Chicago v Glock

[Euler]

As expected, on June 10 Glock filed a motion to dismiss.

Unexpected, however, is that Glock filed a notice to AG Raoul that it intends to file a challenge to have portions of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505) declared unconstitutional, "because it interferes with interstate commerce, is unconstitutionally vague, and violates the Second Amendment."

Chicago: Let's file a frivolous lawsuit to bankrupt Glock.
Glock: Challenge accepted.
Raoul: WUT?

[Flynn]

On 6/13/2024 at 12:57 AM, Euler said:

As expected, on June 10 Glock filed a motion to dismiss.

Unexpected, however, is that Glock filed a notice to AG Raoul that it intends to file a challenge to have portions of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505) declared unconstitutional, "because it interferes with interstate commerce, is unconstitutionally vague, and violates the Second Amendment."

Chicago: Let's file a frivolous lawsuit to bankrupt Glock.
Glock: Challenge accepted.
Raoul: WUT?

 

Good for Glock...

[JamesW]

Does anyone know when they will actually file the counter?

[Euler]

For the time being, I believe the motion to dismiss is the constitutional challenge. If certain conditions are met during the consideration of the motion, things could get spicier.

[Euler]

On June 8, 2024 at 11:02 PM CDT, Euler said:→

...
On April 26, the judge granted the extension and set the following schedule, as proposed in the motion:

June 10: Glock's response brief due, which will be a motion to dismiss
July 25: Chicago's response to Glock's motion due
August 26: Glock's reply to Chicago's response due

On June 28, Chicago asked for an extension, despite previously proposing the existing schedule.

[Euler]

On July 1, the judge granted an extension to August 2 to file a status report.

[Euler]

On July 22, Chicago filed notice to dismiss the case voluntarily.

[steveTA84]

Everytown/Chicago refiled in state court

https://everytownlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2024/07/2024.07.22-Complaint-Chicago-v.-Glock-et-al.pdf

 

Remember all of the gold I dug up on Rochford and O’Brien, especially being endorsed and bankrolled by Everytown (and Rochford lobbying with them)? If this hits the ILSC, gonna be spicy if Glock sees the conflicts of interest 

 

https://www.mom-at-arms.com/post/major-hurdle-for-the-il-supreme-court-justice-who-upheld-the-il-gun-ban

[Euler]

On July 22, 2024 at 03:53 PM CDT, Euler said:→

On July 22, Chicago filed notice to dismiss the case voluntarily.

On July 23, the judge accepted the voluntary dismissal and closed the case without prejudice.

On July 23, 2024 at 12:19 PM CDT, steveTA84 said:→

Everytown/Chicago refiled in state court
...

The original case was also originally filed in state court.

On June 8, 2024 at 11:02 PM CDT, Euler said:→

Chicago originally filed the case in Cook County Circuit Court on March 19.

On April 17, Glock had the case removed to the Federal District Court of Northern Illinois. ...

Assuming the state accepts it, Glock can just have it removed again. Sooner or later the courts will catch on that dismissing and refiling is not an acceptable way to have a case remanded.

[steveTA84]

If it’s accepted and moves through the state court, we can do a major push again though regarding O’Brien and Rochford, and Glock has the resources to really fight it 

[Euler]

The docket number is 2024-CH-06875 in Cook County Circuit Court for the complaint filed July 22, 2024.

The defendants are:
Glock Inc.
Glock GMBH (Glock Inc's parent company)
Eagle Gun Club LLC, Range Plus LLC, 5900 LLC (collectively dba Eagle Sports Range)
Midwest Sporting Goods