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 #153

8:12-cv-01137 #153

Ratings: (0)|Views: 9|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 153 - Plaintiffs' Reply in support of motion to intervene (additional class members as party plaintiffs)
Doc 153 - Plaintiffs' Reply in support of motion to intervene (additional class members as party plaintiffs)

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Equality Case Files on Aug 15, 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

04/29/2014

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-in-intervention
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THECENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISIONM
ARTIN
R.
 
A
RANAS
,
 
et al.,Plaintiffs,-vs-J
ANET
 N
APOLITANO
,
 
Secretary of theDepartment of Homeland Security;
 
et al 
.,Defendants. __________________________________ A
LEXANDER 
B
USTOS
G
ARCIA
,
 
ICHARD
L.
 
F
ITCH
, M
ARTINEZ
,
 
M
ARTHA
EYES
,
 
Plaintiffs-in-intervention. __________________________________ )))))))))))))))))o. SACV12-01137 CBM(AJWx)
EPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTIONTO INTERVENE
Hearing: August 19, 2013Time: 10:00 a.m.Spring St., Courtroom No. 2Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 153 Filed 08/05/13 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:3461
 
 
- ii -
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
 
 Additional counsel for intervening plaintiffs Bustos Garcia and Fitch:
A
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 intervening plaintiffs Martinez and Reyes:
 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 153 Filed 08/05/13 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:3462
 
 
- 1 -
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
 
EPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE
I I
 NTRODUCTION
 Defendants make no effort to argue that this Court’s allowing intervention would prejudice them in any cognizable way. Absence of prejudice to the opposing party— “perhaps the most important factor in determining timeliness of a motion to intervene asof right,”
 Peterol Stops Nw. v. Cont'l Oil Co.
, 647 F.2d 1005, 1010 (9th Cir. 1981)—isaccordingly satisfied here.Rather, defendants’ sole argument against intervention
1
is that plaintiff JaneDeLeon adequately represents intervenors notwithstanding (1) that this Court denied her interim relief on factual grounds inapplicable to intervenors Fitch and Bustos Garcia; and(2) that defendants have repeatedly challenged Ms. DeLeon’s representing class membersdenied
 family-based 
immigration benefits, rather than a waiver of inadmissibility, such asthat CIS denied Ms. DeLeon, who has an approved employment-based visa petition, pursuant to DOMA § 3.Intervenors have argued, and defendants do not contest, that Rule 24 is liberallyconstrued in favor of intervention.
 Donnelly v. Glickman
, 159 F.3d 405, 409 (9th Cir.1998). Intervenors have clear and important reasons for intervening: to put to rest once
1
Defendants similarly concede that intervening plaintiffs have an interest at stake in this proceeding or that the Court’s disposition of this action may affect that interest.
See generally
 
 Arakaki v. Cayetano
, 324 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir.),
cert. denied 
, 540 U.S.1017 (2003).
Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 153 Filed 08/05/13 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #:3463

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)//-->