Lane v. James
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-10989
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Lane v. Rocah, counsel asked for a stay or more time; Judge Karas’s court had not ruled in the provided text.
The filing concerns J. Mark Lane and James Sears, the defendants represented by the New York Attorney General, and the schedule for litigating the challenge to New York’s assault-weapons ban. The provided text does not show that the court granted or denied the requested relief.
What happened
In Lane v. Rocah, the defendants asked the court to pause the case while the Second Circuit considers a similar challenge to Connecticut’s assault-weapons ban. They argued that the appellate decision could guide this case’s challenge to New York’s ban.
Alternatively, the defendants asked for more time to complete discovery and file their own summary-judgment motion. The plaintiffs opposed a stay and the proposed dates but said they would accept a longer briefing schedule instead of a stay.
The provided text is a defense filing, not a court ruling. Judge Karas’s court directed the plaintiffs to respond by January 25, 2024, but the text does not state that the court granted or denied either request.
The detailed version
- Lane v. James · No. 7:22-cv-10989
- Kenneth Karas
- Jan. 22, 2024
Nature of the Filing
The provided text is a letter from attorneys for the defendants requesting procedural relief. It is not a judicial opinion or order, and it does not state that the court granted or denied the requests.
Background
The plaintiffs are identified as J. Mark Lane and James Sears. The letter states that the Office of the Attorney General represents Dominick L. Chiumento, in his official capacity as Acting Superintendent of the New York State Police. Miriam E. Rocah, identified as the District Attorney for the County of Westchester, joined the requests.
The case involves the plaintiffs’ facial challenge under the Second Amendment to New York’s assault-weapons ban. The defendants asked the court to stay, or pause, the proceedings until the Second Circuit decides an appeal in a related challenge to Connecticut’s assault-weapons ban. The letter describes the Connecticut case as involving a substantially similar law and says the appellate decision could control or guide an important issue in this case.
Requests
The defendants primarily requested a stay while the Second Circuit appeal proceeds. They argued that a stay could avoid duplicative litigation costs, conserve judicial resources, and reduce the risk of conflicting decisions. The letter also states that the Connecticut district court had denied a preliminary-injunction request challenging Connecticut’s ban, but that decision was on appeal.
In the alternative, the defendants requested an enlargement of the summary-judgment briefing schedule. The existing schedule required the plaintiffs to file their motion by February 9, 2024, the defendants to respond by March 11, 2024, and the plaintiffs to reply by March 25, 2024. The proposed dates were March 8, May 8, June 10, and June 24, 2024, respectively, with the defendants’ May 8 filing also serving as their cross-motion for summary judgment.
The letter says the plaintiffs opposed the stay and the proposed schedule but would agree to an enlarged schedule instead of a stay. It also states that the plaintiffs were directed to respond by January 25, 2024.
Disposition
No disposition appears in the provided text. The court’s action on the requested stay and schedule extension is therefore unclear from this document.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.