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
12-16628 #19

12-16628 #19

Ratings: (0)|Views: 38 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 19 - Plaintffs' clarifying statement regarding consent motion to vacate in part and remand (12-16628 #18) NOTE: Plaintiffs filed an amended statement, available here: http://bit.ly/1ccUHWF
Doc 19 - Plaintffs' clarifying statement regarding consent motion to vacate in part and remand (12-16628 #18) NOTE: Plaintiffs filed an amended statement, available here: http://bit.ly/1ccUHWF

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Aug 03, 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

08/09/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUITMICHAEL DRAGOVICH,
et al 
.,Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THETREASURY,
et al 
.,Defendants-Appellants,andBOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’
RETIREMENT SYSTEM; ANNESTAUSBOLL, Chief Executive Officer,CalPERS,Defendants,BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUPOF THE U.S. HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES,Intervenor-Defendant. No. 12-16628
Plaintiffs’ Clarifying Statement
Regarding Consent Motion ToVacate In Part and RemandPlaintiffs consent to the disposition of this matter by remand to thedistrict court based upon the subsequent developments of 
United States v. Windsor 
,
Case: 12-16628 08/02/2013 ID: 8728558 DktEntry: 19-1 Page: 1 of 2
(1 of 3)
 
 
133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013),
 Hollingsworth v. Perry
, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013), and theresumption of marriage equality in California.
Plaintiffs clarify that they do not concur with the federal government’sstatement that “domestic
-partner plaintiffs in this case now can get married, shouldthey choose to do so,
as this may not be true for all class members.
1
Some classmember couples may be living out of state. Some may be in registered domestic partnerships with persons who are not able to marry due to a mental or physicalimpairment that impairs consent to marriage. Some may have been in registereddomestic partnerships, and their partners have died during the partnership.Further, some domestic-partner class member couples who now canmarry may still seek remedial relief for their past exclusions. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs agree that these matters are better managed bythe District Court.Respectfully submitted,LEGAL AID SOCIETY
 – 
 EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER August 2, 2013 By: s/ Claudia Center Claudia Center, Counsel for Plaintiffs
1
Although Plaintiffs consented to remand, they did not have an opportunity to
review the federal government’s motion prior its b
eing filed.
 
Case: 12-16628 08/02/2013 ID: 8728558 DktEntry: 19-1 Page: 2 of 2
(2 of 3)

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)//-->