Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 9

Proposed Intervenors' ANSWER to Complaint byDennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam, Mark A. Jansson, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Chandler, Timothy) (Filed on 5/28/2009)

Download PDF
Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al Doc. 9 Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document9 Filed05/28/09 Page1 of 8 1 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 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND Timothy Chandler (CA Bar No. 234325) tchandler@telladf.org 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630 Telephone: (916) 932-2850, Facsimile: (916) 932-2851 Benjamin W. Bull, (AZ Bar No. 009940) bbull@telladf.org Brian W. Raum (NY Bar No. 2856102)* braum@telladf.org James A. Campbell (OH Bar No. 0081501)* jcampbell@telladf.org 15100 North 90th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 Telephone: (480) 444-0020, Facsimile: (480) 444-0028 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO Andrew P. Pugno (CA Bar No. 206587)+ andrew@pugnolaw.com 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630 Telephone: (916) 608-3065, Facsimile: (916) 608-3066 ATTORNEYS FOR PROPOSED INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK A. JANSSON, and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL * Pro hac vice application forthcoming + Application for admission forthcoming UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, Plaintiffs, 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 Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW ANSWER OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK A. JANSSON, AND PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL ANSWER OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS 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 CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW Dockets.Justia.com Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document9 Filed05/28/09 Page2 of 8 1 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 County of Los Angeles, Defendants, and PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAKSHING WILLIAM TAM, and MARK A. JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL, Proposed Intervenors. ANSWER OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS 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 CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document9 Filed05/28/09 Page3 of 8 1 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 Proposed Intervenors Proposition 8 Official Proponents Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam, and Mark A. Jansson (collectively referred to as "Proponents"), and Proposition 8 Campaign Committee ProtectMarriage.com Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal (the "Committee"), by and through counsel, answer Plaintiffs' Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, or Other Relief as follows: 1. Proposed Intervenors deny the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint except to admit that the Supreme Court of the United States wrote in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967), that "[m]arriage is one of the `basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival," that Proposition 8 passed in November 2008, and that Proposition 8 amended the California Constitution to state that "[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Cal. Const. art. I, 7.5. 2. Proposed Intervenors acknowledge that Plaintiffs request an injunction in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, but deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to such relief and further deny that this Court has jurisdiction to grant such relief. 3. The allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint contain conclusions of law which require no answer. Proposed Intervenors lack sufficient information to respond to any factual allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint; thus they are deemed denied. 4. The allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint contain conclusions of law which require no answer. Proposed Intervenors lack sufficient information to respond to any factual allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint; thus they are deemed denied. 5. Proposed Intervenors acknowledge that Plaintiffs request a declaratory judgment in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, but deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to such relief and further deny that this Court has jurisdiction to grant such relief. Proposed Intervenors acknowledge that Plaintiffs request an injunction in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, but deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to such relief and further deny that this Court has jurisdiction to grant such relief. 6. Proposed Intervenors acknowledge that Plaintiffs request a declaratory judgment in 1 ANSWER OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS 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 CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document9 Filed05/28/09 Page4 of 8 1 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 Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, but deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to such relief and further deny that this Court has jurisdiction to grant such relief. Proposed Intervenors acknowledge that Plaintiffs request an injunction in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, but deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to such relief and further deny that this Court has jurisdiction to grant such relief. 7. Proposed Intervenors lack sufficient information to respond to the allegations about the identities of the Plaintiffs and their desires in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint; thus they are deemed denied. Proposed Intervenors deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint. 8. Proposed Intervenors acknowledge that Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, but deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to, or that this Court has jurisdiction to grant, the relief requested. 9. Proposed Intervenors lack sufficient information to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint; thus they are deemed denied. 10. Proposed Intervenors lack sufficient information to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint; thus they are deemed denied. 11. Proposed Intervenors lack sufficient information to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint; thus they are deemed denied. 12. Proposed Intervenors lack sufficient information to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint; thus they are deemed denied. 13. Proposed Intervenors lack sufficient information to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint; thus they are deemed denied. 14. Proposed Intervenors lack sufficient information to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint; thus they are deemed denied. 15. Proposed Intervenors lack sufficient information to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint; thus they are deemed denied. 16. Proposed Intervenors lack sufficient information to respond to the allegations in 2 ANSWER OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS 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 CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document9 Filed05/28/09 Page5 of 8 1 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 Paragraph 16 of the Complaint; thus they are deemed denied. 17. Proposed Intervenors lack sufficient information to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint; thus they are deemed denied. 18. Proposed Intervenors lack sufficient information to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint; thus they are deemed denied. 19. Proposed Intervenors acknowledge that Plaintiffs, as stated in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, have asserted claims against Defendants Arnold Schwarzenegger, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Mark B. Horton, Linette Scott, Patrick O'Connell, and Dean C. Logan, but Proposed Intervenors deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any remedy or relief against those Defendants. Proposed Intervenors deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint. 20. The allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint contain conclusions of law which require no answer. Proposed Intervenors lack sufficient information to respond to any factual allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint; thus they are deemed denied. 21. The allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint contain conclusions of law which require no answer. Proposed Intervenors lack sufficient information to respond to any factual allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint; thus they are deemed denied. 22. Proposed Intervenors admit that California has laws recognizing "domestic partnerships." Proposed Intervenors lack sufficient information to respond to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint; thus they are deemed denied. 23. Proposed Intervenors admit that California law provides many benefits and privileges to persons registered as "domestic partners." Proposed Intervenors deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint. 24. Proposed Intervenors deny the allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint except to admit that Proposition 22 was approved by a majority of California voters in 2000 and that Proposition 22 provided that "[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Cal. Fam. Code. 308.5. 3 ANSWER OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS 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 CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document9 Filed05/28/09 Page6 of 8 1 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 25. Proposed Intervenors deny the allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint except to admit that Proposition 8 appeared on California's November 2008 ballot. 26. 27. Proposed Intervenors admit the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint. Proposed Intervenors deny the allegations in Paragraph 27 regarding the purpose of Proposition 8. Proposed Intervenors lack sufficient information to respond to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 27; thus they are deemed denied. 28. 29. Proposed Intervenors admit the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint. The allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint contain conclusions of law which require no answer. Proposed Intervenors deny any factual allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint. 30. The allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint contain conclusions of law which require no answer. Proposed Intervenors deny any factual allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint. 31. Proposed Intervenors lack sufficient information to respond to the allegations about the identities of the Plaintiffs and their desires in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint; thus they are deemed denied. Proposed Intervenors deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint. 32. Proposed Intervenors lack sufficient information to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint; thus they are deemed denied. 33. Proposed Intervenors lack sufficient information to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint; thus they are deemed denied. 34. Proposed Intervenors lack sufficient information to respond to the allegations about the Plaintiffs' wishes in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint; thus they are deemed denied. Proposed Intervenors deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint. 35. Proposed Intervenors deny the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint except to admit that the Supreme Court of the United States wrote in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 4 ANSWER OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS 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 CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document9 Filed05/28/09 Page7 of 8 1 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 (1967), that "freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Proposed Intervenors deny the allegations in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint. Proposed Intervenors deny the allegations in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint. Proposed Intervenors deny the allegations in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint. Proposed Intervenors deny the allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint. Proposed Intervenors deny the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint. Proposed Intervenors deny the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint. Proposed Intervenors deny the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint. Proposed Intervenors deny the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint. Proposed Intervenors deny the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint. Proposed Intervenors deny the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint. Proposed Intervenors deny the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint. Proposed Intervenors deny the allegations in Paragraph 47 of the Complaint. Proposed Intervenors deny the allegations in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint. Proposed Intervenors deny the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint. The remainder of the Complaint is a prayer for relief that does not require a response. To the extent that a response is required, Proposed Intervenors deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to, or that this Court has jurisdiction to grant, the relief requested. 51. Proposed Intervenors deny each and every allegation not expressly admitted herein. First Affirmative Defense Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Second Affirmative Defense Plaintiffs lack standing to assert the claims in their Complaint. Third Affirmative Defense Plaintiffs' claims are barred by res judicata and/or preclusion. 5 ANSWER OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS 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 CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document9 Filed05/28/09 Page8 of 8 1 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 Fourth Affirmative Defense Defendants are immune from suit. Fifth Affirmative Defense Defendants' acts were not the proximate cause of Plaintiffs' alleged injuries. Sixth Affirmative Defense Neither the challenged provisions nor Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs of any right or privilege guaranteed by the United States Constitution. WHEREFORE, Proposed Intervenors respectfully request that this Court dismiss Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice, deny Plaintiffs' prayer for relief, order Plaintiffs to pay Proposed Intervenors' costs and attorneys' fees, and grant other relief deemed just and proper. Dated: May 28, 2009 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND ATTORNEYS FOR PROPOSED INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK A. JANSSON, AND PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL By: s/Timothy Chandler Timothy Chandler 6 ANSWER OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS 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 CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW