-
Email[email protected]
-
Phone562-216-4444
Angelo v. District of Columbia
Case Name: Gregory T. Angelo, Tyler Yzaguirre, Robert M. Miller, and Cameron M. Erickson v. District of Columbia and Chief Robert J. Contee III
Case No.: 1:22-cv-01878
| United States District Court, District of Columbia |
||
| Filing Date | Filing Party | Document Description |
| 7/28/2023 | Defendant | Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance for Andrew J. Saindon on Behalf of Defendants |
| 5/26/2023 | Plaintiff | Notice of Appearance Attorney Dennis Polio on Behalf of Plaintiffs |
| 5/16/2023 | Plaintiff | Notice of Appearance for Edward Wenger |
| 5/13/2023 | Plaintiff | Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority |
| 5/12/2023 | Plaintiff | Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority |
| 5/12/2023 | Defendant | Reply in Further Support of District Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss |
| 5/12/2023 | Defendant | Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Michael Anzallo’s Motion to Dismiss |
| 4/30/2023 | Plaintiff | Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority |
| 4/26/2023 | Court | MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendants’ consent motion for extension of time, Dkt. 47 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall file their reply in support of their motion to dismiss on or before May 12, 2023. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 4/26/2023. |
| 4/25/2023 | Defendant | Defendants’ Consent Motion for an Extension of Time to Reply |
| 4/24/2023 | Plaintiff | Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss |
| 3/22/2023 | Court | MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ consent motion for extension of time, Dkt. 45 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall respond to the pending motions to dismiss on or before April 24, 2023. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 3/22/2023. |
| 3/20/2023 | Plaintiff | Consent Motion to Extend the Date to Respond to Pending Motions to Dismiss |
| 3/10/2023 | Defendants | Defendants’ Notice of Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint |
| 3/2/2023 | Court | MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ consent motion to consolidate the response dates for all motions to dismiss, Dkt. 43 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall respond to all motions to dismiss on or before April 14, 2023. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 3/2/2023. |
| 3/2/2023 | Plaintiffs | Motion to Consolidate Response for Motion to Dismiss |
| 3/1/2023 | Court | MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendants’ consent motion to modify briefing schedule, Dkt. 41 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that: (1) Defendants shall file their dispositive motion on or before March 10, 2023; and (2) Plaintiffs shall file their response on or before April 14, 2023. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 3/1/2023. |
| 3/1/2023 | Defendants | Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss |
| 3/1/2023 | Defendants | Defendant’s Motion to Modify Briefing Schedule for Motion to Dismiss |
| 2/28/2023 | Court | TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING before Judge Randolph D. Moss held on December 12, 2022. Page Numbers: 1 – 38. Date of Issuance: February 28, 2023. Court Reporter: Jeff Hook. Telephone number: 202-354-3373. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 3/21/2023. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/31/2023. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/29/2023. |
| 2/8/2023 | Plaintiffs | Proof of Service of Summons on Michael L. Anzallo |
| 2/7/2023 | Court | MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendants’ consent motion for extension of time, Dkt. 38 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants District of Columbia, Chief Robert J. Contee III, and Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb shall respond to Plaintiffs’ amended complaint on or before March 3, 2023. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 2/7/2023. |
| 2/6/2023 | Defendants | Defendants’ Motion for Extension to Respond to First Amended Complaint |
| 2/6/2023 | Defendants | Notice of Appearance of Helen M. Rave for Defendant Attorney General |
| 2/2/2023 | Plaintiffs | Proof of Service of Summons on Brian L. Schwalb |
| 2/2/2023 | Plaintiffs | First Amended Complaint |
| 1/11/2023 | Court | Docket Text: MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ consent motion for scheduling order, Dkt. 33 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that (1) Plaintiffs shall file any amended complaint on or before February 1, 2023; and (2) Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs’ existing or amended complaint on or before March 3, 2023. It is further ORDERED that, should Plaintiffs renew their motion for a preliminary injunction, Defendants shall respond to such motion within 60 days of filing, and Plaintiffs shall file a reply, if any, within 30 days of Defendants’ response. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 1/11/2023. |
| 1/11/2023 | Plaintiffs | Motion for Scheduling Order |
| 12/28/2022 | Court | Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction |
| 12/12/2022 | Court | Docket Text: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randolph D. Moss: Motion Hearing held on 12/12/2022 re: 6 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by TYLER YZAGUIRRE, CAMERON M. ERICKSON, ROBERT M. MILLER, GREGORY T. ANGELO. Matter taken UNDER ADVISEMENT. |
| 11/21/2022 | Court | Docket Text: MINUTE ORDER: The parties’ briefing on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, Dkt. 6 , raises a substantial question about whether Plaintiffs have standing to bring this challenge in light of the D.C. Circuit’s decisions in Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) and Seegars v. Gonzales, 396 F.3d 1248 (D.C. Cir. 2005). The motion hearing scheduled in this matter for December 12, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. will, accordingly, focus on the threshold jurisdictional question of standing, including whether Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success with respect to standing and whether the Court should dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. If necessary, the Court will schedule a further hearing to address whether Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional challenge and, if so, whether they are entitled to preliminary relief. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 11/21/2022. |
| 11/2/2022 | Amicus | Amicus Brief of Second Amendment Foundation in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Summary Judgment |
| 11/2/2022 | Court | Docket Text: MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the unopposed motion for leave to file amicus brief, Dkt. 30 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and the amicus brief, Dkt. [30-1], is deemed FILED. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 11/2/2022. |
| 11/2/2022 | Amicus | Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Summary Judgment |
| 10/30/2022 | Plaintiffs | Reply to Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction |
| 10/13/2022 | Court | Docket Text: MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, Dkt. 6 , it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a motions hearing in this matter on December 12, 2022, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 8. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/13/2022. |
| 10/7/2022 | Court | Docket Text: MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s consent motion for leave to file excess pages, Dkt. 28 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the page limit for Plaintiffs’ reply is hereby increased to 45 pages. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/7/2022. (lcrdm3) (Entered: 10/07/2022) |
| 10/5/2022 | Plaintiffs | Plaintiffs’ Motion to Increase Page Limit for Reply to Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction |
| 9/30/2022 | Third Party | Statement of Interest of the United States of America |
| 9/30/2022 | Third Party | Notice of Appearance of Michael Drezner for the United States of America |
| 9/26/2022 | Court | Docket Text: MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ motion for extension of time, Dkt. 22 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file any reply to Defendant’s opposition on or before October 31, 2022. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 09/26/2022. (lcrdm3) |
| 9/26/2022 | Plaintiffs | Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension to File Reply to Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction |
| 9/23/2022 | Amicus for Defendants | Amicus Brief of Brady, Team Enough, Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and March for Our Lives in Support of Defendants |
| 9/23/2022 | Amicus for Defendants | Amicus Brief of Multiple States in Support of Defendants |
| 9/23/2022 | Amicus for Defendants | Amicus Brief of Everytown for Gun Safety in Support of Defendants |
| 9/23/2022 | Court | Docket Text: MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the unopposed motion for leave to file amicus brief, Dkt. 21 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and the amicus brief, Dkt. [21-2], is deemed FILED. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 09/23/2022. (lcrdm3) (Entered: 09/23/2022) |
| 9/23/2022 | Court | Docket Text: MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the unopposed motion for leave to file amicus brief, Dkt. 20 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and the amicus brief, Dkt. [20-1], is deemed FILED. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 09/23/2022. (lcrdm3) (Entered: 09/23/2022) |
| 9/23/2022 | Court | Docket Text: MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the unopposed motion for leave to file amicus brief, Dkt. 19 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and the amicus brief, Dkt. [19-1], is deemed FILED. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 09/23/2022.(lcrdm3) (Entered: 09/23/2022) |
| 9/23/2022 | Amicus for Defendants | Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief of Brady, Team Enough, Giffords, and March for Our Lives
Amicus Brief of Brady, Team Enough, Giffords, and March for Our Lives |
| 9/23/2022 | Amicus for Defendants | Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief of 15 States |
| 9/23/2022 | Amicus for Defendants | Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief of Everytown for Gun Safety |
| 9/16/2022 | Defendants | Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Statement of Material Facts Exhibits in Support of Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction |
| 9/13/2022 | Third Party | Notice of Potential Participation of United States |
| 7/22/2022 | Plaintiffs | Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute |
| 7/21/2022 | Court | Docket Text: MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendants’ motion to expedite limited discovery, Dkt. 12 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. In considering such requests for expedited discovery, this Court “considers the reasonableness of the request in light of all of the surrounding circumstances,” including “(1) whether a preliminary injunction is pending; (2) the breadth of the discovery requests; (3) the purpose for requesting the expedited discovery; (4) the burden on the defendants to comply with the requests; and (5) how far in advance of the typical discovery process the request was made.” Guttenberg v. Emery, 26 F. Supp. 3d 88, 98 (D.D.C. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). Ultimately, however, these factors “are only guidelines for the exercise of the Court’s discretion.” Id. In this instance, Plaintiffs have failed to identify any substantial burden that they would face in answering the narrowly targeted interrogatories that Defendants seek to propound. Furthermore, the prompt and efficient resolution of Plaintiffs’ pending motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction, Dkt. 6 , will be furthered by ensuring that the record is complete. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall respond to the interrogatories in Defendants’ motion, Dkt. 12 , on or before August 4, 2022. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 07/21/2022. |
| 7/21/2022 | Defendants | Reply to Opposition to Motion for Expedited Discovery |
| 7/18/2022 | Plaintiffs | Opposition to Motion for Expedited Discovery |
| 7/15/2022 | Court | Docket Text: MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiffs have filed a motion for preliminary injunction in this case. See Dkt. 6 . Under Local Rule 65.1(c), Defendants’ response to the motion for preliminary injunction is currently due on July 18, 2022. Defendant has filed a motion for a 90-day extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. See Dkt. 10 . Plaintiffs consent to a 30-day extension conditioned on the Court granting Plaintiffs 30 days to reply to Defendants’ response. See Dkt. 11 . The Court concludes that in light of the need to ensure that the record in this case is properly developed, a 60-day extension of time is appropriate. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Partial Consent Motion for Extension of Time, Dkt. 10 , is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall file their response to Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction on or before September 16, 2022 and that Plaintiffs shall file any reply on or before October 17, 2022. It is further ORDERED that if any party plans to seek an evidentiary hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction, that party shall file a motion requesting such a hearing on or before July 29, 2022.Defendants have further requested, without objection, that the Court hold Defendants’ deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’ complaint in abeyance. As stated on the record, the Court has STAYED Defendants’ obligation to answer the complaint. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants file an answer or other responsive pleading within 14 days of the Court’s resolution of Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. The Court further notes that to the extent that Plaintiffs ask the Court to consolidate their motion for a preliminary injunction with resolution of the case on the merits, they must prove “actual success” on the merits, rather than likelihood of success on the merits, Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 32 (2008) (quoting Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n.12 (1987)), and, unless the Court advances the trial on the merits to occur contemporaneously with any hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion, they must demonstrate that they are entitled to summary judgment. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall supplement their motion with the materials required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 on or before July 22, 2022, including a statement of material facts not in dispute (citing to particular portions of the record) and any supporting evidentiary material. Defendants, in turn, will be required to respond to that portion of Plaintiffs’ motion in a manner consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, including by filing a statement of material facts that are in dispute (citing to any conflicting materials in the record or to the absence of admissible evidence), and any supporting evidentiary material. Defendants may also, if appropriate, seek to defer consideration of that portion of Plaintiffs’ motion in the manner prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), which requires the opposing parties to submit an affidavit or declaration that explains, in detail, why they cannot at this early stage of the litigation present facts essential to justify their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 07/15/2022. |
| 7/14/2022 | Court | Docket Text: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randolph D. Moss: Video (Zoom) Scheduling Conference held on 7/14/2022. Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant’s 12 Motion to Expedite Discovery is due by 7/19/2022; Any reply by Defendant is due by 7/21/2022. Defendant’s obligation to answer the complaint is STAYED. |
| 7/14/2022 | Defendants | Reply to Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Extension to Respond to Application for Preliminary Injunction |
| 7/14/2022 | Plaintiffs | Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Extension to Respond to Application for Preliminary Injunction |
| 7/14/2022 | Defendants | Defendants’ Motion for Expedited Discovery |
| 7/13/2022 | Defendants | Defendants’ Motion for Extension to Respond to Application for Preliminary Injunction |
| 7/13/2022 | Defendants | Notice of Appearance of Richard P. Sobiecki for Defendants |
| 7/12/2022 | Defendants | Notice of Appearance of Mateya B. Kelley for Defendants |
| 7/12/2022 | Defendants | Notice of Appearance of Helen M. Rave for Defendants |
| 7/11/2022 | Plaintiffs | Application for Preliminary Injunction
Memorandum of Points and Authorities Declaration of Cameron M. Erickson Declaration of Gregory T. Angelo Declaration of Robert M. Miller |
| 7/11/2022 | Court | Docket Text: MINUTE ORDER: In light of Plaintiffs’ motion for a permanent injunction, Dkt. 6 , the parties are hereby ORDERED to appear by video before Judge Randolph D. Moss for a scheduling conference at 4:00 p.m. on July 14, 2022. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 7/11/2022. |
| 7/8/2022 | Defendants | Notice of Appearance of Andrew J. Saindon for Defendants |
| 7/7/2022 | Court | Summons for Defendants |
| 7/7/2022 | Plaintiffs | Proof of Service of Summons on District of Columbia |
| 7/6/2022 | Court | Standing Order |
| 7/1/2022 | Court | Docket Text: Case Assigned to Judge Randolph D. Moss. |
| 6/30/2022 | Plaintiffs | Complaint
Summons Request for Office of the Attorney General |