Case: 12-16258

08/30/2012

ID: 8306507

DktEntry: 24

Page: 1 of 5

RICHARD L HOLCOMB (HI Bar No. 9177) Holcomb Law, A Limited Liability Law Corporation 1136 Union Mall, Suite 808 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 545-4040 Facsimile: (808) 356-1954 Email: rholcomblaw@live.com ALAN BECK (HI Bar No. 9145) Attorney at Law 4780 Governor Drive San Diego, California 92122 Telephone: (619) 971-0414 Email: ngord2000@yahoo.com KEVIN O’GRADY (HI Bar No. 8817) The Law Office of Kevin O’Grady, LLC 1136 Union Mall, Suite #808 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 521-3367 Facsimile: (808) 521-3369 Email: kevin@criminalandmilitarydefensehawaii.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Christopher Baker UNITED STATE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) LOUIS KEALOHA, as an individual and ) ) in his official capacity; CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; ) ) ) Defendants. ) CHRISTOPHER BAKER,

No. 12-16258 CASE NO. CV 11-00528 MOTION TO STAY

Case: 12-16258

08/30/2012

ID: 8306507

DktEntry: 24

Page: 2 of 5

MOTION TO STAY COMES NOW the Appellant, Christopher Baker, and respectfully requests this Court issue an Order staying further proceedings in this case until such time as this Court issues its decision in Richards, et al. v. Prieto, et al., No. 11-16255. In support of this Motion, Mr. Baker would show: 1. On June 26 , 2012, Appellant filed a “NOTIFICATION PURSUANT
th

TO CIRCUIT RULE 34-3” in which he indicated he would be seeking a stay pending the decision in Richards, et al. v. Prieto, et al., No. 11-16255 in the near future. 2. On June 29, 2012 the Clerk of this Court issued an Order which stated

“if any party wishes to file a motion to stay briefing in this appeal pending the resolution of Richards, et al. v. Prieto, et al., No. 11-16255, they may do so.” This motion follows. 3. Appellate Courts have the discretion to stay cases. “The power to stay

proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).

Case: 12-16258

08/30/2012

ID: 8306507

DktEntry: 24

Page: 3 of 5

4.

Here the balance of equities and judicial economy mandates that this

and all related cases be stayed pending the decision in Richards. The resolution of Richards will be dispositive to the primary issues in this case as Richards directly addresses two core issues for which this Court must also address in this case. Specifically: • Whether the right to bear arms extends outside the home; and • If so, whether local governments may require applicants to show good cause (or in this case that theirs is an “exceptional case”) before a permit may issue that would allow applicants to exercise the right to bear arms. See Richards, et. al. v. Prieto, et. al., No. 11-16255, Brief of Appellant at 41. Despite this appeal arising from denial of a preliminary injunction, Mr. Baker believes that the answers to these questions will prove dispositive of Mr. Baker’s entire case. Thus, a stay would be far more economical for both the courts and the parties. 5. On the other hand, it would be nearly impossible for the government

defendants to claim harm pending a stay because, since the filing of these actions, no government regulation has been affected due to the litigation in this or any of the other related cases. Therefore, a stay pending Richards would merely preserve the status quo of the current statutes at issue, and allow the court sufficient time to

Case: 12-16258

08/30/2012

ID: 8306507

DktEntry: 24

Page: 4 of 5

resolve these very important (and novel) core legal issues surrounding the Second Amendment in this Circuit. not object to a stay. Conclusion For any and all of the reasons above, Mr. Baker requests this Court issue an Order staying further proceedings in this case until such time as this Court issues its decision in Richards, et al. v. Prieto, et al., No. 11-16255 Respectfully submitted this 30th day of August, 2012 s/ Alan Beck Attorney for Appellant Christopher Baker Indeed, Defendants have indicated that they would

Case: 12-16258

08/30/2012

ID: 8306507

DktEntry: 24

Page: 5 of 5

UNITED STATE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT CHRISTOPHER BAKER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) LOUIS KEALOHA, as an individual and ) in his official capacity; ) CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; ) ) Defendants. ) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this, the 30th day of August, 2012, I served the foregoing Motion by electronically filing it with the Court’s CM/ECF system, which generated a Notice of Filing and effects service upon counsel for all parties in the case. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this the 30th day of August 2012 /s/ Richard L. Holcomb Richard L. Holcomb

No. 12-16258 CASE NO. CV 11-00528 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful