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
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
CA9Doc Imperial 74

CA9Doc Imperial 74

Ratings: (0)|Views: 40|Likes:
Published by Kathleen Perrin
Imperial County's reply to Plaintiffs' opposition to motion to intervene. Filed 3/14/2011
Imperial County's reply to Plaintiffs' opposition to motion to intervene. Filed 3/14/2011

More info:

Published by: Kathleen Perrin on Mar 15, 2011
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

03/15/2011

pdf

text

original

 
Nos. 10-16751UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 
______________________________________________________
KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al.
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.
Defendants.
______________________________________________________
O
N
A
PPEAL FROM
U
NITED
S
TATES
D
ISTRICT
C
OURT
 
FOR THE
N
ORTHERN
D
ISTRICT OF
C
ALIFORNIA
 C
IVIL
C
ASE
N
O
.
 
09-cv-2292 VRW (Honorable Vaughn R. Walker)
______________________________________________________MOVANT’S REPLY TO APPELLEES’OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE
___________________________________________________________ADVOCATES FOR FAITH AND FREEDOMRobert H. Tyler, CA Bar No. 179572Jennifer L. Monk, CA Bar No. 24551224910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110Murrieta, CA 92562Telephone: (951) 304-7583Facsimile: (951) 600-4996rtyler@faith-freedom.comjmonk@faith-freedom.com
Attorneys for Movant-Appellants
COUNTY OF IMPERIAL, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THECOUNTY OF IMPERIAL, ISABEL VARGAS andPROPOSED DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, CHUCK STOREY 
Case: 10-16751 03/14/2011 Page: 1 of 11 ID: 7680318 DktEntry: 74
 
Imperial County Clerk, Chuck Storey (“Clerk Storey”) respectfully submitsthe following Reply to the Appellees’ Opposition to Motion to Intervene(“Opposition”) and in support of his Motion to Intervene.
I. CLERK STOREY HAS STANDING TO DEFENDPROPOSITION 8 BECAUSE HE IS BOUND BY THEDISTRICT COURT’S PERMANENT INJNUNCTION
“It is well established that the government is not the only party who hasstanding to defend the validity of federal regulations.”
W. Watersheds Project v.Kraayenbrink 
, 2011 WL 149363, 6 (9th Cir. 2011) (Amended Op.)(“
Kraayenbrink 
”) (citing
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman
, 313 F.3d 1094,1110 (9th Cir. 2002) (overruled on other grounds) (holding that intervenors couldappeal and challenge the grant of injunctive relief by defending the government’saction when the federal defendants decided not to appeal)). Similarly, Clerk Storey seeks to defend a state statute that state officials have chosen not to defend.
Id.
 Where an intervenor is seeking to defend a law on appeal, the intervenormust have Article III standing.
Kraayenbrink 
, 2011 WL 149363 at 6.[S]tanding need not be based on whether they would have hadstanding to independently bring this suit, but rather may be contingenton whether they have standing now based on a concrete injury relatedto the judgment. [Citations omitted]. To invoke this court’sjurisdiction on the basis of an injury related to the judgment,Intervenors must establish that the district court’s judgment causes[the intervenor] a concrete and particularized injury that is actual orimminent and is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.1
Case: 10-16751 03/14/2011 Page: 2 of 11 ID: 7680318 DktEntry: 74
 
Id.
at 7
 
(citing
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)).“Intervenors can allege a threat of injury stemming from the order they seek toreverse, an injury which would be redressed if they win on appeal.”
KootenaiTribe of Idaho
, 313 F.3d at 1110 (citations omitted).Clerk Storey’s standing to appeal is based on the threat of injury, whichstems from the fact that the district court issued an injunction that is intended tobind him along with all other California County Clerks, thereby directly impactinghis official duties. Moreover, this Court has held “that a non-party who is enjoinedor otherwise directly aggrieved by a judgment has standing to appeal the judgmentwithout having intervened in the district court.”
Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle
,955 F.2d 1268, 1277
 
(9th Cir. 1992) (citing
Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co.
, 896 F.2d 1542, 1546-47 (9th Cir.1990).Although Clerk Storey was not a party in the district court and was notspecifically named in the injunction, the breadth of the injunction leaves no doubtthat it applies to him and will directly impact his official duties. The permanentinjunction provides that “Defendants in their official capacities, and
all personsunder the control or supervision of defendants
, are permanently enjoined fromapplying or enforcing Article I, § 7.5 of the California Constitution.”
1
(Dist. Ct.
1
 
The District Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law provided for an“entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the officialdefendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official2
 
Case: 10-16751 03/14/2011 Page: 3 of 11 ID: 7680318 DktEntry: 74

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)//-->