Jonathan Birdt v. Charlie Beck et al

REPLY

C.D. Cal.January 20, 2012

1 ANDREA SHERIDAN ORDIN, County Counsel ROGER H. GRANBO, Assistant County Counsel 2 JENNIFER A.D. LEHMAN, Principal Deputy County Counsel (SBN 191477) · jlehman(icounsel.lacounty.gov 3 648 Kenneth Rahn Hall 01 Administration 500 West Temple Street 4 Los Angeles, California 90012-2713 Telephone: (213) 974-1908' Fax: (213) 626-2105 Attorneys for Defendant 6 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 5 7 8 9 10 11 ROBERT THOMSON, 12 Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 v. 14 TORRNCE POLICE DEPARTMENT and THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY 15 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, 16 Defendants. CASE NO.CV 11-06154 SJO(JCx) (to be related to CV 10-08377 JAK (JEMx) and CV 11-08026 JHN(JCGx) LASD REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO RELATING CASES (Local Rule 83-1.3) 17 18 Under Central District Local Rule 83.1.3, a case need notbe pending for it to 19 be related. The Rule only requires that the related action be "previously filed or 20 currently pending in the Central District" and (a) arise from the same or closely 21 related transaction, happening, or event; (b) call for determination of the same or 22 substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or ( c) for other reasons 23 would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges." (Central 24 Dist. Local Rule 83.1.3.) 25 Here, the cases of Jonathan Birdt v. Charlie Beck, et aL., United States 26 District Court Case No. CV 10-08377 JAK (JEMx), Robert Thomson v. Torrance 27 28 HOA.855069.1 Reply to Opp to Notice of Related Cases CV 10-08377 JAK(JEMx) / CV 11-06154 SJO (JCx), CV 11-08026 JHN(JCGx) Case 2:10-cv-08377-JAK -JEM Document 103 Filed 01/20/12 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:1328 1 Police Department, et al., United States District Court Case No. CV 11-06154 SJO 2 (JCx), and Sigitas Raulinaitis, et al. v. Los Angeles County Sherifs Department, 3 United States District Court Case No. CV 11-08026 JH(JCGx) all allege that the 4 Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department's policy for the issuance of concealed 5 weapons permits violates the Second Amendment. Ii; light of the identical legal 6 issues presented in these cases, Defendant LASD submits that litigating these cases 7 separately will create a substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges. 8 Judge Kronstadt recently ruled on the very issues that are the subjects of the 9 Thomson and Raulinaitis cases, and is already familiar with the law and the facts. 10 Having two other judges become familiar with the issues wil result in a substantial 11 and expensive duplication oflabor. Moreover, inconsistent rulings may result. 12 Accordingly, these are Related Cases for the purposes of Local Rule 83.1.3. 13 Additionally, while the parties have filed their respective motions for 14 summary judgments, the matter has not been fully briefed. The hearing on the 15 Thomson matter is presently set before Judge Otero on February 27,2012. While 16 Plaintiff has filed his Oppositions to the Defendants' summary judgment motions, 17 Defendants have not yet filed their papers. There is no trial date on the Thomson 18 case. The trial date in Raulinaitis is September 4,2012. 19 DATED: January 20,2012 Respectfully submitted, 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ANDREA SHERIDAN ORDIN County Counsel By ISI JENNIFER A.D. LEHMAN Principal Deputy County Counsel Attorneys for Defendant LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT HOA.855069.\ Reply to opp to Notice of Related Cases CV 10-08377 JAK(JEMx) / CV 11-06154 SJO (JCx), CV 11-08026 JHN(JCGx CV -2- Case 2:10-cv-08377-JAK -JEM Document 103 Filed 01/20/12 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:1329