High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Attorney General’s Opposition to Motion to Realign(
Perry, et al. v. Schwarzenegger, et al
., No. 3:09-cv-02292-VRW)
E
DMUND
G.
B
ROWN
J
R
.Attorney General of CaliforniaJ
ONATHAN
K.
R
ENNER
Senior Assistant Attorney GeneralG
ORDON
B
URNS
Deputy Solicitor GeneralT
AMAR
P
ACHTER
Deputy Attorney GeneralState Bar No. 146083455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000San Francisco, CA 94102-7004Telephone: (415) 703-5970Fax: (415) 703-1234E-mail: Tamar.Pachter@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Defendants 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.3:09-cv-02292-VRW
ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPPOSITIONTO MOTION TO REALIGN
Date: Submitted on the papersJudge: Hon. Vaughn R. Walker, Chief JudgeTrial Date: January 11, 2010Action Filed: May 27, 2009
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document239 Filed10/28/09 Page1 of 18
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
iAttorney General’s Opposition to Motion to Realign(
Perry, et al. v. Schwarzenegger, et al
., No. 3:09-cv-02292-VRW)
Introduction and Summary of Argument ........................................................................................ 1Statement of Relevant Facts ............................................................................................................ 2Legal Argument .............................................................................................................................. 4I. Realignment is inappropriate when federal jurisdiction is not in doubt. ................ 4A.
City of Indianapolis
realignment is tied to determining jurisdiction .......... 5B.
Larios
is not controlling and was wrongly decided .................................... 7C. The Attorney General’s disagreement with Proponents about thevalidity of Proposition 8 does not prejudice them or justifyrealignment.. ................................................................................................ 9D. The interests of the parties are complex, and efforts to label andrealign the parties’ interests will do nothing to resolve the case............... 10II. Even if
City of Indianapolis
applied, it would not provide grounds formaking an involuntary plaintiff of the Attorney General...................................... 11Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 13
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document239 Filed10/28/09 Page2 of 18
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage
iiAttorney General’s Opposition to Motion to Realign(
Perry, et al. v. Schwarzenegger, et al
., No. 3:09-cv-02292-VRW)
C
ASES
Adams v. Morton
581 F.2d 1314 (9th Cir. 1978) ............................................................................................... 8, 9
American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Trane Co.
657 F.2d 146 (7th Cir. 1981) ..................................................................................................... 6
Buckley v. City of Redding
66 F.3d 188 (9th Cir. 1995) ....................................................................................................... 5
Cactus Corner, LLC v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
346 F. Supp. 2d 1075 (E.D. Cal. 2004) ..................................................................................... 7
Caprio v. Wilson
513 F.2d 837 (9th Cir. 1975) ................................................................................................... 12
City of Indianapolis v. Chase Nat. Bank
314 U.S. 63 (1941) ...........................................................................................................
passim
City of Springfield v. Washington Public Power Supply System
752 F.2d 1423 (9th Cir. 1985) ................................................................................................... 8
Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
819 F.2d 1519 (9th Cir. 1987) ............................................................................................... 6, 8
Delchamps, Inc. v. Alabama State Milk Control Bd.
324 F. Supp. 117 (M.D. Ala. 1971) ........................................................................................ 12
Development Finance Corp. v. Alpha Housing & Health Care, Inc.
54 F.3d 156 (3d Cir. 1995) .................................................................................................... 6, 7
Dolch v. United California Bank
702 F.2d 178 (9th Cir. 1983) ............................................................................................... 6, 12
Eikel v. States Marine Lines, Inc.
473 F.2d 959 (5th Cir. 1973) ................................................................................................... 12
Finley v. United States
490 U.S. 545 (1989) ............................................................................................................... 4-5
Goosby v. Osser
409 U.S. 512 (1973) .................................................................................................................. 8
Hansen v. United States
191 F.R.D. 492 (D. Virgin Islands 2000) ........................................................................... 12-13
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document239 Filed10/28/09 Page3 of 18
Add a Comment