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
8:12-cv-01137 #115

8:12-cv-01137 #115

Ratings: (0)|Views: 8,807|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc #115 - Plaintiffs' opposition to motion to stay
Doc #115 - Plaintiffs' opposition to motion to stay

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Equality Case Files on Jan 08, 2013
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

01/09/2013

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 DIVISION/ / /M
ARTIN
R.
 
A
RANAS
,
 
et al.,
 Plaintiffs,-vs-J
ANET
 N
APOLITANO
,
 
Secretary of theDepartment of Homeland Security;
 
et al.,
Defendants. __________________________________ ))))))))))))))- xO
PPOSITION TO
M
OTION TO
S
TAY
P
ROCEEDINGS
.Hearing: January 28, 2013Time: 11:00 amHon. Consuelo B. Marshall
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 115 Filed 01/07/13 Page 1 of 13 Page ID#:2384
 
 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Opposition to Motion to Stay- 2 -
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 115 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 13 Page ID#:2385
 
 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Opposition to Motion to Stay- 1 -
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law256 S. Occidental Blvd.Los Angeles, CA 90057213/388-8693
O
PPOSITION TO
M
OTION TO
S
TAY
 This action challenges the discriminatory denial of benefits under theImmigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101,
et seq.
, to members of lawfulmarriages solely because the spouses are of the same sex. Plaintiffs contend thatmembers of marriages lawful under the law of the state of celebration are entitled torecognition as “spouses” under the INA regardless of their members’ sex or sexualorientation. Defendants concede as much, yet refuse to recognize same-sex marriagesas valid predicates for the granting of immigration benefits pursuant to § 3(a) of theDefense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. 104-199, § 3(a), 110 Stat. 2419,
codified at 
1 U.S.C.§ 7 (“DOMA”), a statue defendants themselves concede is unconstitutional. Defendantsrefuse to extend to plaintiffs and those similarly situated even
temporary
protectionfrom illegal status, forced unemployment or illegal employment, and detention or removal pending a final determination whether the courts agree with defendants thatDOMA is unconstitutional.For a second time, defendants move the Court to stay all proceedings herein— including argued and submitted motions aimed at saving plaintiffs and those similarlysituated from irreparable injury—on the ground the Supreme Court
may
decide inanother action whether DOMA § 3 denies equal protection.
Compare
Petition for Writof Certiorari,
United States v. Windsor 
, No. 12-307 (S. Ct. Sept. 11, 2012), 2012 WL3991414, at I (asking Court to decide “[w]hether Section 3 of DOMA violates the FifthAmendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of thesame sex who are legally married under the laws of their State.”);
and 
 
United States v.
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 115 Filed 01/07/13 Page 3 of 13 Page ID#:2386

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)//-->