Summary: Federal lawsuit challenging California SB 1327's fee-shifting provision.

Plaintiffs: James Miller, Ryan Peterson, Gunfighter Tactical, LLC; John Phillips, PWGG, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC (SDCGO); California Gun Rights Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, John W. Dillon, Dillon Law Group, P.C., and George M. Lee

Defendants: California Attorney General Rob Bonta, DOJ Bureau of Firearms Director Luis Lopez

Litigation Counsel: Bradley Benbrook, Stephen Duvernay, David Thompson, Peter Patterson, and Joseph Masterman

Docket: S.D. CA case no. 3:22-cv-01446 | CourtListener Docket

Donate & Support Pro-2A Lawsuits & Legal Action!

Key Events & Filings:

• 2023-6-5: Order
• 2023-6-2: Stipulation and Joint Request for Order Regarding the Parties’ Settlement of Plaintiffs’ Claims for Attorney’s Fees and Costs
• 2023-3-20: Judgment
• 2022-12-19: Opinion and Order Enjoining Enforcement of California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.11
• 2022-12-14: Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Brief in Response to Defendants’ and Intervenor-Defendant’s Supplemental Briefs
• 2022-12-12: Intervenor-Defendant’s Supplemental Brief
• 2022-12-9: Order Granting Motion for Leave to Intervene
• 2022-12-9: Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Response to Governor Gavin Newsom’s Motion to Intervene and Objection to Proposed Modifications to Scheduling Order
• 2022-12-9: Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time and Adjusting Dates
• 2022-12-9: Motion for Leave to Intervene
• 2022-12-8: Defendants’ Supplemental Brief
• 2022-12-1: Order
• 2022-11-15: MINUTE ORDER issued by the Honorable Roger T. Benitez: The Court makes the following tentative ruling in advance of the November 28, 2022 hearing: There exists a live case or controversy between these plaintiffs and the defendant(s). Notwithstanding the defendants statement that he does not intend presently to enforce the state attorneys fee statute at issue, the case is not moot. First, defendant has stated that he will enforce the statute if certain events occur in the future. Second, the defendant cannot bind a successor if he leaves office for any reason. Third, defendants position on non-enforcement does not bind county counsel, city attorneys, or private parties in the state that may seek to employ the benefit of the statute at issue. On December 16, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. a trial on the merits will be consolidated with a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 65(a)(2). Bench Trial set for 12/16/2022 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5A before Judge Roger T. Benitez.
• 2022-11-7: Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction
• 2022-10-31: Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction
• 2022-10-7: Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction
• 2022-10-3: Report of Clerk and Order of Transfer Pursuant to "Low-number" Rule
• 2022-9-27: Objection to Notice of Related Case
• 2022-9-26: Notice of Related Case
• 2022-9-26: Complaint

News Releases:

• 2023-6-6: California Agrees to Pay Plaintiffs’ Legal Fees After Losing Lawsuit that Challenged its Discriminatory Firearm Lawsuit Fee-Shifting Regime
• 2022-12-19: FPC VICTORY: Federal Judge Blocks California’s Discriminatory Firearm Lawsuit Fee-Shifting Regime
• 2022-12-2: FPC Lawsuit Challenging California’s Discriminatory Fee-Shifting Regime Can Continue, Federal Judge Rules
• 2022-10-10: FPC Files For Injunction Against California Discriminatory Fee-Shifting Regime
• 2022-9-27: FPC Files Lawsuit Challenging California Discriminatory Fee-Shifting Regime