Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 26

Filed 08/31/12 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:361

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Peter A. Schey (Cal. Bar No. 58232) Carlos R. Holguín (Cal. Bar No. 90754) 256 S. Occidental Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90057 Telephone: (213) 388-8693 (Schey Ext. 304, Holguín ext. 309) Facsimile: (213) 386-9484 pschey@centerforhumanrights.org crholguin@centerforhumanrights.org Additional counsel listed next page Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) SACV12-01137 CBM (AJWx) PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO MOTION OF BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP TO INTERVENE AS PARTY-DEFENDANT.

15 MARTIN R. ARANAS, 16 IRMA RODRIGUEZ, AND JANE DELEON, 17 18 19 20 -vs21 JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary of the 22 Department of Homeland Security; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 23 SECURITY; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, 24 Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; and 25 UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, 26 27 28 Defendants. __________________________________ Plaintiffs,

Hearing: September 24, 2012 Time: 11:00 am Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 26

Filed 08/31/12 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:362

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Additional counsel for plaintiff Aranas: PUBLIC LAW CENTER Julie Greenwald (Cal. Bar No. 233714) Monica Ashiku (Cal. Bar No. 263112) 601 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92701 Telephone: (714) 541-1010 (Greenwald Ext. 263, Ashiku Ext. 249) Facsimile: (714) 541-5157 jgreenwald@publiclawcenter.org mashiku@publiclawcenter.org ASIAN LAW ALLIANCE Beatrice Ann M. Pangilinan (Cal. Bar No. 271064) 184 Jackson Street, San Jose, CA 95112 Telephone: (408) 287-9710 Facsimile: (408) 287-0864 Email: bpangilinan@asianlawalliance.org Additional counsel for plaintiffs Rodriguez and DeLeon: LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN & BENNETT Gary H. Manulkin (Cal. Bar No. 41469) Reyna M. Tanner (Cal. Bar No. 197931) 10175 Slater Avenue, Suite 111 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Telephone: 714-963-8951 Facsimile: 714-968-4948 gmanulkin@mgblaw.com reynatanner@yahoo.com ///

Response to motion to intervene

2

Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law 256 S. Occidental Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90057 213/388-8693

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 26

Filed 08/31/12 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:363

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) moves to intervene as a partydefendant in this action “for the purposes of defending DOMA § 3 against Plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges (and litigating related jurisdictional issues, if any).” Motion to Intervene at 2. Plaintiffs take no position regarding the merits of BLAG’s motion to intervene for this limited purpose or its standing in this action as a party-defendant. Plaintiffs do not concede, inter alia, (1) that BLAG speaks for a bi-partisan majority of the U.S House of Representatives; (2) that the Department of Justice has a responsibility to defend before the federal courts a statute it concludes is unconstitutional; or (3) that the Department of Justice’s decision to abstain from defending DOMA § 3 “was not predicated primarily on constitutional or other legal considerations…” Id. at 4. Plaintiffs reserve objection to actions by BLAG, should the Court permit it to intervene, inconsistent with the limited role it explicitly proposes. E.g., Cardona v. Shinseki, 2012 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 1724 at *2 (U.S. App. Vet. Cl., Aug. 13, 2012) (denying BLAG access to plaintiffs’ medical records where documents not relevant to the purposes for which it had been permitted to intervene: i.e., to “‘defend [Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act] … against equal protection claims (and litigat[e] related jurisdictional issues, if any).’”). Plaintiffs would accordingly object to BLAG’s attempting to oppose plaintiffs’ pending motions for class certification and a preliminary injunction on the grounds that such opposition would be inconsistent with its purported goal of
Response to motion to intervene

3

Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law 256 S. Occidental Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90057 213/388-8693

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 26

Filed 08/31/12 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:364

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

defending the constitutionality of DOMA § 3 in the Department of Justice’s stead. See Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984) (“A preliminary injunction … is not a preliminary adjudication on the merits but rather a device for preserving the status quo and preventing the irreparable loss of rights before judgment.”). Dated: August 31, 2012. CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Peter A. Schey Carlos R. Holguín PUBLIC LAW CENTER Julie Greenwald Marzouk Monica Ashiku ASIAN LAW ALLIANCE Beatrice Ann M. Pangilinan LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN & BENNETT Gary H. Manulkin Reyna M. Tanner /s/ Peter A. Schey ________________ /s/ Carlos R. Holguín _____________ Attorneys for Plaintiffs ///

Response to motion to intervene

4

Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law 256 S. Occidental Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90057 213/388-8693

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 26

Filed 08/31/12 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:365

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Response to motion to intervene

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE SACV12-01137 CBM (AJWx) I hereby certify that on this 31st day of August, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing REPLY TO MOTION TO INTERVENE with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which provided an electronic notice and electronic link of the same to all attorneys of record through the Court’s CM/ECF system. Dated: August 31, 2012 /// /s/ __peter schey_________ Peter Schey

5

Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law 256 S. Occidental Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90057 213/388-8693