Haynie et al v. City of Pleasanton et al

Filing 38

ORDER consolidating cases and motion hearing (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California ZACKERY P. MORAZZINI Supervising Deputy Attorney General ROSS C. MOODY Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 142541 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Telephone: (415) 703-1376 Fax: (415) 703-1234 E-mail: Ross.Moody@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendants Kamala Harris and the California Department of Justice 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 BRENDAN JOHN RICHARDS, THE CV 11-2493 SI CALGUNS FOUNDATION, INC., and THE SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, STIPULATION AND ORDER INC., CONSOLIDATING CASES FOR HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiffs, (Fed.R.Civ. Proc. 42(a)) Date: August 5, 2011 Time: 9:00 a.m. Courtroom: 10 Judge: The Honorable Susan Ilston Trial Date: None Action Filed: May 20, 2011 v. KAMALA HARRIS, Attorney General of California (in her official capacity), CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, OFFICER DEAN BECKER (RP134) and DOES 1 TO 20, Defendants. 23 24 Counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for the California Attorney General and the California 25 Department of Justice (the “State Defendants”) hereby stipulate and jointly request an order 26 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 consolidating this case, Richards v. Harris, Case 27 No. CV 11-2493 SI (“Richards”) with the related case of Haynie v. Harris, Case No. CV 10-1255 28 SI. (“Haynie”) for purposes of considering the State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. A hearing 1 Stipulation And Order Consolidating Cases For Hearing On Motion To Dismiss (Fed.R.Civ. Proc. 42(a).) (CV 11-2493 SI) 1 on the State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in Haynie is currently set for August 5, 2011. Both 2 Plaintiffs and the State Defendants believe that because the legal issues in Haynie and the instant 3 case are identical, it will preserve judicial and party resources to have the two cases consolidated 4 for purposes of adjudicating the Motion to Dismiss. 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 permits a Court to “join for hearing or trial any or all 6 matters” in two actions if the “actions before the court involve a common questions of law or 7 fact.” Both Haynie and Richards present the same legal issues regarding California’s Assault 8 Weapons Control Act and the Department of Justice’s role in enforcing it. The parties agree and 9 stipulate that the legal defenses raised by the State Defendants in their Motion to Dismiss in the 10 Haynie matter are identical to those they would raise in a Motion to Dismiss in Richards, namely, 11 standing and subject matter jurisdiction. The parties further stipulate and agree that the 12 opposition and reply in Richards would be substantially identical to those filed in Haynie. 13 Accordingly, the parties seek an order consolidating Haynie and Richards for purposes of 14 adjudicating the issues presented in the State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss currently set for 15 August 5, 2011, and to deem the motion pleadings in the Haynie action to apply as though also 16 filed in Richards. The parties stipulate that the facts alleged in the Haynie First Amended 17 Complaint, and the facts alleged in the Richards Complaint can be used to support arguments in 18 either or both cases. 19 20 Granting the relief sought will reduce the expenditure of judicial resources, and will not prejudice any party. 21 22 SO STIPULATED. 23 24 Date: June 20, 2011 Date: June 20, 2011 25 26 27 28 /s/ Ross Moody _________________________________ Ross Moody, Counsel for Defendants /s/ Donald Kilmer _______________________________ Donald Kilmer, Counsel for Plaintiffs 2 Stipulation And Order Consolidating Cases For Hearing On Motion To Dismiss (Fed.R.Civ. Proc. 42(a).) (CV 11-2493 SI) 1 FINDINGS AND ORDER 2 Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and a review the Complaint in Richards v. Harris, 3 Case No. CV 11-2493 SI, and the First Amended Complaint in Haynie v. Harris, Case No. CV 4 10-1255 SI, as well as the briefing on the Motion to Dismiss which is complete in Haynie, this 5 Court finds that these actions contain common issues of law and fact, and should be consolidated 6 for hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). 7 The Court also accepts the stipulation of the parties that the Motion to Dismiss briefing 8 filed in the Haynie action should be deemed applicable to the Richards action with respect to 9 Defendants Kamala Harris and the California Department Of Justice; and that the consolidated 10 motion to dismiss in Richards and Haynie will be heard on August 5, 2011 at 9:00 a.m., the date 11 currently set for the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss in Haynie. 12 13 Plaintiffs are directed to serve a copy of this Stipulation and Order on the remaining Defendants in the Richards case. 14 15 16 6/21/11 Dated: ___________________________ __________________________ The Honorable Susan Illston United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Stipulation And Order Consolidating Cases For Hearing On Motion To Dismiss (Fed.R.Civ. Proc. 42(a).) (CV 11-2493 SI)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?