Jump to content

Culp vs Madigan - Lawsuit Filed On Behalf of Non-Residents


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

Can someone post the internet archive link for this case? IRT a Vermont plaintiff, it doesn't matter necessarily in this case since only 4 states' residents are even eligible to apply. Now let's say the state loses and simply lets all other state residents apply (with home state permits only), THEN we need those VT residents. It's worth noting though that PA and NH don't require home state permits for those who live in no-issue states (like VT and DC). IL should recognize this, but who knows if they will.
Vermont, et al, are a moot issue. 430 ILCS 66/40©(2)(B) states:

 

if applicable, has a license or permit to carry a firearm or concealed firearm issued by his or her state or territory of residence and attach a copy of the license or permit to the application;
Vermont, et al, residents would be exempt from submitting a copy of a concealed firearms permit because Vermont doesn't issue them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Molly B., December 19, 2014 at 02:33 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., December 19, 2014 at 02:33 PM - No reason given

The Defendants (the usual suspects) have not filed an answer to the complaint. The complaint was filed on 10/22, that is when the clock begins ticking sans holidays and weekends. They're WAYYYY past 30 days and nothing else on the docket except summons returns, but the district court tolls from the day the complaint is filed, not when the summons is served or returned executed. Technically, unless I'm not seeing private stuff that's on the docket only for the parties and judiciary, Illinois is in default. Myerscough must evaluate Plaintiffs' pleadings and Illinois cannot refute anything. Even if you compute the time to file an answer based on the date summons were issued (10/24), they're still about two weeks late. If Myerscough or the Magistrate do not enter default judgment in favor of Plaintiffs', I would be shocked.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., December 19, 2014 at 02:35 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., December 19, 2014 at 02:35 PM - No reason given
Okay, here's my take on this (after consulting my legal people in Utah). In the interest of justice, a default judgment can easily be overturned. It's probable that communications are going on between the attorneys behind the scenes. Two weeks isn't long enough to be considered egregious. The defendants can always file a motion for an extension, and likely will get it because they only have to show a minimum of good cause. What this is showing is that the defense is having a hard time defending their position. Also, preliminary settlement negotiations may be going on. If a settlement is negotiated, anything less than all nonresidents being able to apply for a SHALL ISSUE permit should be refused.
Link to comment

if this is won and out of state folks are able to apply for the ccw license,

would that mean that any Illinois citizen could apply WITHOUT

having their medical history reported to the ISP?

 

States similar to Illinois....

Wisconsin doesnt have that medical reporting scheme bs,so

if they can get a ccw,well.....

Other states having nothing to do with it.

 

Everyone would have the same requirements and same checks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Molly B., December 19, 2014 at 02:35 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., December 19, 2014 at 02:35 PM - No reason given

Okay, here's my take on this (after consulting my legal people in Utah). In the interest of justice, a default judgment can easily be overturned. It's probable that communications are going on between the attorneys behind the scenes. Two weeks isn't long enough to be considered egregious. The defendants can always file a motion for an extension, and likely will get it because they only have to show a minimum of good cause. What this is showing is that the defense is having a hard time defending their position. Also, preliminary settlement negotiations may be going on. If a settlement is negotiated, anything less than all nonresidents being able to apply for a SHALL ISSUE permit should be refused.

 

There are only 10 docket entries. One being the complaint itself, three disclosures and a cover sheet. five involve summons issued to Defendants. The final docket entry is the return of execution of summons for Jessica Trame on 10/30. If you toll from the date of service of summons and the complaint (on the final defendant), an answer was due last Tuesday, December 2.1 A three-day extension is allowed for if the summons is not electronic, but still would make that December 5. They cannot get out of filing an answer to the complaint. The lack of, well, anything at all is what is egregious, not the time. The fact that no attorney has appeared on behalf of the State is also...odd.

 

1. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i) ('A defendant must serve an answer: (i) within 21 days after being served with the summons and complaint.')

 

This is just...weird. I'm waiting for an attorney appearance on behalf of the State, then some posterior kissing. I just find it odd that they haven't even filed an answer, no AAG has appeared, nothing. It's like the State doesn't even know they've been sued...again. They can negotiate a settlement but the lack of, well, anything makes me leery like IL seems to just be ignoring this case.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
ILCD Local RULE 12.1 STATE OF ILLINOIS – TIME TO ANSWER

In all civil actions in which a claim is asserted against an official, employee, or agency of the

State of Illinois, the defendant must file an answer or otherwise plead within 60 days

after service of process in which the claim is asserted.


They don't have to respond until 12/30.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happens after 60 days if they fail to respond?

 

FRCP Rule 55 governs judgments with subsection © governing when the court may set aside a default judgment. "For good cause" is not "we ignored this." FRCP Rule 55©:

 

Setting Aside a Default or a Default Judgment. The court may set aside an entry of default for good cause, and it may set aside a default judgment under Rule 60(b)"

 

Sigale will (hypothetically) file a Rule 55(B) motion for default judgment, the State would have to file a motion to set aside default judgment, and give the judge a damn good reason why it's unreasonable to expect a response in twice the amount of time provided to...everyone else. Rule 60© can get them out of default but...erm...none of these would apply. Not (B)(1), (B)(2), (B)(3)....and so on.

 

(B) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(B);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

And, for the record, no answer has been filed. What a shocker. They're gonna take this all of the way until the last day, 11:59 pm. They have...well, crap, there's a ton of weekends and holidays that stop the 60 day clock, but I'm ballparking the due date for an answer is early next week at the latest. Nothing filed since 11/22.

 

3:14-cv-03320-SEM-TSH Culp et al v. Madigan et al

Sue E. Myerscough, presiding

Tom Schanzle-Haskins, referral

Date filed: 10/22/2014

Date of last filing: 11/22/2014

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The greedy side of me hopes it takes forever. I hope this goes to SCOTUS. I could see SCOTUS ruling favorably for us on this. The reasoning here is that Oregon is just as bad as Illinois. Oregon is shall issue to its residents, may issue to residents that from states bordering Oregon, and no issue to everybody else. I have family in Oregon that I like to see. I shouldn't have to sacrifice my safety anywhere.

Oregon is an open carry state. Problem solved. Not so with Illinois.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...