You are on page 1of 15

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 39

Filed 05/29/12 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:308

1 Paul D. Clement (DC Bar 433215) pclement@bancroftpllc.com 2 H. Christopher Bartolomucci (DC Bar 453423) 3 cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com Conor B. Dugan (DC Bar 1006458) 4 cdugan@bancroftpllc.com 5 Nicholas J. Nelson (DC Bar 1001696) nnelson@bancroftpllc.com 6 7 BANCROFT PLLC 1919 M Street, N.W. 8 Suite 470 9 Washington, D.C. 20036 10 202-234-0090 (telephone) 202-234-2806 (facsimile) 11 12 Of Counsel: Kerry W. Kircher, General Counsel (DC Bar 386816) 13 Kerry.Kircher@mail.house.gov 14 William Pittard, Deputy General Counsel (DC Bar 482949) William.Pittard@mail.house.gov 15 Christine Davenport, Senior Assistant Counsel (NJ Bar 043682000) 16 Christine.Davenport@mail.house.gov Kirsten W. Konar, Assistant Counsel (DC Bar 979176) 17 Kirsten.Konar@mail.house.gov 18 Todd B. Tatelman, Assistant Counsel (VA Bar 66008) Todd.Tatelman@mail.house.gov 19 Mary Beth Walker, Assistant Counsel (DC Bar 501033) 20 MaryBeth.Walker@mail.house.gov 21 OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 22 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 219 Cannon House Office Building 23 Washington, D.C. 20515 24 202-225-9700 (telephone) 202-226-1360 (facsimile) 25 26 Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives 27 28
INTERVENOR-DEF. MOT. TO STAY Case No. CV 12-877 CBM (AJWx)

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 39

Filed 05/29/12 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:309

1 2 3 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Western Division ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:12-cv-00887-CBM (AJWx) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF INTERVENORDEFENDANT TO STAY PROCEEDINGS Hearing: July 2, 2012 Time: 11:00 a.m. Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall

TRACEY COOPER-HARRIS and 5 MAGGIE COOPER-HARRIS, 6 7 8 v. Plaintiffs,

9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 10 11 12 13 Defendants.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan Legal

14 Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (House) will move this 15 Court on Monday, July 2, 2012, at 11:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may 16 be heard, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, 17 Western Division, Courtroom 2, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 18 90012, for an order granting the Houses Motion to Stay Proceedings. 19 20 MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for the reasons set

21 forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the House 22 respectfully moves for entry of an order staying all proceedings in this case 23 pending the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 24 Golinksi v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Nos. 12-15388 & 12-15079, 25 including any ruling by that Court on any timely-filed petition for rehearing or 26 petition for rehearing en banc. 27 This motion is being filed in accordance with the Courts Scheduling Order
1
INTERVENOR-DEF. MOT. TO STAY Case No. CV 12-877 CBM (AJWx)

28 (Apr. 5, 2012) (ECF No. 27) (The House will file any motion to stay proceedings

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 39

Filed 05/29/12 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:310

1 by the later of April 30, 2012, or seven (7) calendar days after the Court grants the 2 Houses motion to intervene.). The Court granted the Houses motion to 3 intervene on May 22, 2012. See In Chambers Order (May 22, 2012) (ECF No. 38). 4 5 LOCAL RULE 7-3 STATEMENT On May 25, 2012, counsel for the House conferred with Matthew D.

6 Benedetto, Esq., counsel for plaintiffs, who advised that his clients oppose the 7 relief requested in this motion. 8 On May 25, 2012, counsel for the House conferred with Jean Lin, Senior 9 Trial Attorney with the Department of Justice, who informed us that defendants 10 United States of America, Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., and Secretary of 11 Veterans Affairs Eric K. Shinseki, do not oppose the relief requested in this 12 motion. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Kerry W. Kircher, as ECF filer of this document, attests that concurrence 24 in the filing of the document has been obtained from signatory Paul D. Clement. 2 The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group currently is comprised of the 25 Honorable John A. Boehner, Speaker of the House, the Honorable Eric Cantor, 26 Majority Leader, the Honorable Kevin McCarthy, Majority Whip, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, and the Honorable Steny H. Hoyer, Democratic 27 Whip. The Democratic Leader and the Democratic Whip declined to support the 28 Houses motion to intervene in this case.
2
INTERVENOR-DEF. MOT. TO STAY Case No. CV 12-877 CBM (AJWx)
1

A proposed Order is submitted herewith and oral argument is not requested. Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Paul D. Clement Paul D. Clement BANCROFT PLLC1 Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives2 May 29, 2012

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 39

Filed 05/29/12 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:311

1 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on May 29, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing Notice of

3 Motion and Motion of Intervenor-Defendant to Stay Proceedings with the Clerk of 4 Court by using the CM/ECF system, which provided an electronic notice and 5 electronic link of the same to the following attorneys of record through the Courts 6 CM/ECF system: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
INTERVENOR-DEF. MOT. TO STAY Case No. CV 12-877 CBM (AJWx)

Caren E. Short, Esquire Christine P. Sun, Esquire Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Esquire SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, Alabama 36104 caren.short@splcenter.org christine.sun@splcenter.org joe.levin@splcenter.org Daniel S. Noble, Esquire WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 399 Park Avenue New York City, New York 10022 daniel.noble@wilmerhale.com Eugene Marder, Esquire WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 eugene.marder@wilmerhale.com

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 39

Filed 05/29/12 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:312

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

Randall R. Lee, Esquire Matthew D. Benedetto, Esquire WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 350 South Grand Avenue Suite 2100 Los Angeles, California 90071 randall.lee@wilmerhale.com matthew.benedetto@wilmerhale.com Jean Lin, Trial Attorney U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division - Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, Northwest Washington, District of Columbia 20530 jean.lin@usdoj.gov

/s/ Mary Beth Walker Mary Beth Walker

INTERVENOR-DEF. MOT. TO STAY Case No. CV 12-877 CBM (AJWx)

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 39-1

Filed 05/29/12 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:313

1 Paul D. Clement (DC Bar 433215) pclement@bancroftpllc.com 2 H. Christopher Bartolomucci (DC Bar 453423) 3 cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com Conor B. Dugan (DC Bar 1006458) 4 cdugan@bancroftpllc.com 5 Nicholas J. Nelson (DC Bar 1001696) nnelson@bancroftpllc.com 6 7 BANCROFT PLLC 1919 M Street, N.W. 8 Suite 470 9 Washington, D.C. 20036 10 202-234-0090 (telephone) 202-234-2806 (facsimile) 11 12 Of Counsel: Kerry W. Kircher, General Counsel (DC Bar 386816) 13 Kerry.Kircher@mail.house.gov 14 William Pittard, Deputy General Counsel (DC Bar 482949) William.Pittard@mail.house.gov 15 Christine Davenport, Senior Assistant Counsel (NJ Bar 043682000) 16 Christine.Davenport@mail.house.gov Kirsten W. Konar, Assistant Counsel (DC Bar 979176) 17 Kirsten.Konar@mail.house.gov 18 Todd B. Tatelman, Assistant Counsel (VA Bar 66008) Todd.Tatelman@mail.house.gov 19 Mary Beth Walker, Assistant Counsel (DC Bar 501033) 20 MaryBeth.Walker@mail.house.gov 21 OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 22 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 219 Cannon House Office Building 23 Washington, D.C. 20515 24 202-225-9700 (telephone) 202-226-1360 (facsimile) 25 26 Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives 27 28
INTERVENOR-DEF. MEM. IN SUPP. MOT. TO STAY Case No. CV 12-877 CBM (AJWx)

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 39-1

Filed 05/29/12 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:314

1 2 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Western Division ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:12-cv-00887-CBM (AJWx) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF INTERVENOR DEFENDANT TO STAY PROCEEDINGS Hearing: July 2, 2012 Time: 11:00 am Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall

4 TRACEY COOPER-HARRIS and 5 MAGGIE COOPER-HARRIS, 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 v. Plaintiffs,

9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

Plaintiffs, a same-sex couple married under California law, challenge on

14 equal protection grounds the constitutionality of (i) Section 3 of the Defense of 15 Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. 7, and (ii) 38 U.S.C. 101(3) & (31), in the 16 context of claims for veterans benefits. See Compl. for Declaratory, Injunctive, 17 and Other Relief 3, 6-11, 65, 69, Prayer for Relief (Feb. 1, 2012) (ECF No. 1) 18 (Compl.). 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 U.S.C. 7. Sections 101(3) and (31) of title 38 are similar (albeit limited in their 27 reach to one title of the U.S. Code); those sections provide, respectively, that: 28
1
INTERVENOR-DEF. MEM. IN SUPP. MOT. TO STAY Case No. CV 12-877 CBM (AJWx)

DOMA Section 3 provides: In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word marriage means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 39-1

Filed 05/29/12 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:315

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(3) The term surviving spouse means . . . a person of the opposite sex who was the spouse of a veteran at the time of the veterans death, and who lived with the veteran continuously from the date of marriage to the date of the veterans death . . . . (31) The term spouse means a person of the opposite sex who is a wife or husband. On February 22, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of

8 California held that DOMA Section 3 violates the equal protection component of 9 the Fifth Amendments Due Process Clause. See Order, Golinksi v. U.S. Office of 10 Pers. Mgmt., No. 10-cv-00257 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2012) (ECF No. 186). The 11 House promptly appealed, see [House]s Notice of Appeal, Golinksi v. U.S. Office 12 of Pers. Mgmt., No. 10-cv-00257 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2012) (ECF No. 188), and the 13 Ninth Circuit has expedited consideration of that appeal. See Order at 3, Golinski 14 v. U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt., Nos. 12-15388 & 12-15409 (9th Cir. Apr. 11, 2012) 15 (ECF No. 22) (briefing to be completed by July 31, 2012); Order at 2, Golinski v. 16 U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt., Nos. 12-15388 & 12-15409 (9th Cir. May 22, 2012) 17 (ECF No. 34) (oral argument scheduled for week of September 10, 2012). 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
1

Accordingly, the Court should stay consideration of this case pending the plaintiffs can prevail here only if the Court holds unconstitutional both DOMA Section 3 and the title 38 provisions as violative of the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause, see Complaint 55; the issue of DOMA Section 3s constitutionality under the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause is squarely before the Ninth Circuit in Golinski;1

19 Ninth Circuits ruling in Golinksi because:

See [House] Mediation Questionnaire, Golinski v. U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. 12-15388 (9th Cir. Mar. 1, 2012) (ECF No. 4-1) (describing issue on 28 (Continued . . .)
2
INTERVENOR-DEF. MEM. IN SUPP. MOT. TO STAY Case No. CV 12-877 CBM (AJWx)

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 39-1

Filed 05/29/12 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:316

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

the Ninth Circuits ruling will almost certainly inform, and may well be dispositive of, this Courts disposition of the plaintiffs equal protection claims as to both DOMA Section 3 and 38 U.S.C. 101(3) & (31); and

the Ninth Circuit has expedited consideration of the Golinski appeal. ARGUMENT

This Court has substantial discretion to grant a stay. [T]he power to stay

8 proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the 9 disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, 10 for counsel, and for litigants. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see 11 also Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 12 (1976) (federal courts decision whether to abstain from a case rest[s] on 13 considerations of [w]ise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of 14 judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation). 15 The determination of whether to grant a stay calls for the exercise of 16 judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance. 17 Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55. In determining whether a stay is appropriate, the 18 Court should consider (1) the possible damage which may result from granting the 19 stay; (2) the hardship to the parties if the suit is allowed to proceed; and (3) the 20 orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of 21 issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. 22 Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting CMAX, Inc. 23 v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). These factors strongly counsel in favor 24 of a stay in this case. 25 appeal as follows: [The House] asserts that Ms. Golinskis motion for summary 26 judgment should have been denied, and its motion to dismiss should have been granted, because Section 3 of DOMA does not violate Plaintiffs rights under the 27 equal protection component of the Fifth Amendments Due Process Clause.). 28
3
INTERVENOR-DEF. MEM. IN SUPP. MOT. TO STAY Case No. CV 12-877 CBM (AJWx)

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 39-1

Filed 05/29/12 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:317

The overriding consideration here is that the DOMA Section 3 issue being

2 considered by the Ninth Circuit in Golinski is legally identical to the DOMA 3 Section 3 issue raised by the plaintiffs here. Accordingly, it is virtually certain that 4 a ruling by the Ninth Circuit in Golinski on the merits of Section 3s 5 constitutionality will significantly inform this Courts determination of the merits 6 of plaintiffs claims. Indeed, the ruling in Golinski likely will be directly 7 controlling here on the issue of DOMA Section 3s constitutionality. Moreover, 8 because the definitional language in 38 U.S.C. 101(3) & (31) differs so little
2 9 from the language of DOMA Section 3, the ruling in Golinski likely will shed

10 considerable light on the question of the constitutionality of 38 U.S.C. 101(3) &


3 11 (31), even if that ruling is not directly controlling as to those provisions.

12

While it is impossible to predict with certainty when the Ninth Circuit

13 actually will decide the Golinski appeal, that Court has signaled quite clearly that it 14 intends to move expeditiously. See Order at 3, Golinski v. U.S. Office of Pers. 15 Mgmt., Nos. 12-15388 & 12-15409 (9th Cir. Apr. 11, 2012) (ECF No. 22); Order 16 at 2, Golinski v. U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt., Nos. 12-15388 & 12-15409 (9th Cir. 17 May 22, 2012) (ECF No. 34). 18 Under these circumstances, the balance tilts decidedly in favor of a stay 19 here. See, e.g., Hosp. of Barstow, Inc. v. Sebelius, No. 11-cv-10638, 2012 WL 20 893784, at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012) (granting HHS Secretarys motion for 21 See Letter from Eric H. Holder, Jr., Atty Gen., to the Honorable John A. Boehner, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives at 2 (Feb.17, 2012) (equating 38 23 U.S.C. 101 (3) & (31) with DOMA Section 3), attached as Exhibit 3 to Notice to 24 the Court (Feb. 24, 2012) (ECF No. 16). 22 25 A stay would be appropriate even if the Ninth Circuits ruling in Golinski 26 on the equal protection issue before it was not likely to be controlling here. See, e.g., Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979) 27 (enough that independent proceeding bear upon the [instant] case). 28
4
INTERVENOR-DEF. MEM. IN SUPP. MOT. TO STAY Case No. CV 12-877 CBM (AJWx)
3 2

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 39-1

Filed 05/29/12 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:318

1 stay where issues in case were before Ninth Circuit in another case; stay would 2 promote judicial economy). 3 Another case challenging both DOMA Section 3 and 38 U.S.C. 101(3) & 4 (31) filed last October in the District of Massachusetts, McLaughlin v. Panetta, No.
4 5 1:11-cv-11905 (D. Mass.), has been stayed since February 27, 2012, because the

6 First Circuit like the Ninth Circuit in Golinski now is considering the issue of 7 DOMA Section 3s constitutionality under the equal protection component of the 8 Due Process Clause in Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health & Human 9 Services, Nos. 10-2204, 10-2207 & 10-2214 (1st Cir.). See Electronic Order, 10 McLaughlin v. Panetta, No. 1:11-cv-11905 (D. Mass. Feb. 15, 2012) (granting 11 motion to stay case for 60 days); Electronic Order, McLaughlin v. Panetta, No. 12 1:11-cv-11905 (D. Mass. April 22, 2012) (granting motion to stay defendants 13 obligations to respond to complaint and to plaintiffs summary judgment motion 14 until 21 days after First Circuit rules in Massachusetts v. HHS); see also Electronic 15 Order, McLaughlin v. Panetta, No. 1:11-cv-11905 (D. Mass Apr. 12, 2012) 16 (denying plaintiffs motion to force House to move to intervene within nine days: 17 In light of the current posture of the case, the court sees no reason to set such a 18 deadline.). 19 This Court should follow the McLaughlin Courts lead; postponing briefing 20 and argument on the merits until the Ninth Circuit rules in Golinski makes sense 21 for the Court and makes sense for the parties. 22 23 24 McLaughlin, like this case, challenges DOMA Section 3 and 38 U.S.C. 25 101(3) & (31) (among other provisions) on equal protection grounds. See Compl. for Declaratory, Injunctive and Other Relief 3, 13, 14, 128, 139, 144; 26 WHEREFORE Clauses (a), (b), McLaughlin v. Panetta, No. 1:11-cv-11905 (D. 27 Mass. Oct. 27, 2011) (ECF No. 1). 28
5
INTERVENOR-DEF. MEM. IN SUPP. MOT. TO STAY Case No. CV 12-877 CBM (AJWx)
4

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 39-1

Filed 05/29/12 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:319

1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 May 29, 2012 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 should be granted.

CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, the Houses Motion to Stay Proceedings Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Paul D. Clement Paul D. Clement BANCROFT PLLC5 Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives

Kerry W. Kircher, as ECF filer of this document, attests that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from signatory Paul D. Clement.
6
INTERVENOR-DEF. MEM. IN SUPP. MOT. TO STAY Case No. CV 12-877 CBM (AJWx)

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 39-1

Filed 05/29/12 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:320

1 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on May 29, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing

3 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion of Intervenor4 Defendant to Stay Proceedings with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF 5 system, which provided an electronic notice and electronic link of the same to the 6 following attorneys of record through the Courts CM/ECF system: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
INTERVENOR-DEF. MEM. IN SUPP. MOT. TO STAY Case No. CV 12-877 CBM (AJWx)

Caren E. Short, Esquire Christine P. Sun, Esquire Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Esquire SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, Alabama 36104 caren.short@splcenter.org christine.sun@splcenter.org joe.levin@splcenter.org Daniel S. Noble, Esquire WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 399 Park Avenue New York City, New York 10022 daniel.noble@wilmerhale.com Eugene Marder, Esquire WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 eugene.marder@wilmerhale.com

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 39-1

Filed 05/29/12 Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:321

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

Randall R. Lee, Esquire Matthew D. Benedetto, Esquire WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 350 South Grand Avenue Suite 2100 Los Angeles, California 90071 randall.lee@wilmerhale.com matthew.benedetto@wilmerhale.com Jean Lin, Trial Attorney U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division - Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, Northwest Washington, District of Columbia 20530 jean.lin@usdoj.gov

/s/ Mary Beth Walker Mary Beth Walker

INTERVENOR-DEF. MEM. IN SUPP. MOT. TO STAY Case No. CV 12-877 CBM (AJWx)

Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 39-2

Filed 05/29/12 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:322

1 2 3 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Western Division ) No. 2:12-cv-00887-CBM (AJWx) ) ) ) [PROPOSED] ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

TRACEY COOPER-HARRIS and 5 MAGGIE COOPER-HARRIS, 6 7 8 v. Plaintiffs,

9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 10 11 12 13 Defendants.

UPON CONSIDERATION OF the Motion of Intervenor-Defendant to Stay

14 Proceedings (Motion), the opposition, if any, and the entire record herein, it is by 15 this Court this ____ day of _________, 2012, hereby ORDERED 16 17 That the Motion is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That this case is stayed STAYED pending the ruling of the United States

18 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Golinksi v. U.S. Office of Personnel 19 Management, Nos. 12-15388 & 12-15409, including any ruling by that Court on 20 any timely-filed petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ___________________________ Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall United States District Judge