• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
AG’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (C 09-2292 VRW)
E
DMUND
G.
 
B
ROWN
J
R
.Attorney General of CaliforniaJ
ONATHAN
K.
 
R
ENNER
 Senior Assistant Attorney GeneralS
TEPHEN
P.
 
A
CQUISTO
 Supervising Deputy Attorney GeneralM
ARK
R.
 
B
ECKINGTON
 Deputy Attorney GeneralT
AMAR
P
ACHTER
 Deputy Attorney GeneralSBN: 146083455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000San Francisco, CA 94102-7004Telephone: (415) 703-5970Fax: (415) 703-1234E-mail: Tamar.Pachter@doj.ca.gov
 Attorneys for Defendant  Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,
Defendants.No. C 09-2292 VRW
ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPPOSITIONTO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FORPRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Date: July 2, 2009Time: 10:00 a.m.Dept: Ctrm. 6, 17th FloorJudge: Hon. Vaughn R. Walker, C.J.Trial Date: NoneAction Filed:May 22, 2009
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document34 Filed06/11/09 Page1 of 16
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
Page
 
iAG’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (C 09-2292 VRW)
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1Summary of the Complaint ............................................................................................................. 1Statement of Facts ........................................................................................................................... 3I. Early legislative measures and Proposition 22........................................................ 3II.
 Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco
voided thousands of same-sex marriages performed by local city and county officials. .................................. 4III.
 In re Marriage Cases
struck down statutes prohibiting marriage betweensame-sex couples as violating the state constitution. .............................................. 5A.
Strauss v. Horton
upheld Proposition 8 as a constitutionalamendment but preserved 18,000 marriages performed beforepassage of the measure. ............................................................................... 6Argument ........................................................................................................................................ 8I. The motion for preliminary injunction should be denied ........................................ 8A. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quoand to prevent infliction of irreparable harm before final judgment. .......... 8B. A preliminary injunction would change the status quo and createuncertainty with respect to marriages performed before judgment. ........... 9II. Plaintiffs have not shown that they are entitled to injunctive relief. ..................... 11Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 13
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document34 Filed06/11/09 Page2 of 16
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage
 
iiAG’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (C 09-2292 VRW)
F
EDERAL
C
ASES
 
 Arcamuzi v. Continental Airlines, Inc.
,819 F.2d 935 (9th Cir. 1987) .................................................................................................8,9
 Barahona-Gomez v. Reno
,167 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1999) ...............................................................................................8,9
Chalk v. U.S. Dist. Court, etc
.,840 F.2d 701 (9th Cir. 1988) .....................................................................................................9
 Department of Parks and Recreation, etc. v. Bazaar del Mundo, Inc.
,448 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2004.) ..................................................................................................9
 Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco
,33 Cal.4th 1055 (2004) .............................................................................................................4
S
TATE
C
ASES
 
 In re Marriage Cases
,43 Cal.4th (2008) ..........................................................................................................3,4,5,6
Strauss v. Horton
,__ Cal.4th __, 93 Cal. Rptr. 3d 591 (2009) .....................................................................
 passim
 
F
EDERAL
C
ODES
 
28 United States Code§ 1292(a)(1) .............................................................................................................................12§ 1983 ........................................................................................................................................2
S
TATE
S
TATUTES
 
California ConstitutionArticle XVIII, § 4 .............................................................................................................. 5, 6,9California Family Code§ 300 ......................................................................................................................................3, 6§ 301 ..........................................................................................................................................3§ 308.5 ...................................................................................................................................3,6 § 4100 ........................................................................................................................................3§ 4101 ........................................................................................................................................3
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document34 Filed06/11/09 Page3 of 16
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...