Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
12-16995 #23

12-16995 #23

Ratings: (0)|Views: 10,518|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc #23 - Hawaii Family Forum's unopposed motion to extend stay of proceedings
Doc #23 - Hawaii Family Forum's unopposed motion to extend stay of proceedings

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Dec 17, 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

12/17/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 Nos. 12-16995 & 12-16998
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUITNATASHA N. JACKSON
, et al.,Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.
NEIL S. ABERCROMBIE
, Governor, State of Hawai‘i,Defendant-Appellant-Appellee,and
LORETTA J. FUDDY
, Director, Department of Health, State of Hawai‘i,Defendant-Appellee,and
HAWAII FAMILY FORUM
,Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee.On appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘iCase No. CV 11-00734 ACK-KSCThe Honorable Alan C. Kay
Hawaii Family Forum’s Motion to Extend Stay of Proceedings
Byron J. BabioneJames A. CampbellAlliance Defending Freedom15100 N. 90th StreetScottsdale, AZ 85260(480) 444-0020 (t); (480) 444-0028 (f)
bbabione@alliancedefendingfreedom.org jcampbell@alliancedefendingfreedom.org
 David Austin R. NimocksAlliance Defending Freedom801 G Street NW, Suite 509Washington, DC 20001(202) 393-8690 (t); (480) 444-0028 (f)
animocks@alliancedefendingfreedom.org
James Hochberg745 Fort Street Mall, Suite 1201Honolulu, HI 96813(808) 534-1514 (t); (808) 538-3075 (f)
 jim@jameshochberglaw.com
 
Case: 12-16995 12/13/2012 ID: 8437675 DktEntry: 23 Page: 1 of 6
 
2Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27, Ninth Circuit Rule 27-1, and this Court’s inherent power to “control the disposition of the causes on itsdocket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants,”
 Landis v. North American Co.
, 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936), Hawaii Family Forum(“HFF”) respectfully moves for an order extending the current stay of theproceedings.On October 10, 2012, HFF filed a motion to stay the proceedings until theSupreme Court decided the then-pending petitions for writ of certiorari in
Perry v. Brown
, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012), and multiple cases (including
Windsor v.United States
, 833 F. Supp. 2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2012),
aff’d 
699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir.2012)) challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”).
See
HFF’sMot. to Stay Proceedings, ECF No. 11 (Appeal No. 12-16995); HFF’s Mot. to StayProceedings, ECF No. 14 (Appeal No. 12-16998).
1
This Court granted HFF’smotion in part, stayed the proceedings until December 17, 2012, and invited HFFto “move for further appropriate relief” “[o]n or before the expiration of the stay.”Order, ECF No. 12 (Appeal No. 12-16995); Order, ECF No. 15 (Appeal No. 12-16998). On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court granted petitions for writ of certiorari filed in
Perry
and
Windsor 
.
See
 
 Hollingsworth v. Perry
, 12-144, 2012
1
Plaintiffs and Governor Neil S. Abercrombie each filed a separate notice of appeal. Those appeals have since been consolidated. Order, ECF No. 15 (AppealNo. 12-16995).
Case: 12-16995 12/13/2012 ID: 8437675 DktEntry: 23 Page: 2 of 6
 
3WL 3134429 (U.S. Dec. 7, 2012);
United States v. Windsor 
, 12-307, 2012 WL4009654 (U.S. Dec. 7, 2012).As explained in HFF’s previously filed motion to stay the proceedings, theSupreme Court’s forthcoming decisions in
Perry
(which is now captioned
 Hollingsworth v. Perry
) and
Windsor 
will directly impact the legal analysis andoutcome of these proceedings.
See
HFF’s Mot. to Stay Proceedings 7-13, ECF No.11 (Appeal No. 12-16995); HFF’s Mot. to Stay Proceedings 7-13, ECF No. 14(Appeal No. 12-16998). Indeed, the questions presented in those cases areundoubtedly relevant to—and perhaps controlling over—the question presented inthis appeal.
Compare
Pet. for Writ of Cert.,
 Hollingsworth v. Perry
, No. 12-144(U.S. July 30, 2012) (Question Presented: “Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from definingmarriage as the union of a man and a woman.”),
and 
Pet. for Writ of Cert.,
U.S. v.Windsor 
, No. 12-307 (U.S. Sept. 11, 2012) (asking whether Section 3 of DOMA,which defines “marriage” for federal purposes as “only a legal union between oneman and one woman as husband and wife,” violates the Fifth Amendment’sguarantee of equal protection of the laws),
with
 
 Jackson v. Abercrombie
, No. CIV.11-00734 ACK-KSC, 2012 WL 3255201, at *1 (D. Haw. Aug. 8, 2012) (“Thisaction is one of multiple lawsuits that have been filed in state and federal courtsseeking to invalidate laws that reserve marriage to those relationships between a
Case: 12-16995 12/13/2012 ID: 8437675 DktEntry: 23 Page: 3 of 6

You're Reading a Free Preview

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