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 (“
Natasha N. Jackson,et al., v. Neil Abercrombie, et al.
, Case Nos. 12-16995 and 12-
”).Specifically, the Motion asks “that:
be assigned to the same panel as Jackson;2.
briefing schedule be conformed to
schedule, including anyadditional stay orders entered in
be set for hearing on the same day as
The Court order that any amicus brief filed under a case number assigned to
… be deemed to have been filed under
case number …, and
any amicus brief filed in
be deemed to have been filed in
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.
resolution is very probably going to be delayed many months. Thatis because all parties to
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
Case: 12-17668 12/21/2012 ID: 8450375 DktEntry: 9-1 Page: 2 of 9
(2 of 17)