Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
18Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion for Stay of Prop 8 Ruling

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion for Stay of Prop 8 Ruling

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,404 |Likes:
Published by hefflinger
PLAINTIFFS’ AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S JOINT OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
PLAINTIFFS’ AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S JOINT OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

More info:

Published by: hefflinger on Aug 07, 2010
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

09/28/2010

pdf

text

original

 
 
09-CV-2292 VRW PLAINTIFFS’ AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S JOINT OPPOSITION TODEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
 
Theodore B. Olson, SBN 38137
tolson@gibsondunn.com
 Matthew D. McGill,
 pro hac vice
 1050 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 196046333 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
1999 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. ZARRILLODennis J. Herrera, SBN 139669Therese M. Stewart, SBN 104930Danny Chou, SBN 180240One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett PlaceSan Francisco, California 94102-4682Telephone: (415) 554-4708, Facsimile (415) 554-4699Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
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’ AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S JOINT OPPOSITION TODEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTIONFOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL
Date: October 21, 2010Time: 10:00 a.m.Judge: Chief Judge Walker Location: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor 
 
 i
09-CV-2292 VRW PLAINTIFFS’ AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S JOINT OPPOSITION TODEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................1II. LEGAL STANDARD..............................................................................................................2III. ARGUMENT...........................................................................................................................2A. Proponents Cannot Possibly Make A “Strong Showing” That They Are LikelyTo Prevail In Their Appeal..........................................................................................21. Proponents’ Appeal Is Meritless......................................................................22. There Is A Significant Question As To Whether Proponents Even HaveStanding To Invoke The Jurisdiction Of The Court Of Appeals.....................3B. Proponents Have Failed To Establish That They Will Likely Suffer IrreparableInjury In The Absence Of A Stay................................................................................4C. A Stay Will Work Substantial Irreparable Harm On Plaintiffs....................................6D. The Public Interest Favors Immediate Entry Of Judgment And Rejection Of A Stay...........................................................................................................................8IV. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................9
 
 ii
09-CV-2292 VRW PLAINTIFFS’ AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S JOINT OPPOSITION TODEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)Cases
 
 Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell 
,480 U.S. 531 (1987)........................................................................................................................6
 Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona
,520 U.S. 43 (1997)......................................................................................................................3, 4
Cal 
.
 Pharmacists Ass
n v
.
Maxwell-Jolly
,563 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 2009)...........................................................................................................7
Coal. For Econ. Equity v. Wilson
,122 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 1997)...........................................................................................................5
 Diamond v. Charles
,476 U.S. 54 (1986)......................................................................................................................3, 4
Goldberg v. Kelly
,397 U.S. 254 (1970)........................................................................................................................8
 Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly
,572 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 2009)...........................................................................................................5
 Karcher v
.
May
,484 U.S. 72 (1987)..........................................................................................................................4
 Lujan v
.
 Defenders of Wildlife
,504 U.S. 555 (1992)........................................................................................................................5
 Nelson v
.
 NASA
,530 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2008)...........................................................................................................6
 Nken v. Holder 
,129 S. Ct. 1749 (2009)........................................................................................................2, 3, 4, 6
 Preminger v. Principi
,422 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2005)...........................................................................................................8
Strauss v. Horton
,207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009)..................................................................................................................9
Yniguez v. Arizona,
939 F.2d 727 (9th Cir. 1991)...........................................................................................................3

Activity (18)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Emkarls liked this
Malakan liked this
lvriesling liked this
simplylegal liked this
Michael Scally liked this
swr2408018 liked this
Jeff Evans liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

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