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)
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?