• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
DEFENDANTS-INTERVENORS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE BY CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO –CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
COOPER AND KIRK, PLLCCharles J. Cooper (DC Bar No. 248070)*
ccooper@cooperkirk.com
David H. Thompson (DC Bar No. 450503)*
dthompson@cooperkirk.com
Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (DC Bar No. 473018)*
hnielson@cooperkirk.com
Peter A. Patterson (OH Bar No. 0080840)*
 ppatterson@cooperkirk.com
 1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036Telephone: (202) 220-9600, Facsimile: (202) 220-9601LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNOAndrew P. Pugno (CA Bar No. 206587)
andrew@pugnolaw.com
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630Telephone: (916) 608-3065, Facsimile: (916) 608-3066ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUNDBrian W. Raum
 
(NY Bar No.
 
2856102)*
braum@telladf.org
James A. Campbell (OH Bar No. 0081501)*
 jcampbell@telladf.org
15100 North 90th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260Telephone: (480) 444-0020, Facsimile: (480) 444-0028A
TTORNEYS FOR
D
EFENDANTS
-I
NTERVENORS
D
ENNIS
H
OLLINGSWORTH
,G
AIL
J.
 
K
NIGHT
,
 
M
ARTIN
F.
 
G
UTIERREZ
,
 
H
AK
-S
HING
W
ILLIAM
T
AM
,M
ARK
A.
 
J
ANSSON
, and P
ROTECT
M
ARRIAGE
.
COM
–
 
Y
ES ON
8,
 
AP
ROJECT OF
C
ALIFORNIA
R
ENEWAL
 *
 
Admitted
 pro hac vice
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAULT. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO,Plaintiffs,v.ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his officialcapacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G.BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as AttorneyGeneral of California; MARK B. HORTON, in hisofficial capacity as Director of the CaliforniaDepartment of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her officialcapacity as Deputy Director of Health Information& Strategic Planning for the California Departmentof Public Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in hisCASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
DEFENDANTS-INTERVENORSPROPOSITION 8 PROPONENTSAND PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM’SOPPOSITION TO MOTION TOINTERVENE BY CITY ANDCOUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Date: August 19, 2009Time: 10:00 a.m.Judge: Chief Judge Vaughn R. WalkerLocation: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document137 Filed08/07/09 Page1 of 19
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
DEFENDANTS-INTERVENORS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE BY CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO –CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the Countyof Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his officialcapacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk forthe County of Los Angeles,Defendants,andPROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTSDENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J.KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM, and MARK A.JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIARENEWAL,Defendants-Intervenors.Additional Counsel for Defendants-IntervenorsALLIANCE DEFENSE FUNDTimothy Chandler (CA Bar No. 234325)
tchandler@telladf.org
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630Telephone: (916) 932-2850, Facsimile: (916) 932-2851Jordan W. Lorence (DC Bar No. 385022)*
 jlorence@telladf.org
Austin R. Nimocks (TX Bar No. 24002695)*
animocks@telladf.org
801 G Street NW, Suite 509, Washington, D.C. 20001Telephone: (202) 637-4610, Facsimile: (202) 347-3622*
 
Admitted
 pro hac vice
 
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document137 Filed08/07/09 Page2 of 19
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728i
DEFENDANTS-INTERVENORS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE BY CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO –CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGE
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES................................................................................................................iINTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................1BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................2ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................................................3I. T
HE
C
ITY
D
OES
N
OT
M
EET THE
T
HRESHOLD
R
EQUIREMENTS
F
OR
P
ERMISSIVE
I
NTERVENTION
B
ECAUSE
T
HIS
C
OURT
H
AS
N
O
J
URISDICTION
O
VER THE
C
LAIMS
T
HE
C
ITY
S
EEKS TO
A
SSERT
............................................................................................................5II. E
VEN
I
F
P
ERMISSIVE
I
NTERVENTION
W
ERE
N
OT
J
URISDICTIONALLY
B
ARRED
,
 
T
HE
C
OURT
S
HOULD
,
 
I
N
I
TS
D
ISCRETION
,
 
D
ENY
T
HE
C
ITY
’
S
R
EQUEST
F
OR
P
ERMISSIVE
I
NTERVENTION
...5A. The Interests Asserted By The City Do Not Warrant Its Intervention In This Case...5B. The City Does Not Have Standing To Assert Its Claims............................................7C. The City’s Interests Are Adequately Represented By Plaintiffs.................................8D. Allowing The City To Intervene Will Unduly Delay The Proceedings AndPrejudice The Parties, With No Appreciable Benefit To The Court.........................10E. The City’s Participation As
 Amicus
Allows It To Sufficiently Protect Its InterestsAnd Impart Its Knowledge To The Court..................................................................12CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................14
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document137 Filed08/07/09 Page3 of 19
of 00

Leave a Comment

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