Miller v Bonta 2 - Judge Benitez block CA law requiring plaintiff to pay if they lose gun lawsuits

LiveLife

LiveLife

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2010
Messages
32,945
Location
Northwest Coast
Judge to halt provision making California gun lawsuits costlier for Miller v Bonta 2 - https://apnews.com/article/politics-california-537fa9d77bb0ab24f4b1b765278494a4
  • Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association stated that portion of the law “is intended to make it impossible to file a Second Amendment challenge to an unconstitutional gun control law. That is itself unconstitutional”
  • Federal district court judge Roger T. Benitez said he would issue the injunction requested by gun clubs as soon as possible to halt the provision that would force people who file lawsuits challenging CA’s gun laws to pay the government’s legal fees if they lose.
  • Judge Benitez said the fee provision would have a “chilling effect” on the public’s right to challenge the government in court because people would not want to take the risk of being liable for expensive legal fees. “I can’t think of anything more tyrannical,” Benitez said.
  • In addition to banning the sale of some assault weapons, the law also will prohibit parts that can be used to build weapons, guns without serial numbers, or .50-caliber rifles.
  • When state's lawyers noted CA does not plan to enforce the fee provision unless the Texas law is upheld, judge Benitez said, “We’re not in a kindergarten sandbox. It’s not about, ‘Mommy he did this to me so I should be able to do this to him.’”
  • When judge Benitez asked state's attorney, Tom Willis, if he would be willing to pay the legal fees of the plaintiffs who asked for the injunction to the provision. Willis said he didn’t understand the question. Judge Benitez shot back that he was wise to not answer because no attorney would want to take on such a risk of personally paying the other side’s legal fees if they lose.
  • Lawyers for gun clubs said once the provision is blocked, effectively ensuring they do not have to pay the government’s legal expenses if they lose, they are considering challenging the entire law after it goes into effect.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I have nothing good to say about California and their selective treatment of American citizens. I lived there for a total of 26 years. I moved there 4 times from the years 82-88, 89-04, 10-13, 18-22. I moved there for jobs. I still have a daughter, son-in-law and grandson there. I tried to fight the good fight the times that I lived there by donating to pro gun groups fighting the system to no avail.

If it weren’t for Judge Benitez the political machine of California would continue rolling over the Constitutional rights of the citizens. What’s truly sad is if you do a search on “pro gun california judges” his is the only name that appears in most links in the search engine. One judge out of the many.
 
LiveLife said:
Judge to halt provision making California gun lawsuits costlier - https://apnews.com/article/politics-california-537fa9d77bb0ab24f4b1b765278494a4
  • Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association stated that portion of the law “is intended to make it impossible to file a Second Amendment challenge to an unconstitutional gun control law. That is itself unconstitutional”
  • Federal district court judge Roger T. Benitez said he would issue the injunction requested by gun clubs as soon as possible to halt the provision that would force people who file lawsuits challenging CA’s gun laws to pay the government’s legal fees if they lose.
  • Judge Benitez said the fee provision would have a “chilling effect” on the public’s right to challenge the government in court because people would not want to take the risk of being liable for expensive legal fees. “I can’t think of anything more tyrannical,” Benitez said.
  • In addition to banning the sale of some assault weapons, the law also will prohibit parts that can be used to build weapons, guns without serial numbers, or .50-caliber rifles.
  • When state's lawyers noted CA does not plan to enforce the fee provision unless the Texas law is upheld, judge Benitez said, “We’re not in a kindergarten sandbox. It’s not about, ‘Mommy he did this to me so I should be able to do this to him.’”
  • When judge Benitez asked state's attorney, Tom Willis, if he would be willing to pay the legal fees of the plaintiffs who asked for the injunction to the provision. Willis said he didn’t understand the question. Judge Benitez shot back that he was wise to not answer because no attorney would want to take on such a risk of personally paying the other side’s legal fees if they lose.
  • Lawyers for gun clubs said once the provision is blocked, effectively ensuring they do not have to pay the government’s legal expenses if they lose, they are considering challenging the entire law after it goes into effect.
Click to expand...
What should happen is every legislator who votes aye for a blatantly unconstitutional bill should pay for damages to the plaintiffs. That would end these ridiculous bills from being enacted in the first place. :thumbup:

It’ll never happen… but it should.

Stay safe.
 
Pat Riot said:
One judge out of the many.
Click to expand...
Actually he's not the only pro-2A federal district/circuit/appeals/trade court judge as there are many others.

And Trump appointed 234 judges/justices mostly conservative/pro-2A judges recommended by the Federalist Society - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump
In fact, due to the number of appointments, certain panels like 9th Circuit En Banc panel make up could be pro-2A if district level cases like Duncan/Miller/Rhode/Fouts etc. get appealed.

And with Supreme Court Bruen ruling eliminating the two-step approach and now courts must use "text and history" approach, even some Obama era appointed liberal judges are ruling in support of 2A.
 
Last edited:
I lived in the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of California for far too many years. I am amazed this law was passed, not so much as one of the judges blocked it. Decent people are discouraged from living there.
 
Judge Benitez issued Permanent Injunction against CA! - https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65377309/43/miller-v-bonta/

Governor Newsom loses first round of legal fight over California's sketchy "fee-shifting" law - https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/...r-californias-sketchy-fee-shifting-law-n65463
  • After Texas approved anti-abortion bill CA passed a similar bill directed at the firearms industry. SB 1327 allows gun makers to be sued for any “assault weapon” illegally manufactured or sold in the state
  • SB 1327 also requires any plaintiff/lawyer suing over the constitutionality of the state’s gun laws to pay CA’s legal fees if they lose the lawsuit but if they win, CA doesn't have to pay.
  • The law was clearly meant to chill gun rights advocates from challenging unconstitutional laws passed by the state like Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition and California Rifle & Pistol Association, etc.
  • Federal district judge Roger Benitez has ruled against CA’s magazine ban, “assault weapons” ban, and other infringements on the right to keep and bear arms
  • On Monday judge pointed out even CA Attorney General Rob Bonta found SB 1327 to be so constitutionally problematic that his office stepped away from defending the law, handing that role off to Newsom’s office.
  • In Benitez’s ruling, the judge makes it clear that no matter what California officials might think about the legality of the Texas abortion law, putting their own unconstitutional provision in place in response is a non-starter.
"B. The First Amendment Right to Petition and Access the Courts

The principal defect of § 1021.11 is that it threatens to financially punish plaintiffs and their attorneys who seek judicial review of laws impinging on federal constitutional rights. Today, it applies to Second Amendment rights. Tomorrow, with a slight amendment, it could be any other constitutional right including the right to speak freely, to freedom of the press, to practice one’s religion, to restrict cruel and unusual punishment, and to be free from government takings without compensation.

Section 1021.11 makes its threat by means of a lopsided, unorthodox attorney’s fee-shifting scheme which ensures the citizen cannot win and may be forced to pay for the government’s attorney’s fees. The fee-shifting provision exacerbates the disincentive to litigation by threatening plaintiff lawyers with joint and several liability for paying the government’s attorney’s fees. By deterring citizens and coercing attorneys from accessing the courts for relief from constitutionally questionable laws, § 1021.11 severely chills both First Amendment rights and Second Amendment rights." (Pages 5-6)​
  • Newsom will undoubtedly appeal Benitez’s decision to the 9th Circuit and governor likely wants the Supreme Court to hear a challenge to SB 1327 that if they strike down CA’s law they must also do the same for SB 8 in Texas. But judge Benitez pointed out that CA’s law differs from the SB 8 in several ways; not just the subject, but the scope of the fee-shifting provisions.
  • It’s possible that SCOTUS could uphold SB 8 in Texas while striking down CA's SB 1327.

FPC VICTORY: Federal Judge Blocks California’s Discriminatory Firearm Lawsuit Fee-Shifting Regime - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fede...iminatory-firearm-lawsuit-fee-shifting-regime

US District Judge Roger Benitez has issued an order enjoining the fee-shifting provision in California SB 1327, which was enacted as retribution for Texas’s SB 8 abortion law in order to suppress legitimate challenges to firearms regulations. The opinion in Miller v. Bonta (Miller II) can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“When a § 1983 plaintiff needs representation, § 1021.11(a) makes any attorney understandably reluctant, if not terrified,” wrote Judge Benitez in his opinion. “The provisions of § 1021.11(a) would expose the attorney to the risk of joint and several liability for the government’s fees. And unlike typical fee-shifting provisions, the risk would extend for three years after the conclusion of appellate review of the original litigation, as opposed to being part of the judgment in the original litigation. California’s § 1021.11 system of litigation rewards and punishments is completely contrary to that which was intended by Congress as expressed in § 1988.”

“This Court concludes that the purpose and effect of § 1021.11 is to trench on a citizen’s right of access to the courts and to discourage the peaceful vindication of an enumerated constitutional right,” he went on to write. “Because the state fee-shifting statute undermines a citizen’s constitutional rights, it is this Court’s role to declare its invalidity and enjoin its threat.”

“The enactment of SB 1327 was intended to do only one thing: chill the rights of the people and dissuade them from pursuing justice from tyranny.” said Bill Sack, FPC Director of Legal Operations. “The Court made it clear today that cynical political grandstanding will not be tolerated when it infringes on the rights of the people.”

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the San Diego County Gun Owners PAC (SDCGO); the California Gun Rights Foundation (CGF), and the Second Amendment Foundation.​
 
Under that California rule, if the plaintiff loses, the plaintiff pays the government's expenses defending against a constitutional challenge. The plaintiff pays double for losing.
If the plaintiff wins, the government pays its expenses for losing. The plaintiff pays for winning.
Consider the resources available to the government in court vs the resources available to someone challenging the government.
The government could easily destroy practically anyone challenging the constitutionality of any law on any subject.
"It's good to be the king." -- King Louis, "History of the World, Part 1"
 
LiveLife said:
In fact, due to the number of appointments, certain panels like 9th Circuit En Banc panel make up could be pro-2A if district level cases like Duncan/Miller/Rhode/Fouts etc. get appealed.
Click to expand...
Since en banc panels are supposed to be selected randomly, probability would dictate that sometimes they would get a majority of judges that honored the constitution. Yet it has never actually happened.
 
natman said:
Since en banc panels are supposed to be selected randomly, probability would dictate that sometimes they would get a majority of judges that honored the constitution. Yet it has never actually happened.
Click to expand...
It actually happened for Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban) where 9th en banc panel sided with district judge Benitez in ruling that magazines are "arms" protected by the Second Amendment which resulted in case being appealed to the Supreme Court - https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-08-14-Opinion.pdf

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs challenging California Government Code § 31310, which bans possession of largecapacity magazines (“LCMs”) that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition; and held that the ban violated the Second Amendment.

... But even well-intentioned laws must pass constitutional muster. California’s near-categorical ban of LCMs strikes at the core of the Second Amendment — the right to armed selfdefense. Armed self-defense is a fundamental right rooted in tradition and the text of the Second Amendment.

... California’s law imposes a substantial burden on this right to self-defense. The ban makes it criminal for Californians to own magazines that come standard in Glocks, Berettas, and other handguns that are staples of selfdefense. Its scope is so sweeping that half of all magazines in America are now unlawful to own in California. Even law-abiding citizens, regardless of their training and track record, must alter or turn over to the state any LCMs that they may have legally owned for years — or face up to a year in jail.(Page 9)

... The Second Amendment is a fundamental right rooted in both text and tradition. (Page 15)

... Firearm magazines are “arms” under the Second Amendment. Magazines enjoy Second Amendment protection for a simple reason: Without a magazine, many weapons would be useless, including “quintessential” selfdefense weapons like the handgun. See Heller (Page 20)

... The Second Amendment “guarantees the right to carry weapons ‘typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.’” Caetano v. Massachusetts (Page 21)

... The record before us provides no persuasive historical evidence showing that LCM possession is understood to fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment. As discussed above, the historical record shows that LCM restrictions are modern creations. (Page 30)

... Law-abiding citizens trapped in high-crime areas where the law enforcement is overtaxed may defend themselves in their homes with a handgun outfitted with LCMs. And in incidents of mass chaos and unrest, law enforcement simply may be unable to protect the people, leaving them solely responsible for their own safety in a seemingly Hobbesian world. Finally, many citizens will not take any chances or compromise their ability to defend themselves and their families, and they may place their trust in guns equipped with LCMs as a last resort. (Page 50)

CONCLUSION

... California’s near-categorical ban of LCMs infringes on the fundamental right to self-defense. It criminalizes the possession of half of all magazines in America today. It makes unlawful magazines that are commonly used in handguns by lawabiding citizens for self-defense. And it substantially burdens the core right of self-defense guaranteed to the people under the Second Amendment. It cannot stand.

We AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment for plaintiffs-appellees. (Page 66)​
 
natman said:
Since en banc panels are supposed to be selected randomly, probability would dictate that sometimes they would get a majority of judges that honored the constitution. Yet it has never actually happened.
Click to expand...

LiveLife said:
It actually happened for Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban) where 9th en banc panel sided with district judge Benitez in ruling that magazines are "arms" protected by the Second Amendment which resulted in case being appealed to the Supreme Court - https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-08-14-Opinion.pdf
Click to expand...
IIRC, it was the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit who agreed with Benitez in Duncan v Bonta and wrote the text you quoted. Shortly thereafter, the en banc panel overruled the Court of Appeals, which is why it went to the Supreme Court.

A case is only supposed to be heard en banc if there is something grossly wrong with the Court of Appeals decision, but every pro-gun rights case in the Ninth Circuit ends up there and gets overturned. It will be interesting to see what happens when Duncan v Bonta 2.0 reaches them. There's not much wiggle room left for the en banc panel, but I think they'd rather eat broken glass than issue a pro-gun rights decision. I expect they'll reject the lower courts' decisions again, and force the Supreme Court to make the call.
​
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Capybara said:
Yay. St. Benitez comes through again.
Click to expand...
Newsom openly threatened him and is trying to get him removed.... I don't know if he will be successful but it's ugly politics.
In many of the 2a channels I watch including armed scollar, the 9th has ruled in the states favor 51 of 51 times. I can't validate the accuracy of that claim.
 
AJC1 said:
Newsom openly threatened him and is trying to get him removed
Click to expand...
He won't care. Unlike younger district court judges Trump appointed, judge Benitez is at retirement age and these cases will likely be his last legacy cases and he will retire seeing that 2A prevailed all the way to the Supreme Court with him giving CA the middle finger. :) (And depends on who resides in the WH after 2024 election, we may actually get another pro-2A judge to replace him. :rofl:)

If 9th Circuit rules against judge Benitez in Duncan, Miller, etc., it's automatic Supreme Court cases as they have already reached SCOTUS levels pre-Bruen.

And the Supreme Court already voiced their views in Bruen of 2A not being a "second class" right. :D

Yeah, antis sure are not happy with the situation as they know they will lose with the District court, 9th Circuit or the Supreme Court.

Too bad. :neener:
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised we haven't heard concerns about his mental acuity, extramarital affairs or physically abusive nature. Not saying any of that's true, totally just made it up, just surprised we haven't heard that kind of garbage. These people have a way of getting squeezed out and never being heard from again. Move the agenda forward or go away.

It's sad, the man looks like a hero for doing his job and upholding the constitution, but I sure am glad he's doing it because so many of them dont.
 
DustyGmt said:
the man looks like a hero for doing his job and upholding the constitution, but I sure am glad he's doing it because so many of them dont.
Click to expand...
Actually he is known as "saint" Benitez - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Benitez

And there are many others - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-they-lose-gun-lawsuits.913791/#post-12494143

Particularly the "Originalist" justices who ruled pro-2A for Bruen and eliminated the decades long practice of using "two step" approach to 2A cases and now it's open season on anti-2A laws as courts must now use "text and history" approach - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12427677

I am hopeful that during my retirement years, I may see permanent enforcement of the Second Amendment in the footsteps of the First Amendment because the Second Amendment is not a "second class right". :)
 
AJC1 said:
Newsom openly threatened him and is trying to get him removed.... I don't know if he will be successful but it's ugly politics.
Click to expand...

It's interesting that as a California resident, nobody during Newsom's ascent has made comment of his political corruption, untreated alcoholism and rampant sexual addiction. Talk about hypocrisy. Amazed he has the brass ones to try to dig up dirt in Benitez when his own corruption is so apparent.
 
A classic political maneuver sling as much dirt as you can at opponents to draw attention away from your "flaws" wrong doing. Happened in NY with coumo we got a worse replacement, hochu, and were it not for popular vote, instead of electoral vote, she would have been buried in the mudslide of a one sided victory by her opponent.
 
Just found this from a CG Moderator and it sounds as if he agrees with my assertion that rostered guns would only be removed with the addition of new microstamp capable pistols to the roster, which definitely has not and likely never will happen.

"AFAIK...

CA DOJ BOF deciding not to implement the 1 for 3 removals is because:
1. The legislative intent on the 1 for 3 removals was tied to the microstamping requirements to the CA unsafe handgun laws.
2. The Courts issued a stay on the microstamping requirements of the CA unsafe handgun laws.
3. Therefore, the 1 for 3 removals will not be implemented because they were a legislative add-on to the microstamping requirements of the CA unsafe handgun laws."
 
Update to FPC v San Diego (CA SB 1327 "fee shifting provision" already ruled in Miller II applied to cities) - SB 1327 requires any plaintiff/lawyer suing over the constitutionality of the state’s gun laws to pay CA’s legal fees if they lose the lawsuit but if they win, CA doesn't have to pay

9th Circuit 3 judge panel grants request for injunction - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi..._for_Injunction_Pending_Appeal.pdf?1712712586

Before: FRIEDLAND, VANDYKE, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.​
​
The motion for injunctive relief is granted ... Appellees are enjoined from enforcing California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.11 during the pendency of this appeal​
​
  • On the heels of Miller II ruling by judge Benitez, lawsuit was filed against city of San Diego/San Jose and counties of Alameda/Imperial/Los Angeles/Santa Clara/Ventura
    • From Miller II judge Benitez ruling (Pages 5-6) - "The principal defect of § 1021.11 is that it threatens to financially punish plaintiffs and their attorneys who seek judicial review of laws impinging on federal constitutional rights. Today, it applies to Second Amendment rights. Tomorrow, with a slight amendment, it could be any other constitutional right including the right to speak freely, to freedom of the press, to practice one’s religion, to restrict cruel and unusual punishment, and to be free from government takings without compensation.

      Section 1021.11 makes its threat by means of a lopsided, unorthodox attorney’s fee-shifting scheme which ensures the citizen cannot win and may be forced to pay for the government’s attorney’s fees. The fee-shifting provision exacerbates the disincentive to litigation by threatening plaintiff lawyers with joint and several liability for paying the government’s attorney’s fees. By deterring citizens and coercing attorneys from accessing the courts for relief from constitutionally questionable laws, § 1021.11 severely chills both First Amendment rights and Second Amendment rights."
  • But after federal district court judge Linda Lopez dismissed the case, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the 9th Circuit - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...1.09_056_ORDER_Dismissing_Case.pdf?1704843851
    • "For the reasons set forth above, the Court DISMISSES the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is also DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED ... January 9, 2024"
  • Then same district court judge denied request for injunction pending appeal to the 9th Circuit - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6718/attachments/original/1712612552/2024.04.08_066_ORDER_Denying_P's_(FPC)_Motion_for_Injunction_Pending_Appeal.pdf?1712612552

9th Circuit issues injunction in FPC lawsuit challenging California's fee-shifting law targeting pro-gun lawsuits - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/nint...ting-law-targeting-pro-gun-lawsuits#gsc.tab=0

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an injunction pending appeal in its FPC v. San Diego lawsuit, which challenges a California law that targets only pro-Second Amendment advocates with potentially ruinous consequences for litigating gun rights cases. The injunction, which prevents the defendants from enforcing the scheme during the pendency of the appeal, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.​
​
FPC was previously granted an injunction in a case captioned Miller II that prevented the enforcement of the law by officers of the State of California, including Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta. The FPC v. San Diego case seeks the same relief as to multiple local municipalities that FPC was already litigating against or would litigate against but for the law.​
​
“This unconstitutional and immoral law was explicitly designed to prevent liberty advocates from challenging other unconstitutional regulations,” explained FPC founder and President, Brandon Combs. “We are gratified by the Court’s issuance of an injunction pending appeal and look forward to eliminating this tyrannical scheme altogether.”​
​
“Even in the face of certain defeat, these municipal defendants have refused to agree to non-enforcement of this unconstitutional law,” said FPC Action Foundation’s President Cody J. Wisniewski, counsel for FPC. “The Ninth Circuit has now made clear that the defendants cannot enforce this against FPC and the other named plaintiffs while this case is addressed on appeal. This was the right result and we look forward to litigating this case to a final conclusion and permanent injunction.”​
​
FPC is joined in this case by California Gun Rights Foundation and San Diego County Gun Owners PAC. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay of Benbrook Law Group as well as David Thompson, Peter Patterson, and Joseph Masterman of Cooper & Kirk.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

12Bravo20
  • Locked
Some good news on California's 'fee-shifting' gun control scheme
Replies
1
Views
375
Robert
Robert
LiveLife
  • Locked
Barba v Bonta - Judge blocks CA's gun/ammunition owner data sharing law
Replies
1
Views
497
Aim1
A
LiveLife
  • Locked
Push back on anti-gun/2A law makers continues - New lawsuit filed against CA AW ban
Replies
7
Views
1K
LiveLife
LiveLife
LiveLife
  • Locked
Federal judge blocks California's high-capacity magazine ban
Replies
17
Views
2K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
LiveLife
CA's 10 day waiting period challenged in Richards v Bonta
Replies
3
Views
359
Capybara
Capybara
Back
Top