Viramontes v. Cook County - SAF challenges Cook Co. Weapon ban

[Upholder]

It advances the timeline.   We're one step closer to a point where SCOTUS may hear the case.

[tricolor]

On 3/1/2024 at 2:39 PM, Upholder said:

It advances the timeline.   We're one step closer to a point where SCOTUS may hear the case.

This is true - fingers crossed that the Supremes take one of these bans sooner rather than later 

[Euler]

Bevis hasn't had a trial yet. The Bevis/Barnett ruling was on the preliminary injunction.

Friedman is final, but the Supreme Court denied its petition for certiorari back in 2016.

[Upholder]

 

[springfield shooter]

On 3/1/2024 at 3:39 PM, Euler said:

Bevis hasn't had a trial yet. The Bevis/Barnett ruling was on the preliminary injunction.

Friedman is final, but the Supreme Court denied its petition for certiorari back in 2016.

 

How does this (or does it) affect the Bevis/Barnett case in the Southern District? Would McGlynn be bound by a ruling by another district level judge?

[Euler]

Barnett isn't bound by Viramontes. The northern district isn't superior (in the legal sense) to the southern district.

[springfield shooter]

On 3/1/2024 at 6:01 PM, Euler said:

Barnett isn't bound by Viramontes. The northern district isn't superior (in the legal sense) to the southern district.

 

Thank you.

[Euler]

On March 15, FPC filed notice of its intent to appeal to CA7.

I'll post a CA7 docket reference when I know it.

[mab22]

On 3/15/2024 at 7:13 PM, Euler said:

On March 15, FPC filed notice of its intent to appeal to CA7.

I'll post a CA7 docket reference when I know it.

Does this mean Eastercrock and his fellow black robes get to let the dementia fuel another ridiculous ruling? 

[Euler]

However you want to look at it, a (supposedly) random 3-judge panel (which may or may not include Easterbrook) of CA7 will rule on the Viramontes appeal. Whichever way the panel goes, it's a sure bet that there will be a petition for rehearing en banc. An en banc rehearing would definitely include Easterbrook, because en banc means everybody.

[JTHunter]

Euler, even if they go en banc, how likely would Easterbrook's influence be diluted or diminished?  Or would it be reinforced by additional liberals in the full court?

[Euler]

The Bevis/Barnett precedent at CA7 is now that Friedman is good law under Bruen. That's what will matter.

[mab22]

Spoiler alert, Friedman needs to be overruled by SCOTUS?

 

[Euler]

Viramontes is now a fully litigated case that gives CA7 a chance to double down on Friedman. None of the other Illinois AWB cases have even started litigation. Barnett is the closest to start, since it's in discovery, but it's only in discovery because McGlynn has been metaphorically cracking the whip to keep everything moving

IMO Barnett will still probably be the best case ("vehicle") for the AWB issue, if the Supreme Court denies cert to the petitions it currently has, particularly because of how intently McGlynn appears to want to demonstrate specifically how stupid Friedman is. Viramontes might screw that up, because of the timing. I wonder if the best move might be to have the plaintiffs ask to stay Viramontes to wait for Barnett, because obviously the state is going to appeal Barnett.

[Euler]

On March 22, CA7 assigned the appeal docket number 24-1437.

[Euler]

On April 3, defendants filed their CA7 docketing statement, including that one of the original plaintiffs, Rubi Joyal, voluntarily removed himself from the district case on April 25, 2022. Since he was removed without prejudice (i.e., without a prohibition on renewing his claims), that means that the district judgment entered on March 1 was technically not a final judgment. Because Joyal has not filed any independent lawsuit, his claims have not been fully adjudicated, making this case ineligible for appeal.

On April 4, CA7 ordered plaintiffs to respond by April 17 why this case should not be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, based on the ineligibility for appeal.

[Silhouette]

This seems like quite an unforced error (or suggests some strange shifts in politics).  Is there a way to recover from this with an additional filing from Joyal?

[Euler]

Legal procedure is the real reason to hire an attorney. I'm not sure what Viramontes' options are. The point of formalized procedure is to insure legal issues are resolved. It's perverse when procedure is used to insure that they can't even be addressed.

[Silhouette]

This is a fascinating mess.  There is an article here detailing a similar situation in the 5th circuit (not binding on anything here) suggesting some strategies, but it is clearly going to be complex.
https://finaldecisions.org/avoiding-but-not-disarming-the-finality-trap/

 

Short summary:  Joyal's claims were presumably dismissed under Rule 41 meaning the decision can't now be declared final -- even if the district court tries to do so under Rule 58,.  Also, the court probably can't go back and use rule 54b (lots of gymnastics with this one) to get around the issue.  The recommended approach, which is not guaranteed to work, would be to have Joyal bindingly disclaim the right to reassert the claims.  

 

[Euler]

On April 17, plaintiffs answered the court's order regarding jurisdiction.

Memorandum said:

...
Specifically, a jurisdictional problem arises (1) when a district court dismisses a complaint without prejudice to refiling but the dismissed party elects to appeal instead, and (2) where some of a party's claims are determined on the merits but others (usually of lesser importance) remain to be tried, and the party seeks to dismiss the latter to render the more important claims appealable. ...

This case fits into neither of these scenarios, and the reasons for denying appellate jurisdiction in other cases are inapplicable here. The ordinary concern, that parties will manufacture finality prematurely in an attempt to secure appellate review, ..., is inverted here: how could Plaintiff-Appellants ever secure a final decision appropriate for appellate review if, in addition to litigating their claims completely in the district court against all Defendants, they were at the whim of a non-appealing Plaintiff who bowed out of the litigation at an earlier stage?
...

On April 18, the court ordered defendants to respond by April 26.

Edited April 18, 2024 at 11:20 PM by Euler

[Euler]

On April 26, defendants responded to the plaintiffs' memo regarding jurisdiction.

Response said:

...In sum, Joyal’s fully-informed agreement to convert his dismissal without prejudice into a dismissal with prejudice should suffice to make the judgment final and appealable.

[Euler]

On May 15, with the issue of Joyal's dismissal settled, the judge set the following schedule:

Jun 24: Plaintiffs' brief due
Jul 24: Defendants' response brief due
Aug 14: Plaintiffs' reply brief, if any, due

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

Correct me if I am wrong. 

Viramontes has been ruled on March 1st in favor of the gubbamint at the district level and has been appealed to the 7th circuit.   USCA Case No. 24-1437

Edited June 25, 2024 at 02:52 PM by AlphaKoncepts aka CGS

[Upholder]

FPC has filed their brief with the 7th Circuit appeals court:

2024.06.24_14_Brief_of_Plaintiffs-Appellants_(FPC).pdf

[davel501]

On 6/25/2024 at 1:00 PM, Upholder said:

FPC has filed their brief with the 7th Circuit appeals court:

2024.06.24_14_Brief_of_Plaintiffs-Appellants_(FPC).pdf 1.6 MB · 3 downloads

 

 

Love it!

[Euler]

On June 25, 2024 at 09:41 AM CDT, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:→

Correct me if I am wrong.

Viramontes has been ruled on March 1st in favor of the gubbamint at the district level and has been appealed to the 7th circuit. USCA Case No. 24-1437

On March 22, 2024 at 11:20 PM CDT, Euler said:→

On March 22, CA7 assigned the appeal docket number 24-1437.

[Euler]

On June 24, the plaintiffs filed their appellant brief. (I haven't read it.)

[Euler]

On July 17, defendants filed a motion for extension to file the response.

On July 18, the court granted an extension as follows:

August 28: defendants' response due
September 18: plaintiffs' reply due

[Euler]

On August 28, defendants met the deadline to file their response. The response was restricted access by the court.

On August 29, the court released the restrictions, making the response public. [I haven't read it.]

[Euler]

On September 3, plaintiffs filed a motion to extend the time to file their reply to the government's response. The court granted the motion and extended the due date for the reply to October 18.

Also amicus briefs started coming on September 4. (amicus Illinois; amici New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai'i, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington)