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
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
12-17668 #9

12-17668 #9

Ratings: (0)|Views: 188|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc #9 - Coalition for the Protection of Marriage's opposition to motion to have cases heard together.
Doc #9 - Coalition for the Protection of Marriage's opposition to motion to have cases heard together.

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: Equality Case Files on Dec 22, 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

12/22/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Case No. 12-17668UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BEVERLY SEVCIK, et al.
 Plaintiffs-Appellants,
 v.BRIAN SANDOVAL, et al.,
 Defendants-Appellees,
andCOALITION FOR THE PROTECTION OF MARRIAGE,
Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee.
 On Appeal from the United States District CourtFor the District of NevadaCase No. 2:12-CV-00578-RCJ-PALThe Honorable Robert C. Jones, District Judge
RESPONSE OF APPELLEE COALITION FOR THEPROTECTION OF MARRIAGETO
 APPELLANTS’
MOTION TO HAVE CASES HEARD TOGETHER
Monte N. StewartB
ELNAP
S
TEWART
T
 AYLOR
&
 
M
ORRIS
PLLC12550 W. Explorer Drive, Suite 100Boise, ID 83713Tel: (208) 345-3333
Lawyers for Appellee Coalition for the Protection of Marriage
Case: 12-17668 12/21/2012 ID: 8450375 DktEntry: 9-1 Page: 1 of 9
(1 of 17)
 
2This is the response of appellee Coalition for the Protection of Marriage to the
appellants’ “Motion to Have Cases Heard Together” (Dkt. No. 7) (“Motion”). TheMotion seeks coordinated treatment of this case (“
Sevcik
”) and
Natasha N. Jackson,et al., v. Neil Abercrombie, et al.
, Case Nos. 12-16995 and 12-
16998 (“
Jackson
”).Specifically, the Motion asks “that:
 1.
 
Sevcik
be assigned to the same panel as Jackson;2.
 
Sevcik’s
briefing schedule be conformed to
Jackson’s
schedule, including anyadditional stay orders entered in
Jackson
;3.
 
Sevcik
be set for hearing on the same day as
Jackson
; and4.
 
The Court order that any amicus brief filed under a case number assigned to
Jackson
 
… be deemed to have been filed under
Sevcik’s
 
case number …, and
any amicus brief filed in
Sevcik
be deemed to have been filed in
Jackson
.”
 Motion at 7.The Coalition opposes the Motion, for two reasons. One, an order grantingthe Motion will delay by many months the resolution of this case. Two, that delay isnot warranted.
1. An order granting the Motion will delay by many months the resolutionof this case.
Jackson’s
resolution is very probably going to be delayed many months. Thatis because all parties to
Jackson
favor staying the case until after the United StatesSupreme Court rules (probably in June 2013) on
Hollingsworth v. Perry
, No. 12-144,and
United States v. Windsor
, No. 12-307, and one of the
Jackson
parties on
Case: 12-17668 12/21/2012 ID: 8450375 DktEntry: 9-1 Page: 2 of 9
(2 of 17)
 
3December 13, 2012 moved for just such a stay (Dkt. No. 23; copy attached as Exhibit1). Given that the
Jackson
parties previously sought and received a stay fromSeptember 2012 to December 2012 while the Supreme Court decided whether totake
 Perry
and
Windsor
, and given that all
Jackson
parties now support anextension of that stay until the Supreme Court rules on those two cases, it seemshighly likely that the extension will be granted in
Jackson
.
The Motion seeks to tie this case’s schedule to
 
Jackson’s
schedule. Thevirtually certain effect of that aspect of the Motion, if the Motion is granted, will beto delay the resolution of this case by many months.
2. The long delay in the resolution of this case is not warranted.
The keystone of the Motion’s argument for long delay is that the SupremeCourt’s decision in
Windsor
or
 Perry
will materially aid this Court in resolving thiscase. That keystone, however, does not withstand scrutiny.This case presents clearly and cleanly the fundamental marriage issue andcannot be resolved without a resolution of that issue. The fundamental marriageissue is whether federal constitutional equality norms require that the legaldefinition of marriage be changed from the union of a man and a woman to theunion of any two persons so as to enable otherwise eligible same-sex couples tomarry.In contrast, both
Windsor
and
 Perry
can and very likely will be resolvedwithout resolution of the fundamental marriage issue. Indeed, it is reasonable topredict that the Supreme Court will not even reach the merits of either of those two
Case: 12-17668 12/21/2012 ID: 8450375 DktEntry: 9-1 Page: 3 of 9
(3 of 17)

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)//-->