Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
8:12-cv-01137 #26

8:12-cv-01137 #26

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5,879 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc #26 - Plaintiffs' response to BLAG's motion to intervene
Doc #26 - Plaintiffs' response to BLAG's motion to intervene

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Aug 31, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/31/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
C
ENTER FOR 
H
UMAN
IGHTS AND
C
ONSTITUTIONAL
L
AW
 Peter A. Schey (Cal. Bar No. 58232)Carlos R. Holguín (Cal. Bar No. 90754)
 
256 S. Occidental Blvd.Los Angeles, CA 90057Telephone: (213) 388-8693 (Schey Ext. 304, Holguín ext. 309)Facsimile: (213) 386-9484 pschey@centerforhumanrights.orgcrholguin@centerforhumanrights.org
 Additional counsel listed next page Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THECENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISIONM
ARTIN
R.
 
A
RANAS
,I
RMA
ODRIGUEZ
,
AND
 J
ANE
D
E
L
EON
,Plaintiffs,-vs-J
ANET
 N
APOLITANO
,
 
Secretary of theDepartment of Homeland Security;
 
D
EPARTMENT OF
H
OMELAND
S
ECURITY
;
 
A
LEJANDRO
M
AYORKAS
,
 
Director, United States Citizenship andImmigration Services;
 
andU
 NITED
S
TATES
C
ITIZENSHIP
&
 
I
MMIGRATION
S
ERVICES
,Defendants. __________________________________ )))))))))))))))))))))))))))SACV12-01137 CBM (AJWx)P
LAINTIFFS
RESPONSE TOMOTION OF
B
IPARTISAN
L
EGAL
A
DVISORY
G
ROUP TO INTERVENEAS PARTY
-
DEFENDANT
.Hearing: September 24, 2012Time: 11:00 amHon. Consuelo B. Marshall
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 26 Filed 08/31/12 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:361
 
 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
2
Response to motion to intervene
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law256 S. Occidental Blvd.Los Angeles, CA 90057213/388-8693
 Additional counsel for plaintiff Aranas:
P
UBLIC
L
AW
C
ENTER 
Julie Greenwald (Cal. Bar No. 233714)Monica Ashiku (Cal. Bar No. 263112)601 Civic Center Drive WestSanta Ana, CA 92701Telephone: (714) 541-1010 (Greenwald Ext. 263, Ashiku Ext. 249)Facsimile: (714) 541-5157 jgreenwald@publiclawcenter.orgmashiku@publiclawcenter.orgA
SIAN
L
AW
A
LLIANCE
 Beatrice Ann M. Pangilinan (Cal. Bar No. 271064)184 Jackson Street, San Jose, CA 95112Telephone: (408) 287-9710Facsimile: (408) 287-0864Email: bpangilinan@asianlawalliance.org
 Additional counsel for plaintiffs Rodriguez and DeLeon:
 L
AW
O
FFICES OF
M
ANULKIN
&
 
B
ENNETT
 Gary H. Manulkin (Cal. Bar No.
 
41469)Reyna M. Tanner (Cal. Bar No.
 
197931)10175 Slater Avenue, Suite 111Fountain Valley, CA 92708Telephone: 714-963-8951Facsimile: 714-968-4948gmanulkin@mgblaw.comreynatanner@yahoo.com/ / /
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 26 Filed 08/31/12 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:362
 
 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
3
Response to motion to intervene
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law256 S. Occidental Blvd.Los Angeles, CA 90057213/388-8693
The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) moves to intervene as a party-defendant in this action “for the purposes of defending DOMA § 3 against Plaintiffs’constitutional challenges (and litigating related jurisdictional issues, if any).” Motionto Intervene at 2.Plaintiffs take no position regarding the merits of BLAG’s motion to intervenefor this limited purpose or its standing in this action as a party-defendant.Plaintiffs do not concede,
inter alia
, (1) that BLAG speaks for a bi-partisanmajority of the U.S House of Representatives; (2) that the Department of Justice hasa responsibility to defend before the federal courts a statute it concludes isunconstitutional; or (3) that the Department of Justice’s decision to abstain fromdefending DOMA § 3 “was not predicated primarily on constitutional or other legalconsiderations…”
 Id 
. at 4.Plaintiffs reserve objection to actions by BLAG, should the Court permit it tointervene, inconsistent with the limited role it explicitly proposes.
 E.g., Cardona v.Shinseki
, 2012 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 1724 at *2 (U.S. App. Vet. Cl., Aug.13, 2012) (denying BLAG access to plaintiffs’ medical records where documents notrelevant to the purposes for which it had been permitted to intervene:
i.e.,
to “‘defend[Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act] … against equal protection claims (andlitigat[e] related jurisdictional issues, if any).’”).Plaintiffs would accordingly object to BLAG’s attempting to oppose plaintiffs’ pending motions for class certification and a preliminary injunction on thegrounds that such opposition would be inconsistent with its purported goal of 
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 26 Filed 08/31/12 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:363

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->