Miller, et al. v. Bonta, et al.
| JAMES MILLER, SAN DIEGO COUNTY GUN OWNERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, WENDY HAUFFEN, GUNFIGHTER TACTICAL, LLC, FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, INC., SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, JOHN PHILLIPS, NEIL RUTHERFORD, CALIFORNIA GUN RIGHTS FOUNDATION, ADRIAN SEVILLA, PWGG, LP and RYAN PETERSON |
| ROB BONTA, in their official capacity, ALLISON MENDOZA, In their official capacity, BRENT ORRICK, in his official capacity as Director of the Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms and XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California |
| 23-2979 |
| October 23, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 8, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 22
ORDER FILED. Oral argument for this case is vacated. The Court intends to schedule oral argument during the week of January 22, 2024 in Pasadena, California. Appellees motion to appear remotely (Docket Entry No. 20) is thus denied as moot. In addition, the briefing schedule is modified as follows: the opening brief is due December 1, 2023; the answering brief is due December 22, 2023; the reply brief is due January 8, 2024. Per the courts October 18, 2023 order, the administrative stay shall remain in effect until the merits panel decides the appeal or issues an order lifting the stay. [Entered: 11/08/2023 11:17 AM]
|
| Filing 21 ADDED Counsel for Appellee Clark Lassiter Hildabrand [Entered: 11/07/2023 12:27 PM] |
| Filing 20 MOTION to Appear Remotely for Oral Argument filed by Appellee James Miller, Appellee San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, Appellee Wendy Hauffen, Appellee Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, Appellee Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Appellee Second Amendment Foundation, Appellee John Phillips, Appellee Neil Rutherford, Appellee California Gun Rights Foundation, Appellee Adrian Sevilla, Appellee Pwgg, Lp, Appellee Ryan Peterson. [Entered: 11/07/2023 07:01 AM] |
| Filing 19 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Clark Lassiter Hildabrand for Appellee Adrian Sevilla, Appellee California Gun Rights Foundation, Appellee Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Appellee Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, Appellee James Miller, Appellee John Phillips, Appellee Neil Rutherford, Appellee Pwgg, Lp, Appellee Ryan Peterson, Appellee San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, Appellee Second Amendment Foundation, Appellee Wendy Hauffen. [Entered: 11/07/2023 06:31 AM] |
| Filing 18 ADDED Counsel for Appellee David Thompson, Counsel for Appellee Peter A. Patterson [Entered: 11/01/2023 04:37 PM] |
| Filing 17 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Peter A. Patterson for Appellee Adrian Sevilla, Appellee California Gun Rights Foundation, Appellee Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Appellee Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, Appellee James Miller, Appellee John Phillips, Appellee Neil Rutherford, Appellee Pwgg, Lp, Appellee Ryan Peterson, Appellee San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, Appellee Second Amendment Foundation, Appellee Wendy Hauffen. [Entered: 11/01/2023 08:14 AM] |
| Filing 16 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by David Thompson for Appellee Adrian Sevilla, Appellee California Gun Rights Foundation, Appellee Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Appellee Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, Appellee James Miller, Appellee John Phillips, Appellee Neil Rutherford, Appellee Pwgg, Lp, Appellee Ryan Peterson, Appellee San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, Appellee Second Amendment Foundation, Appellee Wendy Hauffen. [Entered: 11/01/2023 07:50 AM] |
| Filing 15 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT on Friday, December 8, 2023 - 09:00 A.M. - PO 2nd Floor Ctrm - Scheduled Location: Portland OR View the Oral Argument Calendar for your case #here. NOTE: Although your case is currently scheduled for oral argument, the panel may decide to submit the case on the briefs instead. See Fed. R. App. P. 34. Absent further order of the court, if the court does determine that oral argument is required in this case, you are expected to appear in person at the Courthouse. If an in person appearance would pose a hardship, you must file a motion for permission to appear remotely by video, using ACMS filing type Motion to Appear Remotely for Oral Argument. Such a motion must be filed within 7 days of this notice, absent exigent circumstances. Everyone appearing in person must review and comply with our Protocols for In Person Hearings, available #here. If the panel determines that it will hold oral argument in your case, the Clerk's Office will contact you directly at least two weeks before the set argument date to review any requirements for in person appearance or to make any necessary arrangements for a remote appearance that has been approved or directed by the panel. Please note that if you do file a motion to appear remotely, the court strongly prefers video over telephone appearance. Therefore, if you wish to appear remotely by telephone you will need to justify that request in your motion and receive explicit permission to do so. Be sure to review the #GUIDELINES for important information about your hearing. If you are the specific attorney or self-represented party who will be arguing, use the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE filing type in ACMS no later than 28 days before the hearing date. No form or other attachment is required. If you will not be arguing, do not file an acknowledgment of hearing notice. [23-2979] [Entered: 10/31/2023 04:16 PM] |
| Filing 14 MEDIATION QUESTIONNAIRE filed by Appellant Rob Bonta, Appellant Allison Mendoza. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please email #ca09_mediation@ca9.uscourts.gov and include the case name and number in the subject line. Confidential submissions may include any information relevant to mediation of the case and settlement potential, including, but not limited to, settlement history, ongoing or potential settlement discussions, non-litigated party related issues, other pending actions, and timing considerations that may impact mediation efforts. [Entered: 10/30/2023 06:03 PM] |
|
Filing 13
ORDER FILED. William A. FLETCHER, Consuelo M. CALLAHAN, Mark J. BENNETT In light of this courts published order granting a stay in Duncan v. Bonta, 83 F.4th 803, 80506 (9th Cir. 2023) (en banc) (concluding that the attorney general of California is likely to succeed on the merits and has shown that California will be irreparably harmed absent a stay), and the similarities between Duncan and this case, we grant appellants motion (Docket Entry No. 6) and administratively stay the district courts October 19, 2023 permanent injunction and judgment. In granting an administrative stay, we do not intend to constrain the merits panels consideration of the merits of this appeal in any way. The administrative stay shall remain in effect until the merits panel decides the appeal or issues an order lifting the stay. We sua sponte expedite this appeal. The opening brief is due November 9, 2023. The answering brief is due November 22, 2023. The optional reply brief is due November 29, 2023. No streamlined extensions of time will be approved. See 9th Cir. R. 31-2.2(a)(1). The Clerk will place this appeal on the calendar for December 2023. See 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 3.3(g). CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part: I would deny appellants motion for a stay pending appeal. I do not believe we are bound by the published order in Duncan v. Bonta, 83 F.4th 803 (9th Cir. 2023), and I do not believe appellants have otherwise met their burden of showing a likelihood of success on the merits or that they will suffer irreparable injury absent a stay. I concur in the order insofar as it expedites this appeal. [Entered: 10/28/2023 09:07 AM]
|
| Filing 12 REPLY to Response to Motion to Stay Lower Court or Agency Proceedings, Order, or Judgment (DE 10) filed by Appellant Rob Bonta, Appellant Allison Mendoza, Appellant Brent Orrick, Appellant Xavier Becerra. [COURT ENTERED FILING to correct docket entry 10.] [Entered: 10/27/2023 02:18 PM] [Edited: 10/27/2023 02:21 PM] |
| Filing 10 DEFECTIVE---REPLY to Response to Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (DE 9) filed by Appellant Rob Bonta, Appellant Allison Mendoza. [Wrong filing type used, correct entry is DE 12.] [Entered: 10/27/2023 11:51 AM] [Edited: 10/27/2023 02:22 PM] |
| Filing 11 RESPONSE to Motion to Stay Lower Court or Agency Proceedings, order, or Judgment (DE 6) filed by Appellee James Miller, Appellee San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, Appellee Wendy Hauffen, Appellee Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, Appellee Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Appellee Second Amendment Foundation, Appellee John Phillips, Appellee Neil Rutherford, Appellee California Gun Rights Foundation, Appellee Adrian Sevilla, Appellee Pwgg, Lp, Appellee Ryan Peterson. [COURT ENTERED FILING to correct docket entry 9.] [Entered: 10/27/2023 02:15 PM] |
| Filing 9 DEFECTIVE---RESPONSE to Motion to Stay Lower Court or Agency Proceedings, Order, or Judgment (DE 6) filed by Appellee James Miller, Appellee San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, Appellee Wendy Hauffen, Appellee Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, Appellee Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Appellee Second Amendment Foundation, Appellee John Phillips, Appellee Neil Rutherford, Appellee California Gun Rights Foundation, Appellee Adrian Sevilla, Appellee Pwgg, Lp, Appellee Ryan Peterson. [Wrong filing type used, correct entry is DE 11.] [Entered: 10/26/2023 04:24 PM] [Edited: 10/27/2023 02:20 PM] |
|
Filing 8
ORDER FILED. The court has received appellants emergency motion for a stay pending appeal. The response to that motion is due by 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time on October 26, 2023. The optional reply in support of that motion is due by 12:00 p.m. Pacific Time on October 27, 2023. [Entered: 10/25/2023 01:57 PM]
|
| Filing 7 Emergency MOTION Circuit Rule 27-3 Certificate filed by Appellant Rob Bonta, Appellant Allison Mendoza. [Entered: 10/23/2023 07:27 PM] |
| Filing 6 MOTION to Stay Lower Court or Agency Proceedings/Order/Judgment filed by Appellant Rob Bonta, Appellant Allison Mendoza. [Entered: 10/23/2023 07:19 PM] |
| Filing 5 TERMINATED participation of Xavier Becerra and Brent Orrick. [Entered: 10/23/2023 02:36 PM] |
| Filing 4 TERMINATED participation of Xavier Becerra and Brett Orrick. [Entered: 10/23/2023 02:31 PM] |
| Filing 3 ADDED Appellant Rob Bonta, Appellant Allison Mendoza [Entered: 10/23/2023 02:28 PM] |
| Filing 2 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Mediation Questionnaire due 10/30/2023, Appeal Transcript Order Due 11/2/2023, Appeal Transcript Due 12/4/2023, Appeal Opening Brief Due 1/11/2024, Appeal Answering Brief Due 2/12/2024. All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing schedule will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. [Entered: 10/23/2023 02:11 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 3:19-cv-01537-BEN-JLB has been received in the Clerk's office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 23-2979 has been assigned to this case. All communications with the court must indicate this Court of Appeals docket number. Please carefully review the docket to ensure the name(s) and contact information are correct. It is your responsibility to alert the court if your contact information changes. Resources Available For more information about case processing and to assist you in preparing your brief, please review the Case Opening Information (for #attorneys and #pro se litigants) and review the #Appellate Practice Guide. Counsel should consider contacting the court's #Appellate Mentoring Program for help with the brief and argument. [Entered: 10/23/2023 02:04 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
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.
