W i l m e r C u t l e r P i c k e r i n g H a l e a n d D o r r L L P 3 5 0 S o u t h G r a n d A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 1 0 0 L o s A n g e l e s , C a l i f o r n i a 9 0 0 7 1
3PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAYCASE NO. CV 12-887 CBM (AJWx)
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
Plaintiffs respectfully advise the Court of a recent judicial decision that isrelevant to Intervenor-Defendant’s pending motion to stay these proceedings, and plaintiffs’ opposition thereto. (ECF Nos. 39 and 42.)On July 31, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) isunconstitutional.
Memorandum of Decision Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Intervenor-Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss,
Pedersen v. Office of Pers. Mgmt.
, No. 10-cv-1750 (D. Conn. July 31, 2012), attached as Exhibit A. The court concluded that while “classifications based on sexualorientation are entitled to a heightened form of judicial scrutiny . . . DOMA fails to pass constitutional muster under even the most deferential level of judicial scrutiny.”
at 75-76. In so holding, the court joined several other courts, including the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in striking down Section 3 of DOMA.
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Stay, at 17 (June 18, 2012, ECF No. 42)(listing cases).Dated: August 1, 2012 Respectfully submitted,SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALEAND DORR LLPBY: /s/ Randall R. Lee__________ RANDALL R. LEE350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100Los Angeles, CA 90071(213) firstname.lastname@example.orgAttorneys for Plaintiffs Tracey Cooper-Harrisand Maggie Cooper-Harris
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 49 Filed 08/01/12 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:566