12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728The plaintiffs now have filed a response to the Motion to Intervene which purports to “reserve” certain issues and questions the House’s authority to move tointervene here in the first place.
Pls.’ Resp. to Mot. of the [House] to Intervene. . . (Apr. 5, 2012) (ECF No. 26) (“Pls.’ Resp.”). We now reply.
A. Plaintiffs first purport to reserve the right “to challenge the legality of [the House’s] participation in this action,” presumably at some later date,“including, but not limited to, [the House’s] lack of standing to pursue any appealunder Article III of the U.S. Constitution.”
. at 2. Of course, no reservation isrequired for jurisdictional objections of this nature, although common sense andrespect for the courts dictate that these too should be raised in a reasonably promptfashion if a party has any basis for raising them.
To the extent plaintiffs purport to reserve the right to raise at some later dateany non-jurisdictional issue, their purported “reservation” fails. Local Rules, notto mention the orderly administration of justice, require that plaintiffs oppose theHouse’s intervention at the time the House seeks such relief if plaintiffs have any basis for doing so. The Rules do not sanction the “wait and see” approach that
We have explained at some length elsewhere why the House has standing to intervenehere, and why the House, as an intervenor-defendant, would have standing to appeal an adverseruling.
Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Unopposed Mot. of [House] for Leave to Intervene at17-21 (April 2, 2012) (ECF No. 19) (“House Intervention Memo”); Reply to Executive BranchDefs.’ Resp. to Unopposed Mot. of the [House] for Leave to Intervene at 4-5 (Apr. 17, 2012)(ECF No. 31). We incorporate those arguments here.
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 33 Filed 04/17/12 Page 3 of 13 Page ID #:271