Peruta v. San Diego

Status
Not open for further replies.
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 .
Click to expand...

I believe the rule says

A party seeking to intervene must act as soon as he knows or has reason to know that his interests might be adversely affected by the outcome of the litigation.
Click to expand...

But I'm quoting from the order not Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24.

That sentence - "A party seeking to intervene must act as soon as he knows or has reason to know that his interests might be adversely affected by the outcome of the litigation" doesn't mean they can choose not to act until one party litigates poorly. How is it that everyone knew what was at stake, except for Kamala Harris?

But anyway, really what I am wondering is if the issue of examining 28 U.S.C. § 2403 / Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 is predicated first on establishing timeliness - meaning, if the court finds that Kamala Harris' petition was not filed in a timely manner then the issue of 28 U.S.C. § 2403 / Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 will not even be considered.
 
I was under the impression that the order denied the motion both procedurally (timeliness) and substantively (that the constitutionality of a state statue is not in issue and therefore the AG has no interest in the litigation sufficient to warrant allowing her intervention). So at this point, she has three barriers to success: 1. she must get the panel to reconsider or the Circuit to grant en banc; 2. if en banc review is granted, the she must show she was timely, and
3. That she has a protectable interest in the litigation, contrary to the express holding of the majority in the Peruta decision. If and when she gets all three, then and only then will the panel hear her petition for en banc review, after which there will be an opportunity for a justice to request en banc and the Circuit to vote on that request. Meanwhile, Sheriff Prieto's application for en banc review remains stayed pending the ultimate finality of Peruta at the circuit level.
 
Sheriff Prieto's application for en banc review remains stayed pending the ultimate finality of Peruta at the circuit level.
Click to expand...

Yes and really Richards is just riding the coat tails of Peruta . If the AG fails here . Then Peruta will be remanded down and it would seem that Richards would then have to follow Peruta's precedent . I mean how many time has a court ruled on something , it become final then just a month or two later reverse it self in another case ? That can't be to common :confused:

The other thing that can and likely happen is while waiting for the Peruta decision . The 9th moves forward with Richards . Then over turn Richards , vacating or mooting Peruta .

Or is that possible ? The fact Richards is waiting on Peruta . Can they move forward with Richards if Peruta is not final? Not sure on the rules for that type of thing .
 
Both the responses about intervention and rehearing are due within 21 days of the order, so the documents will be in hand just before Christmas.

I understand the judges have either 14 or 21 days to make up their minds about what to do. One opinion on another blog was that EACH decision could consume 14-21 days.

I guess that the intervention decision will have to come first, for without that, there is nobody to argue Gore's position unless Harris is allowed to. Unless they have a draft pick, TBA, on tap.

So they string out a decision to decide on Harris 14-21 days after December 24. Then they decide about Harris. That will take another 14-21 days (?). If she loses, it would appear a rehearing of Peruta is off the table, as would be an appeal to SCOTUS. If they decide to let Harris intervene, the 9th's reputation for judicial buffoonery will be enhanced and...

Then they string out a decision to rehear Peruta 14-21 days. If rehearing is denied, Harris will spend money CA doesn't have and go to SCOTUS for cert. I dunno, we find out in the middle of 2015 or a little later if cert is granted or denied?

If rehearing is approved, the decision can be unpublished immediately after and it will take another couple of years to finally decide.

Delay is victory for the statists. They bleed their enemy further and get to keep their scheme running. All that matters is winning or delaying. Either works.

Sigh.

Methinks the judge who called for sua sponte en banc is pretty sure Harris will be approved to intervene. There is this smell in the air.
 
That sounds about right . I have another thought on the en-banc and why a judge called for it . Now this is just a thought so here it goes . The judge called for it knowing San Diego has no representation , Gore has already put in writing he will no longer appeal the case . Remember Richards was put on hold pending the out come of this case . Richards has already asked for en-banc and all sides are represented in that case .

My thinking is the court will say something like Peruta is inadequately represented for en- banc therefore we shall put Peruta on hold and continue with Richards because there is representation on both sides . That's the way they get around letting the AG intervene . You know they want to let her in but also know letting her intervene is a leap .
 
Given the recent civil unrest over race relations, I would expect those on the 9th in agreement with Thomas will be aghast at the thought of the citizenry having a right to carry concealed weapons. Whether it be intellectually dishonest or not, I expect the court will vote to hear the appeal en banc, even if the state is not permitted to participate as a party. California/Harris will be allowed to take part as amici.
 
From the Firearms Policy Coalition amicus brief by Benbrook, this is pretty solid:

The California Attorney General’s office has long taken the position that plaintiffs who sue over a county’s policy for issuing concealed carry permits lack standing to sue the Attorney General because it “has no role in CCW license decisions.” Answering Br. of Appellee Atty. Gen. of the State of Cal. at 3, Mehl v. Blanas, No. 08-15773 (9th Cir. Oct. 15, 2008), Dkt. Entry 6675648. In Mehl, the Attorney General argued—in a brief filed in this Court, concerning a constitutional challenge to the Sacramento County sheriff’s handling of CCW license applications—that plaintiffs “lack[ed] standing as to the Attorney General because their alleged injuries are not traceable to any action or authority of the Attorney General.”
Click to expand...

But what is maddening is that logical arguments don't matter when it comes to result-oriented jurisprudence.
 
Well, logic mattered to the Peruta panel. It remains to be seen whether the sua sponte en banc request gets any traction. The sua sponte en banc request is problematic in a number of ways. We have yet to see whether the atty. Gen. is granted intervenor status for one thing.

For another thing, when the case was first started five years ago she argued vehemently (and successfully) that since no law was implicated and since she had no authority to grant or deny licenses that no one should have standing to sue the state. The AG argued that only sherrifs and police has the discretion to grant or deny permits therefore only they could be named as defendants.

But Sheriff Gore has bowed out, declining to continue the fight, leaving no one to argue the other side.

Then there is the sound reasoning of the Peruta ruling itself. The judicial and logical contortions required to unravel this Heller/McDonald/Moore-based ruling would be quite a grotesque spectacle indeed.

Even the most overturned circuit court of appeals in the land doesn't want that egg on their face. Not when they could simply punt it to the Supreme Court using less eyebrow raising means. Judges on the ninth circuit who may be keen to undo Peruta are in quite a pickle, as they must check their brains, reputations, and judicial integrity at the courthouse door to accomplish it.
 
I heard that past arguments them selves don't carry much weight , only the rulings do . I assume it's because one will say anything to win a case even if you don't believe it , so it would make sense not to put much weight into them .

That being said I do believe there was a ruling agreeing with the AG when she made that argument so lets see if that carries any weight .
 
Past arguments made by potential litigants in same or identical cases such as Peruta/Baker/Richards do carry weight with regard to their standing in those cases. A party can't even bring up new arguments on appeal not previously raised, let alone make an opposite argument in the same case(s).
 
So does anyone have any idea what is happening with this case now? It seems that every time there's a time frame for some sort of decision it comes and goes with nothing happening. Just how long can they string this out for?

I've even had to check the "old thread warning" box to post this it's been so long! :eek:
 
From everything I've read about time lines . The court should have completed the vote on weather to go En-banc or not . We are just waiting for the results . Some are speculating that we are waiting on a very long dissent ( either way ) that is being written up now .


Like this dissent
http://notabug.com/kozinski/silveira_v_lockyer

A party can't even bring up new arguments on appeal not previously raised, let alone make an opposite argument in the same case(s).
Click to expand...

I did not mean in the same case . I was saying if the AG argued in a case 5 years ago that ( insert issue here ) was not a state issue . Then this year a similar case came up and she argued that the new case did impact the state . The new plaintiffs will not get far sighting her arguments from 5 years ago because the ruling is what matters in the 5 year old case not so much what the attorneys argued . Yes you can raise the issue of the arguments but the judges will just look at the courts ruling to see if they agreed or not . The rulings rule the day not the arguments
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top