Source: http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=1852
Timestamp: 2018-10-20 05:56:29
Document Index: 445297884

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 4', '§ 204', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 15', '§ 302', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 240', '§ 24', '§ 7', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 23', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 22', '§ 302', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 240', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 6', '§ 7', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 6', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 202', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 2', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 6', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7']

Palmer v. District of Columbia – Case closed « California Right To Carry.org – California Open Carry.com
Palmer v. District of Columbia - Case closed
This is the “carry” case out of D.C., brought by the SAF. Alan Gura is the attorney. On July 26, 2014, after nearly five years since the case was first filed, Senior Federal District Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. issued an order granting the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and issuing an enjoining enforcement of the defendants’ ban on carrying handguns, openly or concealed, in public. Here is a link to that order. The District of Columbia enacted a new de facto ban. A motion for a permanent injunction against the “new” ban was filed.
On April 2, 2015 the District of Columbia voluntarily dismissed its appeal of the Palmer decision of July 26, 2014. D.C., will no longer be defending its old law enacted in 2008. D.C., has chosen instead to defend its new law enacted after the 2008 law was struck down by Judge Scullin in the Order of July 26, 2014. No doubt realizing that his original Complaint in Palmer v. D.C., was poorly written, attorney Alan Gura filed a new lawsuit – Wrenn v. D.C. The new lawsuit does not challenge the new Open Carry ban which makes it a pure concealed carry case and we should all know by now that doesn’t bode well for success.
On August 13, 2015 the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the remaining claims after settling on attorney fees and costs (reportedly $75k). On August 14, 2015 the Court dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice. This lawsuit is over. The end result is that D.C., has enacted a new handgun Open Carry ban (the long gun Open Carry ban was never challenged) and D.C., has enacted a “may issue” concealed carry law, the “may” part is being challenged in the Wrenn case.
Here is a link to many of the briefs filed in this case – free.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 15, 2015 – On June 8th a joint motion to stay briefing on attorney fees was filed. On June 9th the court reset the deadlines:
Set/Reset Deadlines: Updated motion for attorney fees and costs due by 8/26/2015.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 5, 2015 – The plaintiffs got their $350 filing fee back.
Filed & Entered: 06/05/2015
Bill of Costs Taxed
Update May 18, 2015 by Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry – Judge Scullin denied the contempt motion and denied the motion for a permanent injunction as being unnecessary. Here is a link to today’s Order -> 92 – Order on Permanent Injunction Note that Judge Scullin says he is prevented from ruling on the new DC law because of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.
Update May 7, 2015 – No update since the district court granted the motion to stay on April 7, 2015. It has now been seven months and five days since the motion for a permanent injunction was filed.
Update April 22, 2015 – The district court granted the motion to stay on April 7, 2015. It has now been six months and three weeks f since the motion for a permanent injunction was filed.
Update April 6, 2015 – The defendants filed a consent motion, to which the plaintiffs did not object, to: “stay briefing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs, until 30 days after a decision on plaintiffs’ pending (1) Motion for Permanent Injunction, or (2) Motion to Hold Defendants in Contempt, or 30 days after the issuance of the mandate on any appeal of those decisions, whichever is later.”
Update April 2, 2015 – The defendants voluntarily dismissed their appeal of this case. What Judge Scullin does next is anyone’s guess. Other than two notices, one of which was a notice of the dismissal of the appeal filed today, there has been no activity in the case since December 11, 2014.
Update March 27, 2015 – The defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority that the Peruta v. San Diego decision was vacated.
Update February 20, 2015 – There is nothing new on the district court docket.
Update January 20, 2015 – There is nothing new on either the district court or appellate dockets.
Update January 17, 2015 – The appellate motion to hold the appeal in abeyance and the appellate motion for summary affirmance were both denied. The appeal now proceeds as if it were any other appeal.
01/16/2015 PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1532644] denying motion to hold case in abeyance [1524398-2]; denying motion for summary affirmance [1523395-2]. Before Judges: Rogers, Tatel and Brown. [14-7180]
Update January 3, 2015 – We are still waiting for decision on the motions for a permanent injunction against the “new” law and holding the defendants in contempt of court. As of today, it is still illegal to carry any firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense in the District of Columbia.
Update December 12, 2014 – Here is the response by Palmer to the DC Opposition to the contempt motion. The response was filed yesterday. -> Doc 86 – Palmer Reply to DC Opposition to Contempt Motion
Update December 5, 2014 – Here is the response by DC to the contempt motion. The response was filed yesterday. -> Palmer Contempt Motion Response by DC Defendants
Update November 20, 2014 – Emily Miller of Fox News reported on today’s hearing that “The judge asked the defense whether he would have jurisdiction if the new law did not comply with his order on the Second Amendment. The city acknowledged that he would.” Significantly, Miller added that “Judge Scullin gave the city two weeks to respond to the contempt motion.” This strongly suggests that Judge Scullin thinks that the new DC law does not comply with his Order striking down the DC handgun carry ban.
Here are the text entries from today’s docket.
“Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr: Motion Hearing held on 11/20/2014. Oral argument heard re [83] MOTION for Order to Show Cause. (Court Reporter Jan Dickman) (gdf)”
“Full docket text for document 84:
TEXT SCHEDULING ORDER: regarding the # [83] Motion for Order to Show Cause. Response to Motion due by 12/4/2014. Reply to Response to Motion due by 12/11/2014. IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. on 11/20/2014. (Scullin, Frederick)”
Update November 19, 2014 – Palmer upped the ante by filing a motion to hold the defendants in contempt of court. There was a minute entry from today regarding the telephone conference which reads as follows:
83 – Contempt Motion – Main
Update November 18, 2014 – The dance continues. Yesterday, Palmer filed this missive back at the Defendants.
Update November 14, 2014 – The defendants filed a notice of appeal today. It looks like I was right about their not wanting to risk losing their right to appeal by construing the written order denying their motion for reconsideration as the date for when the clock starts ticking as opposed to the oral order denying their motion back on October 17th.
Update November 6, 2014 – The district court having previous denied the District’s motion for reconsideration put its reasons in writing and published it today. You can read it here.
Update October 31, 2014 – The Plaintiffs filed a Reply Brief to the D.C., opposition to the Permanent Injunction. The complete brief including attachments can be downloaded here. It is approximately 3MB in size.
Update October 23, 2014 – The deadline for D.C., to file its notice of appeal is November 17th. The motion hearing for the permanent injunction is November 20, 2014. If D.C., has not filed its notice of appeal by then it has forfeited its right to do so which places Judge Scullin in a very powerful position.
Update October 22, 2014 – The stay of the injunction against D.C.’s old code section expired today. As of 7:12 pm Eastern Time there was no activity regarding the motion for a permanent injunction filed against the new D.C., law. An interesting loophole in the two laws, which I do not advise anyone to test, is that the prohibition on the Open Carry of handguns seems to have fallen through the cracks. Time well tell.
Update October 20, 2014 – The Defendants filed Palmer v. DC – Defendants MPA in Opposition to PI to the motion for a permanent injunction.
Update October 17, 2014 – The motion for reconsideration by DC was denied. The 30 day clock now starts ticking on its motion to appeal. Judge Scullin has set a November 20th date to hear oral arguments on Palmer’s motion for a permanent injunction against the new ordinance. Palmer also filed a notice of supplemental authority to Morris v. U.S. Corps of Army Engineers.
Minute Entry for Motion Hearing held before Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. on 10/17/14 : Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration [63], heard, argued and denied. The Court will issued a written opinion. Oral Argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Permanent Injunction [71] set for 11/20/14 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 21.
Update October 2, 2014 – I was wondering what Gura was going to do with the new may-issue law enacted by the D.C., city council. Now we know. Here are links to the: Motion for a Permanent Injunction, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion, Exhibit A – The new law, and the Proposed Order.
Update September 26, 2014 – The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority to Binderup v. Holder, No. 13-6750-JKG, ___ F. Supp. 2d __ (E.D. Pa. Sept.
Update September 23, 2014 – Judge Scullin today took the motion hearing off schedule. Also, the DC City council unanimously passed its highly restrictive may-issue concealed carry permit law.
“Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 10/17/2014 10:30 AM in A courtroom will be determined at a later date. before Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr.. (zmm, ) ”
Update September 22, 2014 – The Defendants filed their Reply Brief In Support of Motion For Reconsideration.
Update September 19, 2014 – The proposed legislation for next Tuesday’s city council meeting is now online. Here is a link to the Emergency Declaration. Here is a link to the “Emergency Basis” bill. Here is a link to the “Temporary Basis” bill.
Update September 18, 2014 – The D.C., government issued a press release yesterday on the new legislation which, if approved, will go into effect no later than October 22, 2014. It is a may-issue permit law for those who prove a “need” to carry. The press release can be found here. If you read the two claims for relief and the prayer for relief from Gura’s Complaint filed back in 2009 you might notice that Gura got what he asked for in the Complaint which was an injunction against the ban on carrying a handgun in public and the registration requirement for non-residents.
Gura’s ask for an order to issue licenses was in the “alternative” to issuing injunctions. Gura got the injunctions.
Technically this case could be closed with the new may-issue law without any of the defendants obtaining a permit.
Regardless, a new complaint will need to be filed which means the whole process starts anew.
Update September 17, 2014 – Today, the court issued the following 66 – ORDER on stay pending appeal “Having reviewed the parties’ submissions in support of and in opposition to Defendants’ motion for a stay pending an appeal, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendants’ motion is DENIED; however, the Court will entertain a motion to extend the stay beyond October 22, 2014. If Defendants wish to make such a motion, they must file papers in support of that motion on or before October 3, 2014, setting forth in detail what, if any, progress they have made to comply with the Court’s decision. Plaintiffs may file any opposition that they have to Defendants’ motion on or before October 10, 2014. If Defendants file such a motion, the Court will hear oral argument in support of, and in opposition to, said motion on October 17, 2014, at 10:30 a.m.; and the Court further ORDERS that the Court will hear oral argument in support of, and in opposition to, Defendants’ motion for reconsideration on October 17, 2014, at 10:30 a.m.”
Update September 11, 2014 – Today a 17 page Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration was filed.
Update August 31, 2014 – Many people are confused as to the current status of this case, particularly in regards to an appeal. When the DC Defendants filed their motion for reconsideration a week ago they reset the clock on when they must file their notice of appeal and reset the clock on when that notice of appeal goes into effect. The Defendants can file a notice of appeal at any time but until Judge Scullin rules on their motion for consideration, the appeal cannot proceed. If Judge Scullin denies their motion for reconsideration then they have 30 days from the date of denial within which to file their notice of appeal. If Judge Scullin grants their motion for reconsideration then the Plaintiffs have 30 days within which to file their notice of appeal. There is no time limit for Judge Scullin to rule on the motion for reconsideration. He can sit on the motion for as long as he likes. By filing their motion for reconsideration the Defendants gave Judge Scullin a great deal of power to decide what the District’s new law will look like. According to press reports and a reliable source, the District lawyers are drafting a Maryland style “may issue” law. The Plaintiff’s have said they will oppose that type of law.
The Defendants have also asked for an additional 90 day stay. At this point, all we can do is wait and see what happens.
Update August 26, 2014 – SCOTUSblog published this article on the case.
Update August 25, 2014 – The defendants filed a motion for reconsideration today. Tomorrow was the deadline.
Update August 18, 2014 – The defendants filed a brief responding to the opposition to a further stay filed earlier this month. Here is a link.
Update August 4, 2014 – Alan Gura filed an opposition to a stay pending appeal. Once again Gura argues that the District of Columbia may “regulate” the carrying of handguns which is to say “ban” Open Carry.
Update July 29, 2014 – Alan Gura had agreed to a 90 day stay of the Palmer decision and so the stay was granted. The judge also clarified that his now stayed injunction applied only to the carrying of handguns and not to any other type of “deadly dangerous weapon.” Barring a further stay, this one is in effect until October 22, 2014.
Update July 28, 2014 – Alan Gura published the DC Police memo regarding the Palmer decision here. The District of Columbia today filed a motion for a stay in which Gura agreed to a 90 day stay. Yesterday, Gura filed an unopposed motion to dismiss his writ of mandamus which is clearly moot now that a decision has been issued.
Update July 26, 2014 – Palmer wins in district court. Here is a link to the decision. Here is a link to the Complaint. Here is a link to the District of Columbia laws. D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) (2014) which was enjoined applies to handguns be they carried openly or concealed as well as to long guns, which can only be openly carried, as this section of the code also applies to rifles and shotguns. To be honest, I don’t know if the decision applies to long guns as well. The court issued an injunction against D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) and the long gun restrictions are in subsection § 22-4504(a-1).
Formerly cited as 1981 Ed., § 22-3204
Copyright (c) 2014 by the District of Columbia
*** Current through laws effective as of May 19, 2014, and through D.C. Act 20-306 ***
D.C. Code § 22-4504 (2014)
HISTORY: July 8, 1932, 47 Stat. 651, ch. 465, § 4; Nov. 4, 1943, 57 Stat. 586, ch. 296; Aug. 4, 1947, 61 Stat. 743, ch. 469; June 29, 1953, 67 Stat. 94, ch. 159, § 204(c); July 28, 1989, D.C. Law 8-19, § 3(c), 36 DCR 2844; May 8, 1990, D.C. Law 8-120, § 3(c), 37 DCR 24; May 21, 1994, D.C. Law 10-119,§ 15(c), 41 DCR 1639; Aug. 20, 1994, D.C. Law 10-151, § 302, 41 DCR 2608; May 20, 2009, D.C. Law 17-388, § 2(c), 56 DCR 1162; Sept. 29, 2012, D.C. Law 19-170, § 3(d), 59 DCR 5691; June 11, 2013, D.C. Law 19-317, §§ 240(b), 309(a), 60 DCR 2064.
CROSS REFERENCES. –Eligibility for geriatric or medical parole, exceptions, see § 24-467.
SECTION REFERENCES. –This section is referenced in § 7-2507.06a, § 22-2511, § 22-4505, § 22-4513, § 23-1322, § 24-221.06, § 24-261.02, and § 24-467.
PRIOR CODIFICATIONS. –1981 Ed., § 22-3204.
EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS. –D.C. Law 17-388 added subsec. (a-1).
EMERGENCY LEGISLATION. –For temporary amendment of section, see § 302 of the Omnibus Criminal Justice Reform Emergency Amendment Act of 1994 (D.C. Act 10-255, June 22, 1994, 41 DCR 4286).
For temporary (90 day) additions, see § 2(d) of Inoperable Pistol Emergency Amendment Act of 2008 (D.C. Act 17-652, January 6, 2009, 59 DCR 927).
For temporary amendment of (a), see § 3(d) of the Firearms Second Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2012 (D.C. Act 19-510, October 26, 2012, 59 DCR 12808).
For temporary (90 days) amendment of this section, see §§ 240(b) and 309(a) of the Criminal Fine Proportionality Emergency Amendment Act of 2013 (D.C. Act 20-45, April 1, 2013, 60 DCR 5400, 20 DCSTAT 1300).
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 8-19. –For legislative history of D.C. Law 8-19, see Historical and Statutory Notes following § 22-4501.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 8-120. –For legislative history of D.C. Law 8-120, see Historical and Statutory Notes following § 22-4501.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 10-119. –For legislative history of D.C. Law 10-119, see Historical and Statutory Notes following § 22-4502.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 10-151. –For legislative history of D.C. Law 10-151, see Historical and Statutory Notes following § 22-4501.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 17-388. –For Law 17-388, see notes following § 22-4501.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 19-170. –See note to § 22-4501.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 19-317. –See note to § 22-4502.
EDITOR’S NOTES. –Seizure and forfeiture of conveyances used in firearms offenses: Section 2(b) of D.C. Law 11-273 provided for the forfeiture and seizure of any conveyance, including vehicles and vessels in which any person or persons transport, possess, or conceal any firearm as defined in § 6-2302 [§ 7-2501.01, 2001 Ed.], or in any manner use to facilitate a violation of §§ 22-3203 and 22-3204 [§§ 22-4503 and 22-4504, 2001 Ed.].
Formerly cited as 1981 Ed., § 6-2312
D.C. Code § 7-2502.02 (2014)
§ 7-2502.02. Registration of certain firearms prohibited
HISTORY: Sept. 24, 1976, D.C. Law 1-85, title II, § 202, 23 DCR 2464; Mar. 16, 1978, D.C. Law 2-62, § 2, 24 DCR 5780; May 7, 1993, D.C. Law 9-266, § 2(b), 39 DCR 5676; Mar. 31, 2009, D.C. Law 17-372, § 3(c), 56 DCR 1365; Sept. 29, 2012, D.C. Law 19-170, § 2(c), 59 DCR 5691.
SECTION REFERENCES. –This section is referenced in § 7-2502.09, § 7-2504.01, § 7-2505.02, and § 7-2507.06a.
PRIOR CODIFICATIONS. –1981 Ed., § 6-2312.
EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS. –D.C. Law 17-372, in subsec. (a), deleted “or” from the end of par. (3), rewrote par. (4), and added pars. (5), (6), and (7); and repealed subsec. (b).
EMERGENCY LEGISLATION. –For temporary (90 day) amendment, see § 2(a) of Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act of 2008 (D.C. Act 17-422, July 16, 2008,
For temporary amendment of (a)(4), see § 2(c) of the Firearms Second Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2012 (D.C. Act 19-510, October 26, 2012, 59 DCR 12808).
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 1-85. –For legislative history of D.C. Law 1-85, see Historical and Statutory Notes following § 7-2501.01.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 2-62. –For legislative history of D.C. Law 2-62, see Historical and Statutory Notes following § 7-2501.01.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 9-266. –For legislative history of D.C. Law 9-266, see Historical and Statutory Notes following § 7-2502.01.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 17-372. –For Law 17-372, see notes following § 7-2501.01.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF LAW 19-170. –See note to § 7-2501.01.
Update July 7, 2014 – It has now been two months and a day since the renewal of the petition for a writ of mandamus/mandate.
Court of Appeals Docket #: 13-5317 Docketed: 10/21/2013
Termed: 12/16/2013
In re: Tom Palmer, et al
District: 0090-1 : 1:09-cv-01482-FJS
10/21/2013 US CIVIL ORIGINAL PROCEEDING CASE docketed. [13-5317]
10/21/2013 PETITION filed [1462459] by Petitioners George Lyon, Amy McVey, Tom G. Palmer, Edward Raymond and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. for writ of mandamus. [Service Date: 10/21/2013 by Hand Delivery] Pages: 21-30. [13-5317]
12/16/2013 PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1470800] denying petition for writ of mandamus [1462459-2]. The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the district court. Before Judges: Henderson, Brown and Srinivasan. [13-5317]
05/06/2014 NOTICE FILED [1491654] by George Lyon, Amy McVey, Tom G. Palmer, Edward Raymond and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. Renewal of Petition per Court’s Dec. 16, 2013 order. [Service Date: 05/06/2014 ] [13-5317] (Gura, Alan)
05/06/2014 CORRECTED NOTICE FILED [1491667] by George Lyon, Amy McVey, Tom G. Palmer, Edward Raymond and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. Renewal of Petition per Court’s Dec. 16, 2013 order. [Service Date: 05/05/2014 ] [13-5317] (Gura, Alan)
Update June 15, 2014 – I’ve added the PACER Federal Appellate docket below. It took one month and 25 days to deny the first writ filed on 10/21/2013. The second writ was filed on May 6, 2013.
Update May 7, 2014 – This morning Alan Gura tweeted this “Renewal of Petition for a Writ of Mandamus” he filed in the hope that it will force a ruling in the district court which has been languishing for years.
You will need a Federal PACER account to access the individual court filings from the online court dockets below. Here is a link with some of the filings in the case available to download for free.
Here is the D.C. Appellate Docket
11/19/2014 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE [1523391] filed by Alan Gura on behalf of Appellees George Lyon, Amy McVey, Tom G. Palmer, Edward Raymond and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.. [14-7180] (Gura, Alan)
11/19/2014 CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS AND RELATED CASES [1523392] filed by George Lyon, Amy McVey, Tom G. Palmer, Edward Raymond and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. [Service Date: 11/19/2014 ] [14-7180] (Gura, Alan)
11/19/2014 STATEMENT FILED [1523393] by Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. with Disclosure Listing [Service Date: 11/19/2014 ] [14-7180] (Gura, Alan)
11/19/2014 MOTION filed [1523395] by George Lyon, Amy McVey, Tom G. Palmer, Edward Raymond and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. for summary affirmance. (Response to Motion served by mail due on 12/04/2014) [Service Date: 11/19/2014 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 16-20. [14-7180] (Gura, Alan)
11/25/2014 INCORRECT DOCKET ENTRY-DISREGARD–MOTION filed [1524395] by DC and Cathy L. Lanier to hold case in abeyance (Response to Motion served by mail due on 12/08/2014) [Service Date: 11/25/2014 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [14-7180]–[Edited 11/26/2014 by JJA] (Johnson, Holly)
12/08/2014 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1526088] by George Lyon, Amy McVey, Tom G. Palmer, Edward Raymond and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. to motion to hold case in abeyance [1524398-2] [Service Date: 12/08/2014 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [14-7180] (Gura, Alan)
12/12/2014 REPLY FILED [1526998] by DC and Cathy L. Lanier to response [1526088-2] [Service Date: 12/12/2014 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [14-7180] (Johnson, Holly)
Here is the D.C. District Court Docket
1:09-cv-01482-FJS PALMER et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al
Date of last filing: 06/09/2015
Filed & Entered: 06/09/2015
Filed & Entered: 06/08/2015
Terminated: 06/08/2015
Filed & Entered: 12/11/2014
Entered: 11/20/2014
Filed & Entered: 11/18/2014
Terminated: 05/18/2015
Filed & Entered: 11/17/2014
Filed & Entered: 11/06/2014
Terminated: 09/25/2014
Filed & Entered: 09/17/2014
Terminated: 08/26/2014
Filed & Entered: 07/29/2014
Terminated: 09/17/2014
Filed & Entered: 07/26/2014
Filed & Entered: 01/11/2014
Filed & Entered: 09/26/2013
Filed & Entered: 09/12/2013
Filed & Entered: 08/09/2013
Terminated: 07/29/2014
Filed & Entered: 12/05/2012
Filed & Entered: 10/26/2012
Filed & Entered: 07/25/2012
Terminated: 03/31/2014
Filed & Entered: 04/04/2012
Filed & Entered: 03/16/2012
Entered: 03/08/2012
Filed & Entered: 09/14/2011
Filed & Entered: 09/12/2011
Entered: 07/25/2011
Filed & Entered: 07/14/2010
Filed & Entered: 03/26/2010
Filed & Entered: 02/05/2010
Filed & Entered: 10/06/2009
Filed & Entered: 10/01/2009
Filed & Entered: 09/30/2009
Terminated: 10/01/2009
Entered: 09/24/2009
Terminated: 07/26/2014
Filed & Entered: 08/26/2009
Terminated: 08/18/2009
Entered: 08/07/2009
LCvR 7.1 Certificate of Disclosure – Corporate Affiliations/Financial Interests