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
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Plaintiffs' Opposition to SeaWorld's Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiffs' Opposition to SeaWorld's Motion to Dismiss

Ratings: (0)|Views: 92 |Likes:
Published by matthewstrugar
The Opposition to SeaWorld's Motion to Dismiss the Orca's Thirteenth Amendment Lawsuit
The Opposition to SeaWorld's Motion to Dismiss the Orca's Thirteenth Amendment Lawsuit

More info:

Published by: matthewstrugar on Jan 17, 2012
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

12/22/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
11-cv-2476 JM WMC
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Jeffrey S. Kerr (admitted
 pro hac vice
)Martina Bernstein (State Bar No. 230505)PETA Foundation1536 16th Street NWWashington, DC 20036Tel: 202-483-2190Fax: 202-540-2207JeffK@petaf.orgMartinaB@petaf.orgMatthew Strugar (State Bar No. 232951)PETA Foundation2154 W. Sunset Blvd.Los Angeles, CA 90026Tel: 323-739-2701Fax: 202-540-2207Matthew-s@petaf.orgPhilip J. Hirschkop (application for admission
 pro hac vice
forthcoming)Hirschkop & Associates P.C.1101 King St., Ste. 610Alexandria, VA 22314Tel: 703-836-5555Fax: 703-548-3181 pjhirschkop@aol.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THESOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Tilikum, Katina, Corky, Kasatka, and Ulises,five orcas,Plaintiffs, by their Next Friends, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., Richard “Ric” O’Barry, Ingrid N. Visser,Ph.D., Howard Garrett, Samantha Berg, and Carol Ray,v.SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. and SeaWorld,LLC,Defendants.|||||||||||||||Case No.: 11-cv-2476 JM WMC
Plaintiffs’ Opposition toDefendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Date: February 6, 2012Time: 10:30 a.m.Courtroom: 5190
Case 3:11-cv-02476-JM-WMC Document 14 Filed 01/13/12 Page 1 of 30
 
 
ii 11-cv-2476 JM WMC
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
INTRODUCTION
........................................................................................................................1
!
STANDARD OF REVIEW
..........................................................................................................3
!
ARGUMENT
.................................................................................................................................3
!
I.
!
The Thirteenth Amendment May Properly Prohibit the Slavery and Involuntary Servitude of Plaintiffs...................................................................................................................................3
!
II.
!
Defendants’ Analysis Is Contrary to Two Centuries of Constitutional Interpretation............5
!
A.
!
Constitutional Principles Have Long Been Extended to Apply to Changing Times andConditions..........................................................................................................................7
!
1.
!
The Development of the Right to Privacy..................................................................7
!
2.
!
The Supreme Court’s Changing View of the “Separate but Equal” Doctrine............9
!
3.
!
The Application of the Fourteenth Amendment to Sex Discrimination.....................9
!
4.
!
The “Progressive” Eighth Amendment....................................................................10
!
5.
!
The Evolution of Constitutional Protections for Criminal Defendants....................11
!
6.
!
The Constitutional Jurisprudence Establishes that the Original Understanding of theThirteenth Amendment Is Not Controlling...............................................................12
!
B.
!
 Neither Statute Nor Common Law Can Immunize Defendants’ Enslavement of thePlaintiffs..........................................................................................................................12
!
III.
!
The Court Should Reject SeaWorld’s Slippery-Slope Argument.........................................14
!
IV.
!
Plaintiffs State a Cause of Action Under Section 1 of the Thirteenth Amendment and theDeclaratory Judgment Act.....................................................................................................16
!
A.
!
Plaintiffs May Sue for Equitable Relief Directly Under Section 1 the ThirteenthAmendment.....................................................................................................................16
!
1.
!
The Damages Actions Defendants Rely on Are Irrelevant......................................17
!
2.
!
The “Badges and Incidents” Cases Defendants Rely on Are Irrelevant...................18
!
B.
!
Defendants Do Not Dispute That Plaintiffs Have a Cause of Action Under theDeclaratory Judgment Act...............................................................................................20
!
V.
!
Plaintiffs Have Standing to Raise These Claims...................................................................21
!
VI.
!
Defendants Do Not Challenge the Next Friends’ Status and Rule 17 Does Not Bar Plaintiffs’Suit.........................................................................................................................................22
!
CONCLUSION
...........................................................................................................................24
!
 
Case 3:11-cv-02476-JM-WMC Document 14 Filed 01/13/12 Page 2 of 30
 
 
iii 11-cv-2476 JM WMC
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
!
 Ashcroft v
.
Iqbal 
, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2008).......................................................................................3
 Ass’n of Data Processing Serv. Organizations, Inc. v. Camp
, 397 U.S. 150 (1970)....................22
 Bell v. Hood 
, 327 U.S. 678 (1948.................................................................................................16
 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics
, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).........16
 Bolling v. Sharpe
, 347 U.S. 497 (1954)..................................................................................13, 16
 Bowers v. Hardwick 
, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).....................................................................................8
 Bradwell v. Illinois
, 83 U.S. 130 (1872).......................................................................................10
 Brown v. Board of Education
, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)..............................................................passim
Califano v. Goldfarb
, 430 U.S. 199 (1977)..................................................................................13
Califano v. Westcott 
, 443 U.S. 76 (1979).....................................................................................13
Cetacean Cmty. v. Bush
, 386 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2004)..............................................................21
Channer v.
 
 Hall 
, 112 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 1997).............................................................................19
City of Memphis v. Greene
, 451 U.S. 100 (1981).........................................................................19
Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Ass’n
, 479 U.S. 388, 399-400 (1987).........................................................22
Coal. of Clergy, Lawyers, & Professors v. Bush
, 310 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2002)..................22, 23
Comm. of U.S. Citizens Living in Nicaragua v. Reagan
, 859 F.2d 929 (D.C. Cir. 1988)............14
Comm. on Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers
, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D.D.C. 2008)...................................................................................................................................................20
Cooper v. United States
, 594 F.2d 12 (4th Cir. 1979)..................................................................14
Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko
, 534 U.S. 61 (2001)......................................................................16
County of Sacramento
 
v. Lewis
, 523 U.S. 833 (1998)..................................................................12
 Del Elmer; Zachay v. Metzger 
, 967 F. Supp. 398 (S.D Cal. 1997)..............................................17
 District of Columbia v. Carter 
, 409 U.S. 418 (1973).....................................................................4
 Doe v. Gallinot 
, 657 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir. 1981)............................................................................20
 Dred Scott v. Sandford 
, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).........................................................................3, 5, 10
 Escobedo v. Illinois
, 378 U.S. 478 (1965)....................................................................................11
 Ex parte Young 
, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)...........................................................................................16
 Flast v. Cohen
, 392 U.S. 83 (1968)..............................................................................................14
Case 3:11-cv-02476-JM-WMC Document 14 Filed 01/13/12 Page 3 of 30

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)//-->