• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Gould v O'Leary - Comm2A Carry Case v. Boston / Brookline

Here's the updated schedule.

Friday there was a hearing on Boston's motion to stay discovery. The court 'granted in part and denied in part' the city's motion to state discover pending a decision on their motion to dismiss. Basically, the court said that discover could continue against the plaintiffs, and only limited discovery could proceed against Boston. Basically we won.

In two weeks there will be a hearing on Boston's motion to dismiss. Look for an update then.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Here's the updated schedule.

Friday there was a hearing on Boston's motion to stay discovery. The court 'granted in part and denied in part' the city's motion to state discover pending a decision on their motion to dismiss. Basically, the court said that discover could continue against the plaintiffs, and only limited discovery could proceed against Boston. Basically we won.

In two weeks there will be a hearing on Boston's motion to dismiss. Look for an update then.
Click to expand...

How is allowing discovery AGAINST our side a win?? I'm confused.
 
Len-2A Training said:
How is allowing discovery AGAINST our side a win?? I'm confused.
Click to expand...

Because we opposed Boston's motion to stay discover. We wanted the case to continue on schedule, they wanted to halt discovery. Boston thinks that continuing discovery when the judge might dismiss the case is a waste of time. So the judge threw them a bone by temporarily limiting the amount of discovery they need to provide, but just for the time being. Everything else is on schedule.
 
jtnf said:
And I love the fact that BPD attys and Evans are citing Hightower, when it proves the opposite of their intent. It's like they're not even trying.
Click to expand...

No, it's because the judge in Morin cited it to dismiss our case without either side briefing him on it. It's a mess that's now at the 1st Circuit.
 
jtnf said:
Is this opposition published as filed? If so you have a missing cite, "Gastronomical Workers Union Local 610 v" (blank)

Reading the convoluted history of licensing changes in Massachusetts makes my hair hurt. Summarized well in this opposition, BTW.
Click to expand...

The rest of that is on the top of the next page.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
The court took Boston's motion under advisement. That's good because the court started out by asking why this was different than than Batty which we lost about 10 days ago. The court seemed open to our argument.
Click to expand...
^^ Just to add to this, at Friday's hearing the court put this question in the context of 'then you could do a consolidated appeal to the First Circuit.'

While the Batty decision wasn't the one we wanted, the court isn't slacking. They are acutely aware that they don't have the last word and that whatever decision they hand down will be appealed by the losing party. That said, it's clear that the court isn't just pushing these cases off to the side. This judge is doing his job and is being as thorough as possible.

Today, the court denied Boston's motion:

Based on a review of the pleadings, it appears that the amended complaint plausibly states a claim for relief. Furthermore, and in any event, it appears that the amended complaint raises factual issues that are more properly resolved upon review of a factual record concerning plaintiffs individual circumstances and the policies and procedures of the relevant city and town. Accordingly, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.
Click to expand...

This is good, it's what we wanted. The case will continue at least as far as documenting the factual record.
 
Last edited:
Just so people know what's going on here. We're in the discovery phase. Boston and Brookline give us information we ask for and we give them information they want. All within reason. And so far that hasn't been an issue. There's also the possibility that depositions will be taken, but at this point, I kind of doubt it.

Next, both sides retreat to their corners and start writing motions for the November deadline. I'll just remind folks that at our last hearing the judge said "why shouldn't I just dismiss this suit like I did the one against Winchester? ". Our answer was that dismissal would be premature at this stage, before a record had been created. Boston and Brookline didn't object.

In short, everyone starting with the judge knows that regardless of the outcome in this court, the case will be appealed to the First Circuit. It is in everyone's best interest, including the judge's, to dot our Ts and cross our Is before that happens. To his credit, the judge, unlike many others, isn't willing to just sweep this under the rug and hand CA1 a steaming pile of poo.
 

Similar threads

2nd Circuit Court of Appeals overturns dismissal of CT's Nastri v. Dykes (CT park carry ban)
Replies
0
Views
120
sbhaven
S
LTC PD Boston 😔
Replies
8
Views
244
M1911
M1911
Pdp v canik
Replies
7
Views
331
wcorey
W
Carry in Post Office
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
LTCRN
LTCRN
Boston Police Officer Shot
Replies
21
Views
671
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Back
Top Bottom