Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
CA9Doc 200

CA9Doc 200

Ratings: (0)|Views: 585 |Likes:
Published by Kathleen Perrin
Amicus brief by Equality California in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees. Filed 10/25/2010.
Amicus brief by Equality California in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees. Filed 10/25/2010.

More info:

Published by: Kathleen Perrin on Oct 26, 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

10/26/2010

pdf

text

original

 
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No.10-16696IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUITKRISTIN PERRY, ET AL.,
 Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL.,
 Defendants,
and
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, ET AL.,
 Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants
On Appeal From The United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaCase No. 09-CV-2292 VRWThe Honorable Vaughn R. Walker 
BRIEF OF PROPOSED AMICUS CURIAE EQUALITY CALIFORNIAIN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR-APPELLEE AND IN SUPPORT OF AFFIRMANCE
CALDWELL LESLIE & PROCTOR,PCDavid C. Codell,
Of Counsel 
, State Bar No. 200965Linda M. Burrow, State Bar No. 194668Albert Giang, State Bar No. 224332Benjamin A. Au, State Bar No. 2378541000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600Los Angeles, California 90017-2463Telephone: (213)629-9040Facsimile: (213)629-9022
 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Equality California
Case: 10-16696 10/25/2010 Page: 1 of 37 ID: 7522213 DktEntry: 200-1
 
1
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, theundersigned states that Amicus Curiae Equality California is not a corporation thatissues stock or has a parent corporation that issues stock.DATED: October 25, 2010Respectfully submitted,CALDWELL LESLIE & PROCTOR,PCDAVID C. CODELL,
Of Counsel 
LINDA M. BURROWALBERT GIANGBENJAMIN A. AUBy /s/ David C. CodellDAVID C. CODELL,
Of Counsel 
Attorneys for Amicus CuriaeEQUALITY CALIFORNIA
Case: 10-16696 10/25/2010 Page: 2 of 37 ID: 7522213 DktEntry: 200-1
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
INTEREST OF PROPOSED AMICUS CURIAE....................................................1ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................3I.PROPONENTS DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO APPEAL.......................7A.California Law Does Not Authorize an Initiative Proponent toPursue an Appeal in Federal Court in Defense of An InitiativeIn Lieu of State Officials....................................................................8B.California Law Creates No Particularized Interest that WouldConfer Standing on Proponents...........................................................20II.IF THE COURT REACHES THE MERITS, THE COURT SHOULDCONCLUDE THAT PROPOSITION 8 VIOLATES THE FEDERALQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE..................................................................22II.IF THE COURT REACHES THE MERITS, THE COURTSHOULD CONCLUDE THAT PROPOSITION 8 VIOLATESTHE FEDERAL QUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE..........................22CONCLUSION........................................................................................................28CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.......................................................................30
Case: 10-16696 10/25/2010 Page: 3 of 37 ID: 7522213 DktEntry: 200-1

You're Reading a Free Preview

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