High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
09-CV-2292 VRW PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED INTERVENORS’ MOTION TO INTERVENE
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
Theodore B. Olson, SBN 38137
tolson@gibsondunn.com
Matthew D. McGill,
pro hac vice
Amir C. Tayrani, SBN 2296091050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036Telephone: (202) 955-8668, Facsimile: (202) 467-0539Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., SBN 132009
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
Christopher D. Dusseault, SBN 177557Ethan D. Dettmer, SBN 196046Sarah E. Piepmeier, SBN 227094Theane Evangelis Kapur, SBN 243570Enrique A. Monagas, SBN 239087333 S. Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90071Telephone: (213) 229-7804, Facsimile: (213) 229-7520BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLPDavid Boies,
pro hac vice
dboies@bsfllp.com
333 Main Street, Armonk, New York 10504Telephone: (914) 749-8200, Facsimile: (914) 749-8300Jeremy M. Goldman, SBN 218888
jgoldman@bsfllp.com
Theodore H. Uno, SBN 2486031999 Harrison Street, Suite 900, Oakland, California 94612Telephone: (510) 874-1000, Facsimile: (510) 874-1460Attorneys for PlaintiffsKRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER,PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KRISTIN M. PERRY,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,andCITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,Plaintiff-Intervenor,v.ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,
et al.,
Defendants,andPROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTSDENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH,
et al.,
Defendant-Intervenors.CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TOPROPOSED INTERVENORS’ MOTION TOINTERVENE
Trial Date: January 11, 2010Judge: Chief Judge WalkerLocation: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document328 Filed12/30/09 Page1 of 23
i
09-CV-2292 VRW PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED INTERVENORS’ MOTION TO INTERVENE
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageI. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................1II. ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................2A. Imperial County Is Not Entitled To Intervene As Of Right..........................................21. Imperial County’s Motion Is Untimely.............................................................2a) Every Important “Stage” Of These Proceedings HasPassed Except Trial Itself.....................................................................3b) There Is No Objectively Reasonable Justification ForImperial County’s Five-Month Delay..................................................52. Imperial County Lacks A Significant Protectable Interest InThis Litigation That May Be Practically Impaired...........................................83. Imperial County Has Failed To Demonstrate Inadequacy Of Representation.................................................................................................12B. Imperial County Has Not Satisfied The Requirements For PermissiveIntervention.................................................................................................................13III. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................16
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document328 Filed12/30/09 Page2 of 23
ii
09-CV-2292 VRW PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED INTERVENORS’ MOTION TO INTERVENE
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Alameda Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Oakland
,95 F.3d 1406 (9th Cir. 1996)..............................................................................................................5
Am. Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.
,3 F.R.D. 162 (S.D.N.Y. 1942)...........................................................................................................4
Am. Ass'n of People with Disabilities v. Herrera
,257 F.R.D. 236 (D.N.M. 2008)..........................................................................................................9
Arakaki v. Cayetano,
324 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2003)..........................................................................................................12
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona
,520 U.S. 43 (1997).............................................................................................................................1
Bogaert v. Land
,2008 WL 2952006 (W.D. Mich. July 29, 2008)................................................................................9
California ex rel. Van de Kamp v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency
,792 F.2d 779 (9th Cir. 1986)......................................................................................................10, 11
Diamond v. Charles
,476 U.S. 54 (1986)...........................................................................................................................15
Donaldson v. United States
,400 U.S. 517 (1971)...........................................................................................................................8
Donnelly v. Glickman,
159 F.3d 405 (9th Cir. 1998)..............................................................................................................2
EEOC v. Pan Am. World Airways
,897 F.2d 1499 (9th Cir. 1990)..........................................................................................................14
Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Geithner
,-- F. Supp. 2d --, 2009 WL 4705425 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2009)........................................................13
Hodgson v. United Mine Workers
,473 F.2d 118 (D.C. Cir. 1972)...........................................................................................................5
League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson
(“
LULAC
”),131 F.3d 1297 (9th Cir. 1997)...................................................................................................passim
Legal Aid Soc’y of Alameda County v. Brennan
,608 F.2d 1319 (9th Cir. 1979)............................................................................................................4
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document328 Filed12/30/09 Page3 of 23
Add a Comment