1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526Fourteenth Amendment; and (6) the Jack and Jane Does’ parental rights under Article I, § 7 of the California Constitution.
ECF 1.)On October 19, 2012, Equality California filed a motion to intervene as a partydefendant. (ECF 24.) Plaintiffs have opposed the motion and Equality California has filed areply. (ECF 56, 72.) The motion to intervene is resolved by separate order.On October 23, 2012, plaintiffs filed the pending amended motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF 29.) Defendants have opposed the motion and plaintiffs have fileda reply. (ECF 48, 60.)On November 21, 2012, the court granted Equality California’s request to file anamicus brief and to participate in oral argument on the motion for a preliminary injunction.(ECF 67.) Equality California filed its amicus brief on November 21, 2012. (ECF 70.)II. BACKGROUND ON SOCE
As passed by the Legislature, SB 1172 seeks to regulate therapy known as “sexualorientation change efforts,” or SOCE (pronounced “s
sh”). “The phrase
sexual orientationchange efforts
(SOCE) encompasses a variety of methods, including techniques derived from psychoanalysis, behavioral therapy, and religious and spiritual counseling. These techniquesshare the common goal of changing an individual's sexual orientation from homosexual toheterosexual.” (ECF 52 ¶ 26 (emphasis in original).)
This background is drawn from the filings by both parties. The parties have objected to portions of the evidence submitted by their opponents. (
ECF 50, 64, 76.) Generally,declarations and evidence supporting a preliminary injunction motion need not conform to thestandards for a summary judgment motion or to the Federal Rules of Evidence.
, 174 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1059 n. 2 (C.D. Cal. 2001),
abrogated on other groundsby Flint v. Dennison
, 488 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 2007);
§ 2949(2d ed. 1995) (“[I]nasmuch as the grant of a preliminary injunction is discretionary, the trialcourt should be allowed to give even inadmissible evidence some weight when it is thoughtadvisable to do so in order to serve the primary purpose of preventing irreparable harm before atrial can be had.”). Because the court’s decision here would be the same whether all or none of the contested evidence is admissible, the court does not rule on objections at this stage of thelitigation.
Case 2:12-cv-02497-KJM-EFB Document 80 Filed 12/04/12 Page 3 of 44