Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
 
LOSANGELES 883805 (2K)
Case No. 10-56634
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS,a non-profit corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellee
,vs.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ROBERT M. GATES,SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, in his official capacity,
 Defendants-Appellants
.ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIANo. CV 04-8425, Honorable Virginia A. Phillips, Judge
RESPONSE OF APPELLEE LOG CABIN REPUBLICANSTO GOVERNMENT’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAYORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
Dan Woods (CA SBN 78638)dwoods@whitecase.comEarle Miller (CA SBN 116864)emiller@whitecase.comAaron A. Kahn (CA SBN 238505)aakahn@whitecase.com
WHITE & CASE LLP
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1900Los Angeles, California 90071Telephone: (213) 620-7700Facsimile: (213) 452-2329
 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellee Log Cabin Republicans
Case: 10-56634 10/25/2010 Page: 1 of 46 ID: 7521688 DktEntry: 9-2
 
 
LOSANGELES 883805 (2K)
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1, counsel forLog Cabin Republicans certifies that:1. Log Cabin Republicans is a not-for-profit corporation organizedpursuant to the District of Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act and section501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code.2. Log Cabin Republicans issues no stock and has no parentcorporation. No publicly-held corporation owns ten percent or more of thestock of Log Cabin Republicans.Dated: October 25, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
WHITE & CASE LLP
By:
 /s/ Dan Woods 
Dan Woods
 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellee Log Cabin Republicans
Case: 10-56634 10/25/2010 Page: 2 of 46 ID: 7521688 DktEntry: 9-2
 
 
LOSANGELES 883805 (2K)
TABLE OF CONTENTSI. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................1II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW...................................2A. The Extensive Proceedings in the District Court.............................4B. Congressional Efforts to Repeal DADT..........................................15III. THE MOTION ADVANCES NEW GROUNDS NOTSUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT COURT...........................................17IV. A STAY PENDING APPEAL SHOULD BE DENIED...........................19A. A Stay Is Not a Matter of Right.......................................................19B. Appellants Do Not Meet the Standard for a Stay..........................221. Appellants Have Not Shown a Likelihood of Success on the Merits..............................................................232. Appellants Have Not Shown Irreparable Injury if a Stay is Denied.......................................................................303. A Stay Would Cause Substantial Injury toAppellee and to All Homosexual Servicemembers..............324. The Public Interest Weighs Against a Stay..........................35C. A Stay Would Be More Disruptive of the Status QuoThan Maintaining the Injunction....................................................36V. CONCLUSION............................................................................................38
Case: 10-56634 10/25/2010 Page: 3 of 46 ID: 7521688 DktEntry: 9-2
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more