.C. § 2403 / Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 provides a basis for her intervention, then she will get an en banc hearing on her motion to intervene?
Click to expand...

The interesting part of this case is that NO law or statute was attacked or reversed . Only how one person applies it . No laws have changed do to this case so she has no reason to intervene . That makes two good reasons she should be denied . That all being said . It really does not seem like the 9th really cares about the rules or precedent . They tend to see it how they want to see it .

I'm not sure if that helps but there is no real cut and dry answer . It will come down to how the judges interpret what they read . Who knows how the most over turned court in the land will do that :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top