Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Doc 709

Doc 709

Ratings: (0)|Views: 233|Likes:
Published by Kathleen Perrin
ORDER denying Imperial County's request to intervene as a defendant. Filed 8/4/2010
ORDER denying Imperial County's request to intervene as a defendant. Filed 8/4/2010

More info:

Published by: Kathleen Perrin on Aug 04, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KRISTIN M PERRY, SANDRA B STIER,PAUL T KATAMI and JEFFREY JZARRILLO,Plaintiffs,CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,Plaintiff-Intervenor,v ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in hisofficial capacity as Governor ofCalifornia; EDMUND G BROWN JR, inhis official capacity as AttorneyGeneral of California; MARK BHORTON, in his official capacityas Director of the CaliforniaDepartment of Public Health andState Registrar of VitalStatistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in herofficial capacity as DeputyDirector of Health Information &Strategic Planning for theCalifornia Department of PublicHealth; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in hisofficial capacity as Clerk-Recorder of the County of Alameda; and DEAN C LOGAN, in hisofficial capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for theCounty of Los Angeles,Defendants,DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL JKNIGHT, MARTIN F GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK A JANSSON and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL, as official proponentsof Proposition 8,Defendant-Intervenors./ No C 09-2292 VRWORDER 
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document709 Filed08/04/10 Page1 of 18
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
2On December 15, 2009, the County of Imperial, the Boardof Supervisors of the County of Imperial and Isabel Vargas, theCounty of Imperials’s Deputy Clerk/Deputy Commissioner of Civil Marriages (collectively “Imperial County”) moved under FRCP 24 tointervene as defendants. Doc #311. Imperial County seeks “toensure the possibility of appellate review of the importantquestions presented in this case, regardless of [their] outcome inthis [c]ourt.” Id at 10.Plaintiffs oppose intervention. Doc #328. Defendant-intervenors, the official proponents of Proposition 8(“proponents”) support intervention. Doc #331. The governmentdefendants filed cursory statements of non-opposition tointervention. Doc ##316 (Governor and administration), 320(Attorney General), 321 (Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk), 323 (Alameda County Clerk-Recorder). Thecourt heard argument on the motion on January 6, 2010. See Doc#363 at 46–70 (hrg tr). Because Imperial County’s interventionwould ensure neither of its purported objectives in intervening and because Imperial County fails to satisfy the standards forintervention, Imperial County’s motion to intervene is DENIED.IFRCP 24 permits, under certain circumstances, theintervention of a non-party in ongoing litigation. A non-partyapplicant seeking to intervene may do so of right or by permissionof the court. The applicant bears the burden to demonstrate it meets the requirements for intervention under FRCP 24(a) or FRCP24(b). Petrol Stops Northwest v Continental Oil Co, 647 F2d 1005,
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document709 Filed08/04/10 Page2 of 18
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
31010 n5 (9th Cir 1981). In determining whether intervention isappropriate, the court is “guided primarily by practical andequitable considerations.” Id.To seek intervention as of right under FRCP 24(a), anapplicant must make a four-part showing: (1) its application istimely; (2) it has a significant protectible interest relating tothe property or transaction that is the subject of the action; (3)the disposition of the action may practically impair its ability to protect its interest; and (4) the existing parties may notadequately represent its interest. Donnelly v Glickman,159 F3d 405, 409 (9th Cir 1998). “An applicant has a ‘significant protectable interest’ in an action if (1) it asserts an interestthat is protected under some law, and (2) there is a ‘relationship’ between its legally protected interest and the plaintiff[s’]claims.” Id at 409.The court may permit the applicant to intervene underFRCP 24(b) if the applicant satisfies three threshold criteria: (1)its motion is timely; (2) it has independent grounds for federaljurisdiction; and (3) its claim or defense and the main actionshare a common question of law or fact. Greene v United States,996 F2d 973, 978 (9th Cir 1993).Under either provision of FRCP 24, the threshold inquiryis whether the application is timely. FRCP 24’s timelinessdetermination is left to the discretion of the district court. Northwest Forest Resource Council v Glickman, 82 F3d 825, 836 (9thCir 1996). If an application is not timely, the court need notreach the remaining elements of FRCP 24. United States v Washington, 86 F3d 1499, 1503 (9th Cir 1996).
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document709 Filed08/04/10 Page3 of 18

Activity (9)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
John Lay liked this
rdittbenner liked this
Tash Robb liked this
Aaron Springs liked this
Kevin Walsh liked this
al_petrofsky liked this
BookaHolic1963 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->