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
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
2:12-cv-00887 #33

2:12-cv-00887 #33

Ratings: (0)|Views: 12,274 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc #33 - BLAG's reply in support of its motion to intervene (reply to Plaintiffs' response).
Doc #33 - BLAG's reply in support of its motion to intervene (reply to Plaintiffs' response).

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Apr 18, 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

10/07/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Paul D. Clement (DC Bar 433215) pclement@bancroftpllc.comH. Christopher Bartolomucci (DC Bar 453423)cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.comConor B. Dugan (DC Bar 1006458)cdugan@bancroftpllc.com Nicholas J. Nelson (DC Bar 1001696)nnelson@bancroftpllc.comBANCROFT PLLC1919 M Street, N.W.Suite 470Washington, D.C. 20036202-234-0090 (telephone)202-234-2806 (facsimile)
Of Counsel:
Kerry W. Kircher, General Counsel (DC Bar 386816)Kerry.Kircher@mail.house.govWilliam Pittard, Deputy General Counsel (DC Bar 482949)William.Pittard@mail.house.govChristine Davenport, Senior Assistant Counsel (NJ Bar 043682000)Christine.Davenport@mail.house.govKirsten W. Konar, Assistant Counsel (DC Bar 979176)Kirsten.Konar@mail.house.govTodd B. Tatelman, Assistant Counsel (VA Bar 66008)Todd.Tatelman@mail.house.govMary Beth Walker, Assistant Counsel (DC Bar 501033)MaryBeth.Walker@mail.house.govOFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL,U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES219 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515202-225-9700 (telephone)202-226-1360 (facsimile)
Counsel for Proposed Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives
 
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 33 Filed 04/17/12 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:269
 
 1
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAWestern Division
) No. 2:12-cv-00887-CBM (AJWx)TRACEY COOPER-HARRIS and )MAGGIE COOPER-HARRIS, ))Plaintiffs, )
 
)
 
)
 
)v. ))UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., )) Hearing: May 7, 2012Defendants. ) Time: 10:00 am) Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall)On April 2, 2012, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (“House”) moved for leave to intervene as a party-defendant for the purpose of defending against plaintiffs’ equal protection challenges two Acts of Congress – Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-109, 110Stat. 2419 (1996) (“DOMA”), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7, and 38 U.S.C. § 101(3) &(31) (“Section 101”) – that the Department of Justice refuses to defend.
See
 Unopposed Mot. of the [House] for Leave to Intervene (Apr. 2, 2012) (ECF No.17) (“Mot. to Intervene”). Counsel for plaintiffs represented to us at that time thattheir clients did not oppose the motion.
See
Mot. to Intervene at 3.
REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’RESPONSE TOUNOPPOSED MOTION OFTHE BIPARTISAN LEGALADVISORY GROUP OFTHE U.S. HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES FORLEAVE TO INTERVENE
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 33 Filed 04/17/12 Page 2 of 13 Page ID #:270
 
 2
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.
See
Pls.’ Resp. to Mot. of the [House] to Intervene. . . (Apr. 5, 2012) (ECF No. 26) (“Pls.’ Resp.”). We now reply.
DISCUSSION
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.”
 Id 
. 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.
1
 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
1
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.
See
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

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

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)//-->