Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
 
PRIORITY SEND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIACIVIL MINUTES -- GENERALCase No.
CV 04-08425-VAP (Ex)
Date: March 15, 2012Title:LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS
-v- 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA andROBERT M. GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, in his officialcapacity===============================================================PRESENT:HONORABLE VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGEMarva DillardNone PresentCourtroom DeputyCourt ReporterATTORNEYS PRESENT FORPLAINTIFFS:ATTORNEYS PRESENT FORDEFENDANTS:NoneNonePROCEEDINGS:MINUTE ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FORATTORNEYS' FEES (IN CHAMBERS)Before the Court is a Motion for Attorneys' Fees ("Motion") filed by Plaintiff LogCabin Republicans ("Plaintiff")
.
(Doc. No. 326.) After considering the papers andarguments in support of, and in opposition to, the Motion, the Court GRANTS theMotion.
I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 9, 2010, this Court ruled in favor of Plaintiff on the first andsecond claims in its First Amended Complaint, finding the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ActMINUTES FORM 11Initials of Deputy Clerk __md__ CIVIL -- GENPage 1
Case 2:04-cv-08425-VAP-E Document 334 Filed 03/15/12 Page 1 of 23 Page ID #:9406
 
CV 04-08425-VAP (Ex)LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS, a non-profit corporation v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and DONALD H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OFDEFENSE, in his official capacityMINUTE ORDER of March 15, 2012
("the Act" or "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"), 10 U.S.C. § 654,
1
violated the First and FifthAmendments to the United States Constitution.
2
(Doc. No. 232.) Plaintiff, anonprofit corporation whose membership includes current, retired, and formerhomosexual members of the U.S. armed forces, challenged as "restrictive, punitive, .. . discriminatory," and unconstitutional the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy of DefendantsUnited States of America and Robert M. Gates ("Defendants"), including both thestatute codified at 10 U.S.C. § 654 and the implementing Department of Defenseregulations. (See First Am. Compl. ("FAC") (Doc. No. 25).)
A.Permanent Injunction
On October 12, 2010, the Court ruled that Plaintiff was entitled to a permanentinjunction, having established at trial that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act irreparablyinjured servicemembers by infringing their fundamental rights and violating (a) thesubstantive due process rights guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment to the UnitedStates Constitution, and (b) the rights to freedom of speech and to petition theGovernment for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment to theUnited States Constitution. (See Oct. 12, 2010, Order ("Oct. 12 Order") (Doc. No.249) at 3; Am. Mem. Op. (Doc. No. 250) at 85.) The Court found there was noadequate remedy at law to prevent the continued violation of servicemembers' rightsor to compensate them for violation of their rights, and therefore granted Plaintiff's
1
Codified in statute at 10 U.S.C. § 654 and implemented by regulationscomprising Department of Defense Directives 1332.14 (1993), 1332.30 (1997), and1304.26 (1993), as modified by Department of Defense Instructions 1332.14 (2008)(incorporating March 29, 2010, changes) and 1332.30 (2008) (incorporating March29, 2010, changes), and repealed (September 20, 2011, by the Don't Ask, Don't TellRepeal Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 111-321, 124 Stat. 3515 (2010)).
2
The Court issued its Amended & Final Memorandum Opinion on October 12,2010, finding Plaintiff had established standing to bring and maintain the suit onbehalf of its members, had demonstrated the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act violated theconstitutional rights of its members, and therefore had demonstrated it was entitledto a permanent injunction barring further enforcement of the Act. (Am. Mem. Op.(Doc. No. 250) at 1.)MINUTES FORM 11Initials of Deputy Clerk __md__ CIVIL -- GENPage 2
Case 2:04-cv-08425-VAP-E Document 334 Filed 03/15/12 Page 2 of 23 Page ID #:9407
 
CV 04-08425-VAP (Ex)LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS, a non-profit corporation v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and DONALD H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OFDEFENSE, in his official capacityMINUTE ORDER of March 15, 2012
Request for a Permanent Injunction, in part. (Oct. 12 Order at 3.)On October 12, 2010, the Court also issued its Amended & FinalMemorandum Opinion, reiterating its finding that Plaintiff had established standing tobring and maintain the suit on behalf of its members, had demonstrated the Don'tAsk, Don't Tell Act violated the constitutional rights of its members, and thereforewas entitled to a permanent injunction barring further enforcement of the Act. (Am.Mem. Op. at 1.) The Court entered the injunction on October 12, 2010.The permanent injunction enjoined Defendants and their agents, servants,officers, employees, and attorneys from enforcing or applying the Don't Ask, Don'tTell Act and its implementing regulations against any person under their jurisdictionor command. (Id. at 14-15.) The Court found that the complete invalidation of theDon't Ask, Don't Tell Act prevented Defendants from defending the constitutionalityof the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act in other courts. (Id. at 9.) The Court also orderedDefendants to suspend immediately and discontinue any investigation, or discharge,separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced under the Don'tAsk, Don't Tell Act, or its implementing regulations.
3
(Id. at 15.)
B.Defendants' Application to Stay
On October 14, 2010, Defendants filed an "Emergency Application to StayPending Appeal" the Court's October 12, 2010, judgment and permanent injunction.(Doc. No. 253.) Defendants concurrently entered a Notice of Appeal. (Doc. No.254.) Defendants argued the injunction would irreparably harm the public interest ina strong and effective military because it would require "an immediate and dramaticchange in policy," without allowing sufficient time to refashion the military's policy inan "orderly and comprehensive way." (Appl. to Stay (Doc. No. 253) at 4-5.)Defendants noted that "[t]he President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of theJoint Chiefs of Staff have all announced their support for a repeal of [the Don't Ask,Don't Tell Act]," but that the administration believed the repeal should be done in "an
3
In its order granting the permanent injunction, the Court also grantedPlaintiff's request to file an application for EAJA fees. (Oct. 12 Order at 15.)MINUTES FORM 11Initials of Deputy Clerk __md__ CIVIL -- GENPage 3
Case 2:04-cv-08425-VAP-E Document 334 Filed 03/15/12 Page 3 of 23 Page ID #:9408
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more