Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See 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
S212172 - State Respondents' opposition to petition

S212172 - State Respondents' opposition to petition

Ratings: (0)|Views: 81 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Dronenburg v. Brown (Petition by San Diego County Clerk re: Prop 8 in California Supreme Court) Preliminary opposition to writ petition by State Respondents Gov. Brown, et.al.
Dronenburg v. Brown (Petition by San Diego County Clerk re: Prop 8 in California Supreme Court) Preliminary opposition to writ petition by State Respondents Gov. Brown, et.al.

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Jul 29, 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

07/30/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 In the Supreme Court of the State of California
ERNEST J. DRONENBURG, JR.,Petitioner,v.EDMUND G. BROWN JR., in his officialcapacity as Governor of the State of California, et al.,Respondents.
Case No. S212172
PRELIMINARY OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OFMANDATE
AMALA
D.
 
H
ARRIS
 Attorney General of CaliforniaD
OUGLAS
J.
 
W
OODS
 Senior Assistant Attorney GeneralT
AMAR 
P
ACHTER 
 Supervising Deputy Attorney GeneralD
ANIEL
J.
 
P
OWELL
 Deputy Attorney GeneralP.
 
P
ATTY
L
I
 Deputy Attorney GeneralState Bar No. 266937455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000San Francisco, CA 94102-7004Telephone: (415) 703-1577Fax: (415) 703-1234Email: Patty.Li@doj.ca.gov
 Attorneys for Respondents
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
iIntroduction and Summary of Argument ..................................................... 1Additional Material Facts Not Included in the Petition ............................... 4Argument ...................................................................................................... 5I. Petitioner cannot challenge the scope of the districtcourt’s injunction in this Court .............................................. 6II. The federal court’s injunction properly appliesstatewide ................................................................................. 9A. By its terms, the federal judgment generallyenjoins enforcement of Proposition 8 statewide because the court found Proposition 8 to beunconstitutional in all applications ............................. 9B. The federal court properly issued a statewideinjunction ................................................................... 111. The district court had subject matter  jurisdiction ..................................................... 112. The district court had jurisdiction toenter relief against the state defendants ......... 133. The district court had the authority toorder statewide relief to remedy aconstitutional violation ................................... 154. The district court had the authority toenjoin county officials who were notnamed defendants because they performstate marriage functions under thesupervision and control of DPH ..................... 18III. Article III, section 3.5 of the California Constitutiondoes not apply to this case .................................................... 22IV. Issuance of a writ would not promote the ends of  justice ................................................................................... 24Conclusion .................................................................................................. 27
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage
ii
C
ASES
 
1st Westco Corp. v. School Dist. of 
 
 Philadelphia
(3d Cir. 1993) 6 F.3d 108................................................................... 14
 Bartholomae Oil Corp. v. Superior Court 
(1941) 18 Cal.2d 726 ......................................................................... 24
 Betty v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cnty.
(1941) 18 Cal.2d 619 ......................................................................... 24
 Bishop v. Oklahoma
(10th Cir. 2009) 333 F. App’x 361 .................................................... 14
 Bresgal v. Brock 
(9th Cir. 1987) 843 F.2d 1163 ........................................................... 13
 Butcher v. Truck Ins. Exchange
(2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1442 ................................................................ 8
Califano v. Yamasaki
(1979) 442 U.S. 682 ..................................................................... 12, 17
City of Dinuba v. County of Tulare
(2007) 41 Cal.4th 859 .......................................................................... 5
City of Los Angeles v. Harco Nat’l Ins. Co.
(2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 656 ................................................................ 7
Coachella Valley Unified School Dist. v. State
(2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 93 .................................................................. 6
 Dare v. Bd. of Med. Examiners
(1943) 21 Cal.2d 790 ......................................................................... 24
 Doe v. Gallinot 
(9th Cir. 1981) 657 F.2d 1017 ..................................................... 13, 16
 Doe v. Reed 
(2010) 130 S.Ct. 2811 ........................................................................ 15

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)//-->