Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 147

Reply Memorandum re 91 MOTION to Intervene filed byCampaign for California Families. (McAlister, Mary) (Filed on 8/14/2009)

Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al Doc. 147 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document147 Filed08/14/09 Page1 of 21 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 M A R Y E. MCALISTER C a lifornia Bar No. 148570 R E N A M. LINDEVALDSEN* L IBE RT Y COUNSEL P .O . Box 11108 L ynchbu rg, VA 24506 (4 3 4 ) 592-7000 Telephone (4 3 4 ) 592-7700 Facsimile co u r t@ lc.o rg Email A tto rn ey s for Prospective Intervenor *Admitted pro hac vice U N I T E D STATES DISTRICT COURT N O R T H E R N DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION K R I S T I N M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T . KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, P la intiffs v. A R N O L D SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official ca p a city as Governor of California; EDMUND G. B R O W N , JR., in his official capacity as Attorney G enera l of California, MARK B. HORTON, in his officia l capacity as Director of the California D epa rtm ent of Public Health and State Registrar of V ita l Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official ca pa city as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; PATRICK O'CONNELL, in his officia l capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official ca pa city as Registrar-Recorder/ County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, D efenda nts. a nd PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS D E N N I S H O L L I N G SW O R T H , G AI L J . K N I G H T , MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAKS H I N G WILLIAM TAM, and MARK A. J A N S S O N ; andPROT E C T M A R R IA G E .C O M Y E S ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA R E N E W AL , Intervenor-Defendants. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________ _ _ _ _ _ _ P R O P O S E D INTERVENOR CAM P A I G N F O R C A LIFO R N IA FAM I L I E S ' M E M O R A N D U M OF POINTS AND AUTH O RITIE S IN R E PLY TO P L A I N T I F F S ' AND PR O P O N E N T S ' O P P O S I T I O N TO THE CAM P A I G N ' S M O TIO N T O IN T E R VENE AS D E F E N D AN T D AT E: T IM E : JUD G E : A U G U S T 19, 2009 1 0 :0 0 AM C H IE F JUDGE VAUGHN R. W AL KE R L O C AT IO N : C O U R T R O O M 6,17TH FL O O R C as e No.09-CV 02292 VRW 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document147 Filed08/14/09 Page2 of 21 2 3 4 5 6 7 A. 8 9 10 C. 11 12 13 14 15 II. 16 17 18 19 20 C. 21 B. E. D. B. T A B L E OF CONTENTS T A B L E OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii IN T R O D U C T IO N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 L E G A L ARGUM E N T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 I. P R O P O N E N T S RELY UPON FAULTY LEGAL PREM I S E S AND FAIL TO DISPUTE T H A T THE CAM P A I G N IS ENTITLED TO INTERVENE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 T h e Proponents' Opposition To The Campaign's M o t io n Is Doomed By T h e Fatal Flaws Of M is t a ke n Identity And Misstated Scope Of Relief. 4 T h e Campaign Has A Significantly Protectable Interest In the Subject M at te r Of Plaintiffs' Litigation, Which Is Not M e r e ly Proposition 8. 6 T h e Campaign's Significant Interests M ig h t Be Impaired By The O u tc o m e Of This Proceeding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 P r o p o n e n ts Have Themselves Demonstrated That Neither They Nor Any O t h e r Existing Parties Will Adequately Represent The Campaign's I nte r e s ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 P r o p o n e n ts Agree That The Campaign M e e ts The Requirements For P e r m is s iv e Intervention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 P L A I N T I F F S RELY UPON THE SAM E FLAWED PREM I S E S AS DO P R O P O N E N T S AND REACH THE SAM E INCORRECT CONCLUSION. . . . . . 1 1 A. T h e Campaign Has A Significant Protectable Interest In Preserving M ar r iag e As The Union Of One M an And One Woman, The True U n d e r lyin g Subject M atte r Of This Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 N e ith e r Proponents Nor Any Other Existing Party Can Adequately R e p r e s e n t The Campaign's Interests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 T h e Campaign M e e ts The Standards For Permissive Intervention. . 1 4 C O N C L U SIO N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 R eply in Support of Campaign Intervention­ Case No. 09-CV-02292 VRW i Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document147 Filed08/14/09 Page3 of 21 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 F E D E R A L CASES T A B L E OF AUTHORITIES A r iz o n a n s for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 , 14 C a lifo r n ia ex.rel. Van de Kamp v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 792 F.2d 779(9th Cir. 1986) 8 Id a h o v. Freeman, 625 F.2d 886, 887 (9th Cir. 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 , 13 L o v in g v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1,12 (1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 , 7, 12 Pr e te v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 , 9, 13, 14 S a g e b r u s h Rebellion, Inc. v. Watt, 713 F.2d 525 (9th Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 , 9, 13 S m e lt v. County of Orange, 447 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 2006) ............................... 2 S o . Calif. Edison v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794, 803 (9th Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 U n ite d States v. Alisal Water Corporation, 370 F.3d 915, 920 (9th Cir. 2004) .............. 8 U n ite d States v. City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d 391,397 (9th Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 S T A T E CASES In re Marriage Cases,43 Cal.4th 757 (2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Kn ig h t v. Schwarzenegger, 128 Cal.App.4th 14 (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 S T A T E STATUTES C a lifornia Family Code §§ 297-299.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 C a lifornia Family Code §§ 300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 , 5, 6, 12 C a lifornia Family Code §301 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 C a lifornia Family Code §308.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 , 12 F E D E R A L RULES F ed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 R eply in Support of Campaign Intervention­ Case No. 09-CV-02292 VRW ii Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document147 Filed08/14/09 Page4 of 21 Proposed Intervenor-Defendant CAMPAIGN FOR CALIFORNIA FAMILIES ("the 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 C a m pa ign" ) submits the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Reply to the Plaintiffs' a nd Intervenor-Defendants' ("the Proponents" herein) Opposition to the Campaign's Motion to Intervene as a Defendant: IN T R O D U C T IO N A lth ou g h ostensibly seeking different outcomes in this litigation, Plaintiffs and Proponents share the common goal of preventing the Campaign from participating as an Intervenor-Defendant. These p u r po rted adversaries raise substantially similar arguments in their opposition memoranda. More notew orthy, however, is that it is the Campaign's proposed co-Defendants who are the more vocal oppo nents to the Campaign's participation in the litigation. Plaintiffs reference the Campaign in their single opposition memorandum that substantially focuses on challenging the parties seeking intervention a s Plaintiffs. By contrast, the Proponents, who are supposed to be seeking the same outcome as is the C a m pa ign, devote an entire 15-page memorandum and several exhibits to their over-zealous attempt to exclude the Campaign from what should be a common defense of the sanctity of marriage as the u nion of one man and one woman. In their zeal, Proponents failed to affirm that the evidence they cite in support of their proposition actually addresses the points they claim. Proponents rely upon a single W eb page (Exhibit B) as proof that the Campaign opposed Proposition 8. However, Exhibit B was not a u tho red by nor does it mention the Campaign, and, more importantly, it does not even reference Proposition 8, which was still three years from qualifying for the ballot. Furthermore, many of the positions that the Proponents cite as evidence against the Campaign's intervention actually demonstrate w hy the Campaign should be permitted to intervene. In their concerted effort to exclude the Campaign from this litigation, Plaintiffs and Proponents m i sr ep resen t the scope of Plaintiffs' claims. Both parties focus exclusively on Proposition 8. They assert tha t invalidation of that amendment is the sole goal of the litigation so that there is no need for a d ditio na l defendants beyond Proponents. However, as Plaintiffs are well aware, they are seeking more tha n merely invalidation of Proposition 8, but an injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8 "and an y other California statutes that seek to exclude gays and lesbians from access to civil m ar r iag e ," including California Family Code §§ 300, 301 and 308.5. (Complaint, Doc. # 1-2, ¶¶ 2, R eply in Support of Campaign Intervention­ Case No. 09-CV-02292 VRW 1 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document147 Filed08/14/09 Page5 of 21 6 , 21,24) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs allege that they included the other statutes "in an abundance of 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 ca u tion," to ensure that they obtain the full relief requested. (Complaint, ¶6). They cannot now conveniently ignore those additional statutory provisions, or the constitutional underpinnings of their cla im s in order to thwart the Campaign's efforts to protect its rights by participating as a Defendant. S im ila rly, Proponents cannot conveniently ignore the scope of relief sought by Plaintiffs in order to a ssert a right to act as the only defender of marriage in California. As inconvenient as it might be for both parties, the fact is that Plaintiffs are asking this Court to re-define marriage in California by inva lida ting all statutory and constitutional provisions that identify marriage as the union of one man a nd one woman. The Campaign's role in implementing and defending the statutes and the underlying fu nda m enta l constitutional rights upon which Plaintiffs base their claims places it firmly within the sta nda rds for intervention as of right and permissive intervention. Plaintiffs' and Proponents' attempt to narrow the issues to avoid that conclusion is unavailing.1 F u rther m or e, as to Proponents, their emphasis on Proposition 8 to the exclusion of the other sta tu tory provisions and underlying constitutional rights actually proves instead of disproving that the C a m pa ign's motion should be granted. Proponents demonstrate that their focus in this action will be to protect their $37 million investment in Proposition 8. While that is an important aspect of defending a ga inst Plaintiffs' allegations, it is not the complete picture of how Plaintiffs' claims will affect fu nda m enta l constitutional rights and the legislative process in California. Proponents' assertion to the contra ry is itself evidence that they will not adequately represent the Campaign's interest in this sign ifica nt litigation. While it is understandable that Plaintiffs would oppose having an additional party to challenge their claims, it is difficult to fathom why Proponents would so vigorously oppose an additional voice 24 25 26 27 28 T he Campaign has participated as a party state and federal cases alongside Proponents. These inclu d e Knight v. Schwarzenegger 128 Cal.App.4th 14 (2005); In re Marriage Cases,43 C a l.4 th 757 (2008) and Smelt v. County of Orange, 447 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 2006). The M a r r ia g e Cases was a consolidated action that included a case that the Campaign initiated im me d ia te ly after Mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in San Francisco. The Campaign participated in the case as a party through the trial, inte rm e d ia t e appellate court and Supreme Court of California. In Smelt, the Campaign was g ra nte d intervention over the objections of many of the parties now part of the Proponents who a t the point were not yet official proponents of Proposition 8, which was not yet finalized. Reply in Support of Campaign Intervention­ Case No. 09-CV-02292 VRW 2 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document147 Filed08/14/09 Page6 of 21 to defend marriage in California, even to the point of agreeing with the Plaintiffs. If Proponents' goal 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 I. is to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman, then there is no logical reason for them to oppose additional support for that position. If their goal is to protect their personal interest in a $37 m illion political investment regardless of other consequences, then their position makes sense. The C a m pa ign's goal is to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and to provide this C ou rt with the factual and legal arguments necessary to make a reasoned decision. The need for such infor m a tion is critical to a proper determination of Plaintiffs' claims, particularly in light of the Attorney G enera l's stated opposition to Proposition 8 and the retention of the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Since the Court's deadline for seeking intervention has passed, there is no concern about a flood of proposed intervenors who might unreasonably delay the proceedings. The C a m pa ign stands ready to fully participate in this litigation under whatever deadlines are imposed by this Court and respectfully requests that this Court grant it that opportunity. LEGAL ARGUM E N T P R O P O N E N T S RELY UPON FAULTY LEGAL PREM I S E S AND FAIL TO DISPUTE T H A T THE CAM P A I G N IS ENTITLED TO INTERVENE. T he named Defendants in this matter, the government officials who are legally obligated to defend the California and United States constitutions and California statutes, do not oppose the C a m pa ign 's request to, at least nominally, join them in defending against Plaintiffs' claims. (Docket N os. 114, 116, 122 and 125). Notably, Attorney General Brown has stated that he agrees with Plaintiffs tha t defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman violates the U.S. Constitution. (Docket N o. 39, p. 2). That being the case, it would be logical for the Attorney General, like the Plaintiffs, to object to having another party join the lawsuit to defend the constitutionality of the definition of m a rr ia ge. However, he has gone on record saying that he does not oppose the Campaign's request to intervene and challenge his interpretation of the Constitution. (Docket No. 122). The Administration ha s expressed its desire that these issues be decided expeditiously. (Docket No. 46 ). Its non-opposition to the Campaign's motion to intervene affirms that it does not believe that the Campaign's presence in the action will impede an expeditious resolution of the claims, despite Proponents' protestations to the contra ry. In light of these statements, the Proponents' vigorous opposition to having another party join in seeking what should be a mutually beneficial outcome is all the more puzzling. Most importantly, R eply in Support of Campaign Intervention­ Case No. 09-CV-02292 VRW 3 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document147 Filed08/14/09 Page7 of 21 ho w ever , the Proponents' opposition to the Campaign's motion is without merit. 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 T his distinction is readily discoverable on the organization's Web site: "CAMPAIGN FOR C H IL D R E N AND FAMILIES (CCF) is a leading West Coast nonprofit, nonpartisan organization repres e n t i n g children and families." See http://savecalifornia.com/ ca-release-11-19-08 - pr o-fa m i ly -r esp on se-to -ca lifo rn ia -su p rem e -co u r t-a g reein g-to -h ea r -ch a l len ges-to -p eo pl e s - v o t e - o n - p r op .-8 .htm l (Last visited August 14, 2009). 3 2 A. T h e Proponents' Opposition To The Campaign's M o t io n Is Doomed By T h e Fatal Flaws Of M is t a ke n Identity And Misstated Scope Of Relief. T wo fundamental flaws infect Proponents' opposition. The first is a case of mistaken identity. T hrou ghou t their memorandum, Proponents refer to "CCF" instead of the "Campaign." "CCF" is the a cronym for the Campaign for Children and Families2, a different organization from Campaign for C a lifor nia Families, the organization seeking intervention in this case. It was Campaign for Children a nd Families, not the Campaign, that sponsored the VoteYesMarriage.com committee that drafted the sta tem ents in Exhibit B about which Proponents complain. Exhibit B states that the members of the coa lition are Ed Hernandez, Larry Bowler and Randy Thomasson in his role as President of Campaign fo r Children and Families ("CCF"), not Executive Director of the proposed Intervenor, the Campaign. (E xhibit B). The official records of the California Secretary of State show that the Campaign and CCF a re two wholly separate, different organizations with different agents for service of process, different corpora te numbers and different dates of initial filing.3 Randy Thomasson leads both organizations, but they are separate legal entities. Proponents' own exhibit demonstrates that the "open antagonism" and " pu blic opposition"of which Proponents accuse the Campaign in fact refers to statements made by V oteY esM a rria ge.com and its sponsor, CCF, not the Campaign. More importantly, the statements targeted by Proponents in Exhibit B do not even refer to P rop osition 8, but to earlier proposed marriage amendments that did not qualify for the ballot. Exhibit B cites the language which the statements Proponents claim is Proposition 8: "A marriage between a m a n and a woman is the only legal union that is valid or recognized in this state." (Exhibit B, p. 4). The Campaign for California Families is listed as Corporation Number C2158388, with an initial filing date of March 25, 1999 and Randy Thomasson listed as agent for service of process. See http://k epler.sos.ca .gov/corpd a ta /Sh ow A llL ist?Q ueryCorpN umber= C 2 1 5 8 3 8 8 (last visited August 12, 2 0 0 9 ). Campaign for Children and Families is listed as Corporation Number C2475761, with an initial filing date of November 26, 2002 and Erik Hartstrom listed as agent for service of process. See http://k epler.sos.ca .gov/corpda ta /ShowA llL ist? Q u eryC orpN u m ber= C 2 4 7 5761 (last visited August 12, 2 0 0 9 ). The two corporations list different business addresses. Reply in Support of Campaign Intervention­ Case No. 09-CV-02292 VRW 4 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document147 Filed08/14/09 Page8 of 21 la ngu a ge that became Proposition 8, and which is a focus of this action is: "Only marriage between one 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 civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival." Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1,12 (1 9 6 7 ) (Complaint, ¶1). Those allegations signal that Plaintiffs do not intend to merely erase Pr o p o n e n t s ' initiative amendment from the California Constitution, but to eliminate all vestiges of m a rria ge as the union of one man and one woman throughout California law, under the guise of extending the fundamental constitutional right of marriage to same-sex couples. While Proposition 8 is certainly a part, and perhaps the largest part, of Plaintiff's claims, it is not the only basis for relief. R eply in Support of Campaign Intervention­ Case No. 09-CV-02292 VRW 5 m a n and one woman is valid or recognized in California." The critical statements made about proposed m a rria ge amendments, which Proponents claim show the Campaign's animosity toward Proposition 8 w ere not about Proposition 8 and were not authored by the Campaign. The "open antagonism" that Prop o n e n ts claim disqualifies the Campaign from participating as an intervenor-Defendant does not exist. What the Campaign actually said and did regarding Proposition 8 and the 10-year effort to p ro tect marriage in California is set forth in Randy Thomasson's Declaration, which, as described more fu lly below, establishes significant, protectable interests not adequately represented by the present pa rties to the action. The second fatal flaw in Proponents's opposition, alluded to above, is the misrepresentation of the nature of Plaintiffs' claims for relief. Proponents describe Plaintiffs' action as a constitutional attack o n Proposition 8. (Proponents' Memorandum, p. 1, lines 13-15). According to Proponents, the only issu e presented by Plaintiffs is the validity of Proposition 8. They argue that they, and they alone are the parties who can save Proposition 8 from Plaintiffs' attacks. Throughout their argument, Proponents reitera te that they were the ones who qualified Proposition 8 for the ballot, raised money for its passage a nd defended it in court, making them the only parties qualified to protect it. Proponents' assertions rega rding their monopoly on protecting Proposition 8 notwithstanding, the allegations of the Complaint revea l that this case is about much more than whether the Proponents' political progeny is valid. P la intiffs specify that they are seeking an injunction against not only Proposition 8, but "any other C a lifornia statutes that seek to exclude gays and lesbians from access to civil marriage," including C a lifornia Family Code §§ 300, 301 and 308.5. Moreover, Plaintiffs preface their claims by referring to the Supreme Court's holding that marriage is "one of the basic Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document147 Filed08/14/09 Page9 of 21 P rop on en t s ' representations that this case deals only with Proposition 8 so that only they are proper 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 Intervenor-D efenda nts mischaracterizes Plaintiffs' action and nullifies Proponents' arguments against the Campaign's Motion to Intervene. B. T h e Campaign Has A Significantly Protectable Interest In the Subject M at te r Of Plaintiffs' Litigation, Which Is Not M e r e ly Proposition 8. T h e Court need look no further than Proponents' legal argument headings to see how P rop on ents have skewed the description of Plaintiffs' claims in order to support their position that they sho u ld be the only Intervenor-Defendants in this case. Proponents state that "CCF Does Not Have a Significa ntly Protectable Interest In Proposition 8" to support their argument that the Campaign cannot m eet the requirements for intervention as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). (Proponents' M em ora n d u m , p. 5). The requirement to which Proponents are referring is the second in the Ninth C ircu it's four-part test for determining whether a party has satisfied Rule 24(a) ­ that the applicant has a significantly protectable interest in the subject matter of the action. United States v. City of Los A n g e le s , 288 F.3d 391,397 (9th Cir. 2002). In this case, the subject matter of the action is not, as Proponents claim, Proposition 8. Instead, this action asks whether the fundamental constitutional right of marriage applies to same-sex couples so that all constitutional and statutory provisions defining m a rria ge as the union of one man and one woman must be declared unconstitutional. (Complaint, ¶¶ 1 , 2, 6, 21, 24). While Proposition 8 is certainly a prevalent aspect of Plaintiffs' pleadings, it is not the only legislative enactment against which they are seeking injunctive relief. Plaintiffs specifically list C a lifornia Family Code §§ 300, 301 and 308.5 in their claim for relief to ensure that they obtain the fu ll relief requested. (Complaint, ¶6). Plaintiffs' prefatory paragraph establishes that the genesis of their cla im is not Proposition 8 but the institution of marriage as "one of the basic civil rights of man, fu n da m enta l to our very existence and survival." Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967). When Plaintiffs' claims are viewed in their proper context, it is clear that the Campaign has esta blished that it has a significant protectable interest in the actual subject matter of the action. Pla intiffs' reference to Family Code §§ 300, 301 and 308.5 are particularly significant in showing ho w the Campaign meets the significant protectable interest standard. Family Code §308.5 was enacted a s Proposition 22 on March 8, 2000 and contains the same fourteen words as Proposition 8: "Only m a rria g e between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Family Code §301 R eply in Support of Campaign Intervention­ Case No. 09-CV-02292 VRW 6 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document147 Filed08/14/09 Page10 of 21 inco rpo ra tes the same definition: "An unmarried male of the age of 18 years or older, and an unmarried 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 fem a le of the age of 18 years or older, and not otherwise disqualified, are capable of consenting to and consu m m a ting marriage," as does Family Code §300: "Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman...." Numerous other provisions in the Family Code and other statutes incorporate the definition of marriage as one man and one woman, which is undoubtedly the reason for the Plaintiffs' inclusion of "any other California statutes that seek to exclude gays and lesbia ns from access to civil marriage" in their allegations. Plaintiffs have made clear that they do not wa nt to merely invalidate Proposition 8, but to erase "marriage is the union of one man and one w om a n" from all California statutes and constitutional provisions. Marriage as the union of one man and one woman has been a primary focus of the Campaign since its inception. As described in detail in the Declaration of Randy Thomasson, the Campaign has been defending marriage as the union of one man and one woman since long before Proposition 8 q u a lified for the ballot, and when Proposition 8 qualified the Campaign supported it and urged voters to approve it. The Campaign's efforts have included filing lawsuits to challenge statutory enactments tha t undermined the institution of marriage, participating as a party in the consolidated marriage cases a nd drafting proposed legislation to assist county officials with concerns about issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. (Declaration of Randy Thomasson, pp. 2-3). Consequently, the Campaign's interests are not merely "vague, generalized ideological interests" as Proponents allege, but tangible, significa nt interests in preserving the institution of marriage from the redefinition sought by Plaintiffs. W hen the "subject matter of the litigation" is properly identified by the allegations of the C om pla int, it is apparent that the Campaign has much more than the "undifferentiated, generalized interest in the outcome of an action" that the Ninth Circuit called "too porous a foundation on which to premise intervention as of right." So. Calif. Edison v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794, 803 (9th Cir. 2002). N either is the Campaign's interest merely a "general interest shared by a substantial portion of the po pu la tion" that does not meet the intervention standard. California ex. rel. Van de Kamp v. Tahoe R e g ' l Planning Agency, 792 F.2d 779, 781-782 (9th Cir. 1986). A substantial portion of the general popu la tion does not share the Campaign's years-long history of defending marriage as the union of one m a n and one woman, nor the Campaign's liability for its efforts to prevent the same re-definition of m a rria ge being sought in this case. Unlike the third-party creditor who had no interest in the R eply in Support of Campaign Intervention­ Case No. 09-CV-02292 VRW 7 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document147 Filed08/14/09 Page11 of 21 environm enta l issue in United States v. Alisal Water Corporation, 370 F.3d 915, 920 (9th Cir. 2004), 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 Campaign has a direct interest in the underlying subject matter of the litigation ­ not merely Proposition 8, but the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Consequently, the Campaign meets the requirement of a significant, protectable interest under Ninth Circuit precedent. Id a h o v. Freeman, 625 F.2d 886, 887 (9th Cir. 1980); Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 2 0 0 5 ); Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc. v. Watt, 713 F.2d 525 (9th Cir. 1983). C. T h e Campaign's Significant Interests M ig h t Be Impaired By The O u tc o m e Of This Proceeding. P rop on ents' cursory conclusion that the Campaign's interests will not be significantly impaired w a s premised upon their mischaracterization of the subject matter of this litigation as merely the validity of Proposition 8 and of the Campaign's interests as "vague, generalized ideological interests." Since neith er characterization is accurate, the resulting conclusion is also incorrect. The Ninth Circuit's description of the Audubon Society's interest in Sagebrush Rebellion, and its conclusion that the society met the impairment standard applies equally to the Campaign in this case. " [T ]here can be no serious dispute in this case concerning . . . the existence of a protectable interest on the part of the applicant which may, as a practical matter, be impaired. An adverse decision in this suit w ou ld impair the society's interest in the preservation of birds and their habitats." Sagebrush Rebellion, 7 1 3 F.2d at 527-528. An adverse decision in this suit would impair the Campaign's interest in preser ving marriage as the union of one man and one woman, an interest that has spanned several years. D. P r o p o n e n ts Have Themselves Demonstrated That Neither They Nor Any O t h e r Existing Parties Will Adequately Represent The Campaign's I nte r e s ts . Proponents' skewing of the Campaign's interests and the underlying subject matter of this a ctio n, which they intended to use to demonstrate that they will adequately represent the Campaign's interests actually have the opposite effect. By characterizing this action as a judicial referendum on P rop osition 8, Proponents demonstrate that they do not have an accurate picture of what is at stake in this action. If they cannot articulate the nature and significance of Plaintiffs' claims, then they cannot a dequ a tely defend against those claims on the Campaign's behalf. If Proponents cannot accurately identify who is seeking to intervene ­ the Campaign, not CCF ­ then they cannot accurately identify the p a r ty 's interests, let alone represent them. Similarly, if they cannot accurately describe the Campaign's R eply in Support of Campaign Intervention­ Case No. 09-CV-02292 VRW 8 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document147 Filed08/14/09 Page12 of 21 interests in the action, then they cannot adequately represent those interests. 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 Proponents argue that they have met the criteria that the Ninth Circuit has established to determ ine whether there will be adequate representation of an intervenor's interests: (1) whether the interests of the existing party and the intervenor are sufficiently similar that the existing party would u ndou btedly make the same legal arguments as the intervenor; (2) whether the existing party is capable a nd willing to make such arguments; and (3) whether the intervenor would add some necessary element no t covered by the existing parties to the proceedings. Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949, 956 (9th Cir. 2 0 0 5 ). However, when Proponents' arguments are measured against the actual facts, it is clear that they ha ve not demonstrated that they will adequately represent the Campaign's interests. Proponents argue that they ­ "the only legally recognized, official supporters of Proposition 8 ­ will adequately represent CCF's [sic] generalized interests in defending Proposition 8's validity. Thus C C F ' s [sic] intervention request should be denied." (Memorandum in Opposition, p. 9, lines 18-19). H ow ever, as discussed more fully above, the Campaign is not asserting "generalized interests in defending Proposition 8's validity." Instead, the Campaign has tangible, significant interests in defending its longstanding, costly, efforts to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman a ga inst redefinition ­ the actual underlying subject matter (as opposed to mere validity of Proposition 8 ) of this action. Proponents say that they have the ultimate objective of affirming the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and then presume to know that the Campaign has the same ultimate objective. (M em ora ndu m in Opposition, p. 9, lines 22-25). Since the Plaintiffs' purpose is not to merely invalidate P rop osition 8, but to remove all vestiges of marriage as one man and one woman from California sta t u tes and constitution, Proponents' proclamation of their ultimate objective is necessarily an a dm ission that they will not fully defend against Plaintiffs' claims. Furthermore, Proponents' p r esu m ption notwithstanding, the Campaign's ultimate objective is not merely affirming the con stitu tiona lity of Proposition 8. While that is certainly one of the outcomes that the Campaign hopes will come out of this litigation, the Campaign's ultimate goal is to ensure that marriage remains the u nion of one man and one woman in California. Consequently, the Campaign's interests will not be " fu lly subsumed within the Proponents' legally recognized interests in defending the measure that they la bored unwaveringly (and spent more than $37 million) to support," as Proponents claim. (M em ora ndu m in Opposition, p. 10, lines 12-15). Neither will the Proponents make every "relevant, R eply in Support of Campaign Intervention­ Case No. 09-CV-02292 VRW 9 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document147 Filed08/14/09 Page13 of 21 m e rito rio u s argument that CCF [sic] would assert." (Memorandum in Opposition, p. 11, lines 17-19). 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 P r op on en ts will not make the same arguments as will the Campaign and have admitted that they are u nw illing to make the broader statutory and constitutional arguments that the Campaign will advance. T herefore, under the first two criteria of Prete Proponents will not adequately represent the Campaign. As for the third criterion, the Campaign will add a necessary element to the litigation in advancing a rgu m ents in defense of marriage as the union of one man and one woman that reach the confines of P rop osition 8 and thus address the other issues raised by Plaintiffs. Proponents' argument make clear that they will not adequately represent the Campaign's interests in this proceeding. The parties agree that the original named defendants will not adequately repr esent those interests. Consequently, the Campaign's motion to intervene should be granted. E. P r o p o n e n ts Agree That The Campaign M e e ts The Requirements For P e r m is s iv e Intervention. Proponents concede that the Campaign meets the threshold requirements for permissive intervention. (Memorandum in Opposition, p. 14, lines 7-8). However, Proponents urge this Court to deny the Campaign's motion because, they claim, the Campaign failed to meet the requirements for interven tion as of right. (Memorandum in Opposition, p. 14, lines 8-16). Since the Campaign has met the requirements for intervention as of right Proponents' request is not well taken. Proponents further argue that granting the Campaign intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties' rights. Proponents base their argument upon their baseless claim tha t the Campaign"vociferously opposed" Proposition 8 and is merely as an "equivocal supporter of Proposition 8." (Memorandum in Opposition, pp. 14-15). However, as explained above, the Campaign did not author the statements referred to on Exhibit B, and those statements do not refer to Proposition 8 .T h er efo re, there is no "vociferous opposition" to the proposition. In fact, as demonstrated in Mr. T hom a sson' s declaration, the Campaign has supported and advocated the language contained in both Propositio n 22 and Proposition 8, "only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recog nized in California," since 2000. (Declaration of Randy Thomasson, pp. 1-3). Proponents also claim that permitting one additional party to intervene to defend marriage as the union of one man and one woman will somehow represent a "piling on of parties" that will create u nnecessa ry delay. (Memorandum in Opposition, p. 14, lines 27-28). That comment exemplifies the R eply in Support of Campaign Intervention­ Case No. 09-CV-02292 VRW 10 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document147 Filed08/14/09 Page14 of 21 enigm a tic nature of Proponents' opposition. If they are truly concerned about upholding marriage as 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 union of one man and one woman, then they should welcome an additional voice to defend that view po int. Furthermore, if they are truly concerned about upholding the definition of marriage, or even ju st their amendment, which is presently in effect, then they should not be concerned about whether the determ ina tion might take a little longer. Most importantly, however, they have not demonstrated that the Campaign's participation would cause a delay. The Campaign has said that it will meet whatever dea dlines are imposed by the Court and cooperate with all Court directions. Its participation will cause no more of a delay than will Proponents. II. P L A I N T I F F S RELY UPON THE SAM E FLAWED PREM I S E S AS P R O P O N E N T S AND REACH THE SAM E INCORRECT CONCLUSION. DO While Plaintiffs do not mis-identify the Campaign as CCF, they do follow the same flawed prem ises regarding the subject matter of the action and the Campaign's interests as do Proponents. C onsequ ently, they reach the same flawed conclusion that the Campaign does not meet the standards for intervention. As discussed above with regard to Proponents' opposition, Plaintiffs have failed to dispu te that the Campaign meets the standards for intervention as of right and permissive intervention u nd er F. R.Civ. P. 24. A. T h e Campaign Has A Significant Protectable Interest In Preserving M ar r iag e As The Union Of One M an And One Woman, The True U n d e r lyin g Subject M atte r Of This Action. A s did the Proponents, Plaintiffs attempt to convince the Court that the sole matter at issue is the validity of Proposition 8, and that the Campaign's only asserted interest is as a supporter of that pro position. (Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition, p. 7). Plaintiffs' implication that this case is only a bo u t the validity of Proposition 8 contradicts their own allegations. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs seek inju nctions against Proposition 8"and any other California statutes that seek to exclude gays and le s b ian s from access to civil marriage," including California Family Code §§ 300, 301 and 308.5. (C om pla int, Doc. ¶¶ 2, 6, 21,24) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs preface their Complaint by referring to the fundamental right of marriage as articulated in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1,12 (1967) (C om pla int, ¶1). Plaintiffs also refer to California Family Code §§ 297-299.6 as impermissibly creating a "separate but equal" status for same-sex couples. (Complaint, ¶1). These allegations make clear that Pla intiffs are not merely seeking to invalidate Proposition 8, but to remove any reference to marriage R eply in Support of Campaign Intervention­ Case No. 09-CV-02292 VRW 11 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document147 Filed08/14/09 Page15 of 21 a s the union of one man and one woman in California. Plaintiffs' targets including the Family Code 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 While the proposed intervenor in Prete did not meet the inadequate representation requirement a nd so was denied intervention, Prete, 438 F.3d at 956-59, the Campaign has satisfied that requirement, a s discussed above, and so should be granted intervention. R eply in Support of Campaign Intervention­ Case No. 09-CV-02292 VRW 12 4 section s that incorporate the definition enacted as Proposition 22, which became Family Code §308.5 a nd contains the same fourteen words as does Proposition 8.The Campaign worked to get Proposition 2 2 on the ballot and then fought to preserve it from erosion through the enactment of Family Code §§ 2 9 7 -2 9 9 .6 and invalidation in the Marriage Cases. (Declaration of Randy Thomasson, pp. 1-3). Underlying the Campaign's actions, and Plaintiffs' action, is whether marriage will continue as the u nion of one man and one woman. The Campaign's interest is not merely as one of many supporters of Proposition 8, as Plaintiffs claim, but is a long-standing interest in seeing that marriage remain as the u nion of one man and one woman. Far from being an "undifferentiated interest" shared by millions of C a lifornia voters, as Plaintiffs claim, the Campaign's stake in this action is as tangible and significant a s is the Proponents' and Plaintiffs'. Plaintiffs also unsuccessfully try to distinguish the Ninth Circuit precedent that supports the C a m pa ign 's motion for intervention. Plaintiffs claim that the Campaign is unlike the proposed intervenor-defenda nt in Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 2005), who was the "chief petitioner" for the challenged measure. (Plaintiffs' Memorandum, p.7 n.4). Again, this reflects P la intiffs' faulty premise that this case is only about Proposition 8. While Proponents are the official spo nsor s of Proposition 8, the Campaign was a chief proponent of Proposition 22, which contained identica l language to Proposition 8, and a primary plaintiiff in the lawsuits seeking to preserve that p r o p o s i tion. Since Proposition 22 and its progeny are part of Plaintiffs' actions, the Campaign is as m u ch of a "chief petitioner" as was the intervenor in Prete, and has the same significant protectable interest as he did. See Prete, 438 F. 3d at 954.4 Plaintiffs also claim that Idaho v. Freeman, 625 F.2d 8 8 6 (9th Cir. 1980) and Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc. v. Watt, 713 F.2d 525 (9th Cir. 1983) are disting u isha ble because they predate Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997), w hich addressed Article III standing. (Plaintiffs' Memorandum, p. 7, n.4). The Ninth Circuit rejected the same claim by the plaintiffs in Prete. "Plaintiffs contend, however, that Arizonans for Official E n g lis h v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 117 S.Ct. 1055, 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997) (hereinafter " AOE "), Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document147 Filed08/14/09 Page16 of 21 con trols here and bars initiative sponsors from intervening in judicial challenges to the initiative. 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 Pla intiffs misread AOE." Prete, 438 F.3d at 955. Responding to the plaintiffs' reliance upon the same la ngu a ge from AOE referenced by Plaintiffs here ("grave doubts" as to whether initiative proponents ha ve Article III standing, AOE, 520 U.S. at 66), the Ninth Circuit said: A O E did not hold that initiative sponsors do not have an interest in defending the initia tive sufficient to support intervention. The main issue presented in AOE was w heth er the intervenor-applicant there had Article III standing to pursue an appeal when a step taken by the original plaintiff (resignation of her job) rendered the entire case or con trov ersy moot. Such a scenario is not at issue here. Pr e te , 438 F.3d at 955. Neither is it at issue here. Consequently, as was true with the proposed intervenors in Prete, the Audubon Society in Sagebrush Rebellion, and the National Organization for W om en in Freeman, the Campaign has a significant protectable interest in the subject matter and is entitled to intervene as of right. B. N e ith e r Proponents Nor Any Other Existing Party Can Adequately R e p r e s e n t The Campaign's Interests. Once again relying upon their flawed premise that this case is only about Proposition 8 and that the Campaign's only interest is as an incidental supporter of Proposition 8, Plaintiffs wrongly conclu de that Proponents will adequately represent the Campaign's interests. (Plaintiffs' Memorandum, p . 12, lines 1-5). Plaintiffs claim that "the Campaign has failed to put forth a single argument in support of Prop. 8 that is different in any respect from those raised by the official Prop. 8 Proponents, who have a lrea dy been permitted to intervene on the side of Defendants, Doc. #77, and have amply demonstrated th a t they are capable and willing to defend Prop. 8." (Plaintiffs' Memorandum, p. 12, lines 1-5). As discu ssed more fully above, Proponents have admitted that they will not make the same arguments as w i l l the Campaign and that they are unwilling to make the broader statutory and constitutional a rgu m ents that the Campaign will advance. While the Proponents might raise similar arguments related to Proposition 8 that the Campaign will raise, that does not end the inquiry since Plaintiffs are seeking m or e than merely invalidation of the proposition. Proponents have made it clear that they have a singu la r goal of protecting "their proposition." While that is certainly one of the goals of the Campaign, it is not the only goal, and as Plaintiffs have made clear it is not the only target of their litigation. T h er efo re, the Proponents cannot adequately represent the Campaign's interests and the Campaign's m otion should be granted. R eply in Support of Campaign Intervention­ Case No. 09-CV-02292 VRW 13 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document147 Filed08/14/09 Page17 of 21 C. 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 T h e Campaign M e e ts The Standards For Permissive Intervention. Plaintiffs' faulty conclusion about the Campaign's motion for intervention as of right leads to the equally faulty conclusion that the Campaign cannot meet the standards for permissive intervention. P la intiffs begin their argument with the premise that the Campaign has no claim under the intervention a s of right standard, and therefore no claim to support permissive intervention. (Plaintiffs' M em ora ndu m , pp. 12-13). Since the Campaign has established the prerequisites for intervention as of righ t, Plaintiffs' primary conclusion must fail. Plaintiffs offer no analysis of the question of whether the Campaign's claim has a common qu estion of law or fact with Plaintiffs' claims, but merely conclude that the Campaign has no claims. (P la intiffs' Memorandum, p. 13). Plaintiffs' simplistic conclusion ignores the reality of both parties' interests. For example, the Campaign claims that the definition of marriage as the union of one man and o n e woman embodied in Proposition 8 and numerous California statutes must be upheld. Plaintiffs cla im that the definition must be invalidated. Obviously, both claims have in common the question of w hether marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman. The Campaign claims that the fundamental constitutional right of marriage must be understood as the union of one man and one w om a n. Plaintiffs claim that the fundamental constitutional right of marriage must be understood to inclu de same-sex couples. Both claims have in common the question of the nature and scope of the right of marriage under the United States Constitution. If Plaintiffs' statements regarding the definition of m a rria ge and constitutional rights can be called claims, then the Campaign's statements regarding the d efin itio n of marriage and constitutional are claims. Plaintiffs' refusal to recognize the Campaign's cla im s does not make them disappear. Finally, Plaintiffs claim that permitting the Campaign to intervene will unnecessarily delay the litiga tion. However, as was true with Proponents' similar claim, there is no evidence that the Campaign's presence will extend the time that it takes to resolve Plaintiffs' claims. This Court will issue a scheduling order that all parties must follow, and the Campaign will follow that order just as will the other parties. Whether there are four sets of parties or three sets of parties on Defendants' side will not a ffect the deadlines imposed by the Court. The schedule set in place by this Court for resolution of this ca se will be in effect whether there are three groups or parties or four groups of parties on the side of D efenda nts. Permitting the Campaign to intervene will not delay the resolution of the case. It will make R eply in Support of Campaign Intervention­ Case No. 09-CV-02292 VRW 14 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document147 Filed08/14/09 Page18 of 21 the record upon which this Court must base its decision more complete, which will benefit all concerned. 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 R eply in Support of Campaign Intervention­ Case No. 09-CV-02292 VRW 15 C O N C L U SIO N T he Campaign has a significant, protectable interest in the subject matter of this action ­ m a rria ge as the union of one man and one woman, not merely Proposition 8. That interest might be im pa ired by the outcome of this action, and is not adequately represented by the existing parties. T herefore, the Campaign satisfies the requirements for intervention as of right. The Campaign also meets the standards for permissive intervention. For these reasons, the Campaign's Motion to Intervene a s a Defendant should be granted. D a ted: August 14, 2009. R espectfu lly Submitted, /s/Mary E. McAlister M A R Y E. McALISTER C a lifornia Bar No. 148570 R E N A M. LINDEVALDSEN* L IBE RT Y COUNSEL *A d m itte d pro hac vice Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document147 Filed08/14/09 Page19 of 21 P R O O F OF SERVICE 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 R eply in Support of Campaign Intervention­ Case No. 09-CV-02292 VRW 16 /s/M a ry E. McAlister M a ry E. McAlister I am employed at the law firm of Liberty Counsel. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 100 Mountain View Road, Suite 2775, Lynchburg, V irginia 24502. O n August 14, 2009 I served the foregoing document described as: R eply Memorandum in Support of the Campaign's Motion to Intervene on the below-listed parties in this action by the method stated. I presented the foregoing to the Clerk of the Court for filing and uploading via the CM/ECF system of the United States District Court, Southern District of California, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the attorneys named on the attached Service List. E xecu ted on August 14, 2009, at Lynchburg, Virginia. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and State of C a liforn ia that the above is true and correct. Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document147 Filed08/14/09 Page20 of 21 S E R V I C E LIST 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A t to r n e y s for Administration Defendants 25 26 27 28 R eply in Support of Campaign Intervention­ Case No. 09-CV-02292 VRW 17 Atto r ne ys for Defendant Attorney General E d m u n d G. Brown Jr. K enn eth C. Mennemeier Kelcie M. Gosling L a nd on D. Bailey M E N N E M E IE R , GLASSMAN & STROUD, LLP 9 8 0 9 TH St, Suite 1700 S a cra m ento, CA 95814-2736 (9 1 6 ) 553-4000 k c m @ m g sl a w . c o m T heodore B. Olson M a tthew C. McGill A m ir C. Tayranit G IB S O N , DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 1 0 5 0 Connecticut Avenue, NW W a shington, D.C. 20036 (2 0 2 ) 955-8668 t o l s o n @ g i b so n d u n n . c o m T h eo do re J. Boutrous, Jr. C hristopher D. Dusseault Ethan D. Dettmer T hea ne Evangelis Kapur E nriqu e A. Monagas G IB S O N , DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 3 3 3 S. Grand Avenue L os Angeles, CA 90071 (2 1 3 ) 229-7804 t b o u t r o u s @ g i b so n d u n n . c o m D a vid Boies T heodore H. Uno B O IE S, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 3 3 3 Main St A rm onk , NY 10504 (9 1 4 ) 749-8200 dboies@ bsfllp.com A t to r n e y s for Plaintiffs T im o th y Chandler ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND 1 0 1 Parkshore Dr, Suite 100 F olsom , CA 95630 (9 1 6 ) 932-2850 tch a n dler @ tella d f.o rg Andrew P. Pugno L A W OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO 1 0 1 Parkshore Dr, Suite 100 F olsom , CA 95630 (9 1 6 ) 608-3065 a n d r ew @ p u g n o la w . c o m B enja m in W. Bull B ria n W. Raum J a m es A. Campbell ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND 1 5 1 0 0 N. 90 th St. S cottsda le, AZ 85260 (4 8 0 ) 444-0020 b bu ll@ tella d f.o rg b ra u m @ tella d f.o rg jca m p b le@ tella d f.o rg A tto r n e y s for Proposition 8 Official Proponent I n t e r v e n o r Defendants E d m u n d G. Brown, Jr. A ttorn ey General of California J on a tha n K. Renner S enior Assistant Attorney General T a m a r Pachter D epu ty Attorney General 4 5 5 Golden Gate Ave, Suite 11000 S a n Francisco, CA 94102-7004 (4 1 5 ) 703-5970 T a m a r .P a ch ter @ d o j.ca .g o v Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document147 Filed08/14/09 Page21 of 21 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 E liza beth M. Cortez Assistant County Counsel J u dy W. Whitehurst Principal Deputy County Counsel O F F IC E OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL 6 4 8 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 5 0 0 W. Temple St. Los Angeles, CA 90012-2713 (2 1 3 ) 974-1845 j w h i t e h u r s t @ c o u n se l . l a c o u n t y . g o v A tto r n e y s for Defendant Dean C. Logan Richard E. Winnie C ou nty Counsel C la u de F. Kolm D epu ty County Counsel B ria n E. Washington A ssista nt County Counsel L in dsey G. Stern A ssocia te County Counsel O F F IC E OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL C ou nty of Alameda 1 2 2 1 Oak St. Suite 450 O a k la nd , CA 94612 (5 1 0 )2 7 2 -6 7 0 0 c l a u d e . k o l m @ a c g o v .o r g A tt o r n e ys for Defendant Patrick O'Connell R eply in Support of Campaign Intervention­ Case No. 09-CV-02292 VRW 18