Flynn Posted October 22, 2022 at 07:38 PM Share Posted October 22, 2022 at 07:38 PM (edited) On 10/18/2022 at 1:24 AM, Euler said: I'm pretty sure neither side is open to that kind of compromise. Post Bruen the time for 'compromise' is now entirely over, it's time for the courts to fully enforce the protections of the 2nd! A judge should not even be asking or offering a compromise on a right, that to me shows the judge know how they must rule and are attemptiong to weasel out of that ruling, and that is deplorable in itself! Edited October 22, 2022 at 07:40 PM by Flynn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted October 29, 2022 at 05:38 PM Share Posted October 29, 2022 at 05:38 PM On 10/22/2022 at 2:38 PM, Flynn said: Post Bruen the time for 'compromise' is now entirely over, it's time for the courts to fully enforce the protections of the 2nd! A judge should not even be asking or offering a compromise on a right, that to me shows the judge know how they must rule and are attemptiong to weasel out of that ruling, and that is deplorable in itself! I was thinking about this yesterday: Why ask the parties to settle when neither party would agree to it? It makes me wonder if the judge knows the AWB is unconstitutional, really doesn't want to strike it down, and is hoping beyond hope that there's another way. There isn't, of course, and she's gonna have to do her job. But that's my take on the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted October 29, 2022 at 05:45 PM Share Posted October 29, 2022 at 05:45 PM On 10/29/2022 at 1:38 PM, MrTriple said: ... Why ask the parties to settle when neither party would agree to it? ... Because every case should seek settlement instead of judgement. The judge would be derelict not to ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted October 29, 2022 at 06:02 PM Share Posted October 29, 2022 at 06:02 PM On 10/29/2022 at 12:45 PM, Euler said: Because every case should seek settlement instead of judgement. The judge would be derelict not to ask. But have we seen this before in a 2A case? This request seemed a bit out of the blue, and perhaps a bit naive if anyone honestly believes Cook County would ever settle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted October 29, 2022 at 06:10 PM Share Posted October 29, 2022 at 06:10 PM On 10/29/2022 at 2:02 PM, MrTriple said: But have we seen this before in a 2A case? ... This event was a status meeting, not a trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted October 29, 2022 at 07:40 PM Share Posted October 29, 2022 at 07:40 PM On 10/29/2022 at 12:45 PM, Euler said: Because every case should seek settlement instead of judgement. The judge would be derelict not to ask. I would argue when it's a 'civil right' being challenged, proposing a settlement that likely still infringes on others but the involved parties may accetp is the derelict option vs enforcing the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted October 29, 2022 at 08:00 PM Share Posted October 29, 2022 at 08:00 PM On 10/29/2022 at 3:40 PM, Flynn said: I would argue when it's a 'civil right' being challenged, proposing a settlement that likely still infringes on others but the involved parties may accetp is the derelict option vs enforcing the right. That's on the litigants, not the judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted October 29, 2022 at 10:20 PM Share Posted October 29, 2022 at 10:20 PM On 10/29/2022 at 3:00 PM, Euler said: That's on the litigants, not the judge. Sorry but I beg to differ that a judge should allow a civil rights violation to continue because an isolated plantiff settles, happens or not, procedure or not, that is part of what is wrong with our judicial system, abuses of civil rights are allowed to continue due to quirks like settlements that don't set precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted October 29, 2022 at 10:42 PM Share Posted October 29, 2022 at 10:42 PM On 10/29/2022 at 6:20 PM, Flynn said: Sorry but I beg to differ that a judge should allow a civil rights violation to continue because an isolated plantiff settles, happens or not, procedure or not, that is part of what is wrong with our judicial system, abuses of civil rights are allowed to continue due to quirks like settlements that don't set precedent. For a judge to declare a civil rights violation proactively is the definition of an activist judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hetzen Posted November 1, 2022 at 02:20 AM Share Posted November 1, 2022 at 02:20 AM So when should we get a decision in this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted November 1, 2022 at 03:02 AM Share Posted November 1, 2022 at 03:02 AM On 10/31/2022 at 10:20 PM, hetzen said: So when should we get a decision in this case? Not before January. On 10/14/2022 at 2:47 PM, Euler said: At the status meeting, the judge set a preliminary schedule. Expert discovery to conclude by November 28, 2022 Dispositive motions to be filed by January 19, 2023 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elbow4074 Posted December 11, 2022 at 11:12 PM Share Posted December 11, 2022 at 11:12 PM Are there any other milestones on this case aside from expert discovery concluding and dispositive motions being filed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted December 11, 2022 at 11:26 PM Share Posted December 11, 2022 at 11:26 PM On 12/11/2022 at 6:12 PM, elbow4074 said: Are there any other milestones on this case aside from expert discovery concluding and dispositive motions being filed? Presumably there will be a hearing or trial eventually, unless the parties settle first. Nothing has been scheduled yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elbow4074 Posted December 11, 2022 at 11:30 PM Share Posted December 11, 2022 at 11:30 PM On 12/11/2022 at 5:26 PM, Euler said: Presumably there will be a hearing or trial eventually, unless the parties settle first. Nothing has been scheduled yet. Got it, thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted December 24, 2022 at 06:14 AM Share Posted December 24, 2022 at 06:14 AM On December 23, the City of Highland Park filed a motion to combine Goldman v Highland Park - AWB into this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted December 29, 2022 at 12:05 AM Share Posted December 29, 2022 at 12:05 AM (edited) I noticed, with some prodding, that there's been no link to the docket posted here yet. Docket Now there is. Edited December 29, 2022 at 12:06 AM by Euler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted December 29, 2022 at 12:26 AM Share Posted December 29, 2022 at 12:26 AM Thank you, I find all of those links helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted January 7, 2023 at 03:26 AM Share Posted January 7, 2023 at 03:26 AM (edited) On December 29, the judge ordered the plaintiffs to respond by January 6 to the motion to combine Highland Park's case with this one. On January 6, both the plaintiffs for this case (Viramontes et al.) and the plaintiffs for the Highland Park case (Goldman et al.) responded. (I haven't read the responses.) The reply from the defendants (both cases) is due January 13. Edited January 7, 2023 at 03:33 AM by Euler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davel501 Posted January 7, 2023 at 09:31 PM Share Posted January 7, 2023 at 09:31 PM The reply states that they do not object to combining the cases but it seems impractical to since the cases are at such different phases. If they are combined the Highland Park case cannot be allowed to slow the existing case. Basically, the plaintiffs don't object if it results in a summary judgement in their favor on both cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted January 20, 2023 at 02:46 AM Share Posted January 20, 2023 at 02:46 AM Naperville has moved to consolidate Bevis v Naperville with this case: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.406666/gov.uscourts.ilnd.406666.65.0.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted January 31, 2023 at 11:29 PM Share Posted January 31, 2023 at 11:29 PM Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Stay: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.406666/gov.uscourts.ilnd.406666.70.0_1.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted February 1, 2023 at 04:14 PM Share Posted February 1, 2023 at 04:14 PM Meaning, if the stay is granted, this case would be paused while the cases challenging the statewide ban are litigated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted February 6, 2023 at 12:35 AM Share Posted February 6, 2023 at 12:35 AM On February 1, defendants asked for more time to file dispositive motions. On February 3, the parties agreed that defendants would respond to the motion to stay by February 15 and that the plaintiffs would reply to the response by February 22. The deadline for defendants to file dispositive motions is set to 14 days after the court rules on a stay. A hearing on the motion to stay is scheduled for March 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonap Posted February 6, 2023 at 01:18 AM Share Posted February 6, 2023 at 01:18 AM Why did, "...the parties...", agree to this? Obviously, another stall tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davel501 Posted February 6, 2023 at 01:21 AM Share Posted February 6, 2023 at 01:21 AM On 2/5/2023 at 7:18 PM, Talonap said: Why did, "...the parties...", agree to this? Obviously, another stall tactic. What does it matter? The plaintiffs are trying to stall the case until the state awb is struck down rather than get mooted and have to start over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted February 6, 2023 at 01:23 AM Share Posted February 6, 2023 at 01:23 AM On 2/5/2023 at 8:18 PM, Talonap said: Why did, "...the parties...", agree to this? Obviously, another stall tactic. The judge set a schedule. No one objected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted February 16, 2023 at 05:18 PM Share Posted February 16, 2023 at 05:18 PM Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.406666/gov.uscourts.ilnd.406666.75.0.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted February 22, 2023 at 11:52 PM Share Posted February 22, 2023 at 11:52 PM Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.406666/gov.uscourts.ilnd.406666.76.0.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaKoncepts aka CGS Posted February 28, 2023 at 02:23 PM Share Posted February 28, 2023 at 02:23 PM Because of Naperville, March 8th hearing scheduled in VIRAMONTES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbunt32 Posted February 28, 2023 at 02:53 PM Share Posted February 28, 2023 at 02:53 PM On 2/28/2023 at 8:23 AM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said: Because of Naperville, March 8th hearing scheduled in VIRAMONTES I continue to have this feeling that the Naperville case is going to screw this whole thing up. Yes, it's just the preliminary injunction at this point but without that this litigation will take years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now