Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 712

ORDER finding as moot 369 Motion to Withdraw (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2010)

Download PDF
Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al Doc. 712 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KRISTIN M PERRY, SANDRA B STIER, PAUL T KATAMI and JEFFREY J ZARRILLO, Plaintiffs, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G BROWN JR, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California; MARK B HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; PATRICK O'CONNELL, in his official capacity as ClerkRecorder of the County of Alameda; and DEAN C LOGAN, in his official capacity as RegistrarRecorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, Defendants, DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J KNIGHT, MARTIN F GUTIERREZ, HAKSHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK A JANSSON and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL, as official proponents of Proposition 8, Defendant-Intervenors. / No C 09-2292 VRW ORDER Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On January 8, 2010, Hak-Shing William Tam, a defendantintervenor, moved to withdraw as a defendant. Doc #369. Tam seeks to withdraw because: (1) he fears for his personal safety; (2) he does not wish to comply with discovery burdens; and (3) he does not want to spend his time defending this case. Id. In his motion, Tam fails to identify a procedure through which he can withdraw as a defendant prior to entry of final judgment against him. Nevertheless, Tam's burdens as a defendant Tam's motion to will be complete upon entry of final judgment. withdraw accordingly is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge 2