Kristin Perry, et al v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al

Filing 9

Filed order (KIM MCLANE WARDLAW, RAYMOND C. FISHER and MARSHA S. BERZON): No later than April 9, 2010, the parties shall file simultaneous briefs addressing solely the issues of whether this court has jurisdiction over this appeal and whether mandamus is appropriate. See Vizcaino v. U.S. Dist. Court, 173 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that this court may exercise mandamus jurisdiction when a district court does not comply with the mandate); In re Subpoena Served on Cal. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 813 F.2d 1473, 1476 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that a nonparty ordinarily can obtain review of a discovery order by defying the order and appealing the ensuing contempt citation). Briefing on the remaining issues in this appeal is suspended pending further court order. [7284168] (AF)

K r i s t i n Perry, et al v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al Doc. 9 F IL E D U N IT E D STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 31 2010 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 , Intervenor - Plaintiff, v. A R N O L D SCHWARZENEGGER, in his o f f ic ia l capacity as Governor of California; et al., Defendants, and D E N N IS HOLLINGSWORTH; et al., Intervenor - Defendants Appellees, N o . 10-15649 D .C . No. 3:09-cv-02292-VRW N o rth ern District of California, San Francisco ORDER E Q U A L IT Y CALIFORNIA and NO ON P R O P O S IT IO N 8, CAMPAIGN FOR M A R R IA G E EQUALITY, A PROJECT O F THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES U N IO N OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, AT/MOATT Dockets.Justia.com Third parties - Appellants, and C A L IF O R N IA N S AGAINST E L IM IN A T IN G BASIC RIGHTS, Third party. B efo re: WARDLAW, FISHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges. No later than April 9, 2010, the parties shall file simultaneous briefs a d d r e ss in g solely the issues of whether this court has jurisdiction over this appeal an d whether mandamus is appropriate. See Vizcaino v. U.S. Dist. Court, 173 F.3d 7 1 3 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that this court may exercise mandamus jurisdiction w h en a district court does not comply with the mandate); In re Subpoena Served on C a l. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 813 F.2d 1473, 1476 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that a n o n p a rty ordinarily can obtain review of a discovery order by defying the order a n d appealing the ensuing contempt citation). B r ie fin g on the remaining issues in this appeal is suspended pending further co u rt order. AT/MOATT 2 1 0 -1 5 6 4 9