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
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
KEYES v OBAMA - 60 - EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for LIMITED STAY OF DISCOVERY - cacd-03108746940

KEYES v OBAMA - 60 - EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for LIMITED STAY OF DISCOVERY - cacd-03108746940

Ratings: (0)|Views: 823|Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan

More info:

Published by: Jack Ryan on Sep 11, 2009
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

05/11/2014

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
GEORGE S. CARDONAActing United States AttorneyLEON W. WEIDMANAssistant United States AttorneyChief, Civil DivisionROGER E. WEST (State Bar No. 58609)Assistant United States AttorneyFirst Assistant Chief, Civil DivisionDAVID A. DeJUTE (State Bar No. 153527)Assistant United States AttorneyRoom 7516, Federal Building300 North Los Angeles StreetLos Angeles, California 90012Telephone: (213) 894-2461/2574Facsimile: (213) 894-7819Email: roger.west4@usdoj.govdavid.dejute@usdoj.govAttorneys for DefendantsUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASOUTHERN DIVISIONCAPTAIN PAMELA BARNETT,
et al.
,))Plaintiffs,))v.))BARACK H. OBAMA,
et al.
))Defendants.)))))) ________________________________)No. SACV 09-00082 DOC (ANx)
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LIMITEDSTAY OF DISCOVERY; MEMORANDUM OFPOINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORTTHEREOF
 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627281
EX PARTE APPLICATION
Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel, herebyapply to this Court, on an
ex parte
basis, for an Order staying alldiscovery in this matter pending the Court’s ruling uponDefendants’ Motion to Dismiss, currently set for hearing on October5, 2009, with the exception of discovery which Plaintiffs candemonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Court, that they need inorder to counter said Motion.This
Ex Parte
application will be based upon these movingpapers, the Memorandum of Points and authorities filed herewith,and upon such other and further arguments, documents and grounds asmay be advanced to the Court in the future. All requirements ofthe Local Rules for
ex parte
applications have been met, includingthe notice requirements of Local Rule 7-19 as more particularlycontained within the accompanying Memorandum of Points andAuthorities.Respectfully submitted,DATED: September 10, 2009GEORGE S. CARDONAActing United States AttorneyLEON WEIDMANAssistant United States AttorneyChief, Civil Division
/s/ Roger E. West
 ROGER E. WESTAssistant United States AttorneyFirst Assistant Chief, Civil Division
/s/ David A. DeJute
DAVID A. DeJUTEAssistant United States AttorneyAttorneys for Defendants
 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282
 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESI.STATEMENT OF PERTINENT FACTS
On January 20, 2009, Plaintiffs’ filed their Complaint in thismatter challenging the fitness for office of President Obama. Overseven months later, on August 25, 2009, Plaintiffs finally effectedservice of process. Soon thereafter, on September 4, 2009,Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss with a hearing set forOctober 5, 2009.In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants maintain that thisCourt is without subject matter jurisdiction. As more fullyexplained in that Motion, and among other reasons, the operativecomplaint fails to confer subject matter jurisdiction for severalreasons: (1) The Plaintiffs lack standing because they cannot showthe required injury-in-fact or the required redressability toconfer jurisdiction; (2) The case presents non-justiciablepolitical questions which are committed, by the very text of theConstitution, to a different branch of Government; (3) Plaintiffsare not authorized to pursue a Quo Warranto action against thePresident of the United States; (4) Neither 42 U.S.C. § 1983 nor 42U.S.C. § 1988 confers jurisdiction; and, (5) Plaintiffs’ Freedom ofInformation Act claims as a matter of law do confer jurisdiction.Any one of these grounds is sufficient to stay discovery pending aresolution of the Motion.On September 8, 2009, the Court convened a hearing upon issueswhich are unrelated to the Motion to Dismiss. At that hearing, theCourt granted Defendants leave to file this
Ex Parte
application.///

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Billy O'Phelan liked this

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)//-->