CA U.S. District Court (CAED): CARB sued by OOIDA over retrofit filter emissions law

I capped the docket page and it came up instantly, but the complaint document has not come up yet, so I'll attach the complaint here.

There is an article on this suit in overdriveonline.com, and there is a thumbnail of part of the complaint, but not in its entirety.

Edit: Here is the initial complaint in OOIDA, et al v. Corey, et al. Here is the docket page.

This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenge that OOIDA has brought, and the "Dormant Commerce Clause" is at issue in the initial complaint.

Here is the OOIDA/Landline press release.

I'm not sure whether or not they are asking for the court to declare that there is irreparable injury because of monetary harm, but the Ninth Circuit Court has addressed that very issue in the past.

I will follow this case because many of times, I have been stuck on the side of the road doing the stupid "REGEN" BS.

BTW, I hope this is the right forum, and isn't a dupe...

Erik.

 

So since the Archive.org .PDF link was never capped (even though I capped it on PACER.gov), here is the TruckerGuns.net linked initial complaint in OOIDA, et al v. Corey, et al.

Erik.

 

First off... I am NOT a Lawyer... Nothing I say should be construed to imply that I'm a Lawyer or give legal advise. Anyone who plans on taking action should consult with a licensed Attorney.

Everything I state here is due to my understanding of the Court System(s) as somewhat of a Court Watcher, and as a result of listening to thousands of oral arguments before Circuit Appellate Courts, sitting in on Court, as well as listening to the Supreme Court, and my Criminal Justice Studies.

This case has not been to the Ninth Circuit (yet). First, as a federal action in this particular context, it is (for the most part) to be filed in the U.S. District Court (that court is the court of original jurisdiction). Once it's ruled by the District Court (which could take anywhere from several months to several decades), the losers usually appeal to the Ninth Circuit (or whatever circuit), and if it's ruled in our favor, we can bet that the government will appeal. Sometimes, District Court cases get appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

Remember that case challenging the Los Angeles port restrictions initiated by the American Trucking Association (ATA)? That was first filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Los Angeles (The OOIDA case here is filed in the Eastern District of California [in Sacramento]). The Judge in the ATA case DENIED the ATAs motion for preliminary injunction on the basis that they had not demonstrated a likelihood of success in showing that there was not an exception to preemption under the FAAAA (Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act) by reason of the safety exception, and that moreover, the plaintiff (ATA) couldn't demonstrate that failure to grant the injunction would result in irreparable injury (Hmmm... HMMMMMMMM), and that the balance of hardships and the public interest tip decidedly in favor of denying the injunction.

The ATA case then went for argument in the Ninth Circuit Court (because the ATA filed an appeal), and in the Ninth Circuit Case, the Court affirmed the District Court decision in large part, but reversed in part the lower court's ruling that the employee-driver provision of the concession agreement fell within the market participant doctrine and is not preempted.

The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (called a petition for writ of certiorari). That Court grants an average of around 80 to 100 petitions per year, and denies the rest. The Court granted the ATA's request for review, and in an opinion filed with the Clerk of the Court that day, Justice Elena Kagan ruled for the entire court, REVERSING in favor of ATA. Here is her opinion announcement.

The ATA v. City of Los Angeles case was first filed in the District Court on July 28, 2008, and the Supreme Court's decision came on June 13, 2013. When the Supreme Court made their decision, they "remanded" for proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion that J. Kagan wrote. When it gets remanded, the case has to go back to the Ninth Circuit where the Judges will take their vertical bench-slapping. When that happens, and IF the case first went to the Ninth Circuit on appeal from the District Court (sometimes that court will hear cases from the State Court System), they will in turn send a remand order to the court below, in which that court will open up their new present from the Ninth Circuit and find in it... YOU GUESSED IT... That lovely vertical bench-slapping that came from Justice Kagan (who I like because she can be kind of a smart *** at times). The final remand order from the District Court in the form of a permanent injunction issued by Judge Snyder came on August 22, 2013.

This case took a total of 5 years and 25 days (or 1,852 days; 44,424 hours; 159,926,400 seconds). The time of movement in a case doesn't always include stay orders.

As I said in another thread, we should be patient. This is one reason why the lawyers make the big bucks, but also why sometimes lawyers will sometimes get white knuckles at the lectern of a court. BTW, I heard a Judge say recently that he likes his job as a Judge better than he did as a Lawyer because he doesn't have to rush anymore.

Edited to add:

Yesterday, a ruling was handed down by a Judge in the same court holding that CA cannot continue to do what they want. That ruling was in Silvester v. Harris, and it's basically a holding that says "the California law making it so that we must wait 10 days to take delivery of a handgun after the time of purchase is something that doesn't pass heightened constitutional scrutiny. CA might think they can do what they want, but at some point along the way, a Judge or Judges will likely say "no, you can't" when it comes to their attempts at bootstrapping a rule into something that isn't Constitutional (as is the OOIDA case here.

Erik.

 

Both parties have issued a stipulation (which is pretty much the standard procedure I was expecting) pursuant to local rule 144(a) extending time for the defendants to file their answering brief.

The answering brief from the defendants is due Jan. 21, 2014.

Erik.

 

Not really significant movement, but today, the parties have again stipulated that CARB needs an additional seven days to issue their answering briefs, and all parties have agreed, so we can look for an answer to the complaint (above) by CARB by Jan. 27, 2014. Again, pretty much standard procedure for parties to allow one another time to respond to one-another's briefs (as per my observations from being a court watcher).

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.262133/gov.uscourts.caed.262133.15.0.pdf

Will be back soon to watch for more movement.

Erik.