Kristin Perry, et al v. Dennis Hollingsworth, et al

Filing 17

Filed order (KIM MCLANE WARDLAW, RAYMOND C. FISHER and MARSHA S. BERZON) Appellants’ motion for leave to file an oversized reply is granted. Appellants’ November 23, 2009 reply has been filed. We conclude that appellants have made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits and that they will be irreparably injured absent a stay. See Nken v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1749, 1761 (2009) (citing Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)). Moreover, the issuance of a stay will not substantially injure appellees and the public interest weighs in favor of a stay. See id. Therefore, the stay issued on November 20, 2009 shall continue in effect. The briefing schedule established on November 16, 2009 is vacated. We expect to decide the appeals promptly without further briefing. IT IS SO ORDERED. [7150668] [09-17241, 09-17551] (DAF)

K r i s t i n Perry, et al v. Dennis Hollingsworth, et al D o c . 17 F IL E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 03 2009 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U . S . C O U R T OF APPE A L S K R IS T IN M. PERRY; et al., Plaintiffs - Appellees, and C IT Y AND COUNTY OF SAN F R A N C IS C O , Plaintiff-intervenor, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his o f f ic ia l capacity as Governor of California; et al., Defendants, an d D E N N IS HOLLINGSWORTH; et al., Defendant-intervenors A p p e lla n ts . N o . 09-17241 D .C . No. 3:09-cv-02292-VRW N o rth ern District of California, San Francisco ORDER Dockets.Justia.com K R IS T IN M. PERRY; et al., Plaintiffs - Appellees, and O U R FAMILY COALITION; et al., Plaintiff-intervenors A p p e lle e s , v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER; et al., Defendants, an d D E N N IS HOLLINGSWORTH; et al., Defendant-intervenors A p p e lla n ts . N o . 09-17551 D .C . No. 3:09-cv-02292-VRW N o rth ern District of California, San Francisco B efo re: WARDLAW, FISHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges. A p p ellan ts' motion for leave to file an oversized reply is granted. Appellants' November 23, 2009 reply has been filed. W e conclude that appellants have made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits and that they will be irreparably injured absent a stay. See N k en v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1749, 1761 (2009) (citing Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 2 09-17241, 09-17551 7 7 0 , 776 (1987)). Moreover, the issuance of a stay will not substantially injure ap p ellees and the public interest weighs in favor of a stay. See id. Therefore, the stay issued on November 20, 2009 shall continue in effect. T h e briefing schedule established on November 16, 2009 is vacated. We expect to decide the appeals promptly without further briefing. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 09-17241, 09-17551