Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 766

STATUS REPORT (Joint Status Statement) by Paul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Monagas, Enrique) (Filed on 3/14/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Theodore B. Olson, SBN 38137 TOLSON@GIBSONDUNN.COM Matthew D. McGill, pro hac vice Amir C. Tayrani, SBN 229609 1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 T: (202) 955-8668 | F: (202) 467-0539 Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., SBN 132009 TBOUTROUS@GIBSONDUNN.COM Christopher D. Dusseault, SBN 177557 Ethan D. Dettmer, SBN 196046 Sarah E. Piepmeier, SBN 227094 Theane Evangelis Kapur, SBN 243570 Enrique A. Monagas, SBN 239087 333 S. Grand Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90071 T: (213) 229-7804 | F: (213) 229-7520 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP David Boies, pro hac vice DBOIES@BSFLLP.COM 333 Main St., Armonk, NY 10504 T: (914) 749-8200 | F: (914) 749-8300 Jeremy M. Goldman, SBN 218888 JGOLDMAN@BSFLLP.COM 1999 Harrison St., Ste. 900, Oakland, CA 94612 T: (510) 874-1000 | F: (510) 874-1460 16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo 17 [Additional counsel listed on signature page] 15 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al., CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 JW Plaintiffs, and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants, and PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al., Defendant-Intervenors. JOINT STATUS STATMENT Hon: Chief Judge James Ware Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 09-CV-2292 JW JOINT STATUS STATMENT Pursuant to this Court’s March 2, 2011 Reassignment Order, Doc #765, the parties in the 1 2 above-entitled action jointly submit this Joint Status Statement. 3 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 22, 2009, Plaintiffs Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. 4 5 Zarrillo (“Plaintiffs”) filed the complaint. Doc #1. Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of 6 California’s Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth 7 Amendment, and named as defendants California’s Governor, Attorney General, Director of Public 8 Health, and Deputy Director of Health Information and Strategic Planning; the Alameda County 9 Clerk-Recorder; and the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk (collectively, 10 “Defendants”). Id. 11 On May 28, 2009, Defendant-Intervenors Proposition 8 Official Proponents Dennis 12 Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam, and Mark A. Jansson; 13 and ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal (“Defendant-Intervenors”) 14 moved to intervene in the case to defend Proposition 8, Doc #8, and this Court granted their motion 15 on June 30, 2009. Doc #77. In August 2009, the City and County of San Francisco (“Plaintiff- 16 Intervenor”) was also granted leave to intervene in the case. Doc #160. On July 2, 2009, this Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Doc #154. 17 18 On October 14, 2009, this Court denied Defendant-Intervenors’ motion for summary judgment. 19 Doc #226. From January 11 to January 27, 2010, this Court conducted a twelve-day bench trial. 20 Doc #690. Closing arguments were held on June 16, 2010. Id. On August 4, 2010, this Court 21 ordered entry of judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor and against Defendants and 22 Defendant-Intervenors. Doc #708. A permanent injunction enjoining “Defendants in their official 23 capacities, and all persons under the control or supervision of defendants . . . from applying or 24 enforcing Article I, § 7.5 of the California Constitution [Proposition 8]” was entered on August 12, 25 2010. Doc #728. Defendant-Intervenors’ motion to stay judgment pending appeal, Doc #705, was 26 denied by this Court on August 12, 2010.1 Doc #727. On August 16, 2010, the Ninth Circuit entered 27 28 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 1 Defendant-Intervenor Hak-Shing William Tam did not appeal this Court’s judgment and was not a movant in the motion for a stay pending appeal. 1 09-CV-2292 JW JOINT STATUS STATMENT 1 a stay of the judgment pending appeal. Doc #751. On August 24, 2010, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ 2 and Plaintiff-Intervenor’s motion to enlarge time to file a motion for attorney fees and costs, ordering 3 that that “any motion for fees and costs pursuant to FRCP 54(d) shall be filed not later than thirty 4 days after all appeals of the August 12, 2010 judgment, Doc #728, are final.” Doc #744. On February 23, 2011, Plaintiffs moved to vacate the stay pending appeal in the Ninth Circuit. 5 6 Plaintiff-Intervenor joined Plaintiffs’ motion on February 24, 2011. On March 7, 2011, Defendant- 7 Intervenors Hollingsworth, Knight, Gutierrez, Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com filed an opposition. 8 As of March 14, 2011, the Ninth Circuit has not ruled on Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the stay pending 9 appeal. 10 II. CASE STATUS The case is currently on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 11 12 Circuit, and this Court’s judgment is stayed pending the outcome of that appeal. Thus, no action is 13 required by this Court at this time. 14 15 Respectfully submitted, DATED: March 14, 2011 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 16 17 By: /s/ Theodore B. Olson 18 19 and 20 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 21 David Boies 22 Attorneys for Plaintiffs KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO 23 24 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 2 09-CV-2292 JW JOINT STATUS STATMENT 1 DATED: March 14, 2011 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 2 3 By: /s/ Therese M. Stewart 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 5 6 7 DATED: March 14, 2011 COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC 8 9 By: /s/ David Thompson 10 Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenors PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, and MARK A. JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM – YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL 11 12 13 14 15 DATED: March 14, 2011 LAW OFFICE OF TERRY L. THOMPSON 16 17 By: /s/ Terry L. Thompson 18 Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM 19 20 21 22 DATED: March 14, 2011 KAMALA D. HARRIS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA 23 24 By: /s/ Tamar Pachter Deputy Attorney General 25 26 27 Attorneys for Defendant ATTORNEY GENERAL KAMALA D. HARRIS 28 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 3 09-CV-2292 JW JOINT STATUS STATMENT 1 DATED: March 14, 2011 MENNEMEIER, GLASSMAN & STROUD LLP 2 3 By: /s/ Andrew W. Stroud 4 Attorneys for Defendants EDMUND G. BROWN JR., MARK B. HORTON, and LINETTE SCOTT (the “Administration Defendants”) 5 6 7 8 DATED: March 14, 2011 9 RICHARD E. WINNIE, County Counsel in and for the County of Alameda, State of California 10 By: 11 /s/ Claude F. Kolm, Deputy County Counsel 12 Attorneys for Defendant PATRICK O’CONNELL, Alameda County Clerk-Recorder 13 14 15 16 DATED: March 14, 2011 THE OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL 17 18 19 20 21 By: /s/ Judy Whitehurst Attorneys for Defendant DEAN C. LOGAN, Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 4 09-CV-2292 JW JOINT STATUS STATMENT 1 2 3 ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER NO. 45 Pursuant to General Order No. 45 of the Northern District of California, I attest that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from each of the other signatories to this document. 4 5 6 7 By: /s/ Enrique A. Monagas Enrique A. Monagas 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 5 09-CV-2292 JW JOINT STATUS STATMENT