Known Doe Plaintiffs 1-4 et al v. Bedard et al

Filing 20

STIPULATION and ORDER Continuing Scheduling Conference 19 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/2/2013. Initial Scheduling Conference CONTINUED to 1/8/2014 at 09:30 AM at the United States Courthouse, 510 19th Street (JLT), Bakersfield, before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672
Attorney General of California
MARC A. LEFORESTIER, State Bar No. 178188
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
NANCY J. DOIG, State Bar No. 226593
Deputy Attorney General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for
Office of Secretary of State and Selvi Stanislaus,
Executive Officer of the Franchise Tax Board

9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

KNOWN DOE PLAINTIFFS, 1-4, and
UNKNOWN DOE PLAINTIFFS, 5 through
1,000,000, individuals,

1:13-CV-00965-LJO-JLT

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER CONTINUING MANDATORY
Plaintiffs, SCHEDULING CONFERENCE,
EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR
v.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND
SELVI STANISLAUS TO FILE
RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS, AND
KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, CLERK, ALLOWING PLAINTIFFS TO AMEND
MARY B. BEDARD, an individual;
THE COMPLAINT
CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE,
DEBRA BOWEN, an individual;
Judge:
The Honorable Lawrence J.
EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE
O'Neill
CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, Action Filed: June 24, 2013
SELVI STANISLAUS, an individual;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, an
agency of the United States of America;
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, DANIEL I.
WERFEL, in his official and individual
capacities; and Doe Defendants 1 through
1000, inclusive,
Defendants.

27
28
1
Order (1:13-CV-00965-LJO-JLT)

1

WHEREAS, UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF:

2

A.

Known Doe Plaintiffs filed the instant action on June 24, 2013. The instant action

3

raises questions about the way opposite sex and same sex partnerships are recognized under

4

federal and state law.

5

B.

On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued decisions in Hollingsworth

6

v. Perry, 133 S.Ct. 2652 (2013) (finding that California’s Proposition 8, which amended the

7

California Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, violated the

8

United States Constitution) and U.S. v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013) (finding that the federal

9

Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage under federal law as only between a man and a

10

woman, violated the United States Constitution), which made significant changes to the legal

11

landscape regarding how opposite sex partnerships are recognized in both California and

12

throughout the United States.

13

C.

Plaintiffs experienced unanticipated difficulties in serving both the California

14

defendants (the California Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, and the Executive Officer of the

15

California Franchise Tax Board, Selvi Stanislaus) and United States defendants (the United States

16

of America, the Internal Revenue Service, and Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Daniel

17

I. Werfel) named in this action. In fact, the United States defendants have still not been served,

18

though Plaintiffs’ counsel believes he has identified the source of the problems with service and

19

plans to effect service soon.

20
21
22

D.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(a) the United States defendants will

have more time from the date they are served in which to respond than the California defendants.
E.

The court has set a mandatory scheduling conference in this matter for October 8,

23

2013, with a joint statement of all the parties due on October 1, 2013. However, due to service

24

problems mentioned above, the Secretary of State’s response to the complaint currently is not due

25

until October 3, 2013 and Stanislaus’s response to the complaint currently is not due until

26

October 4, 2013. That is, both California Defendants’ responses to the complaint are not due

27

until after the deadline to file a joint statement. Additionally, once the United States defendants

28

are served, Plaintiffs will likely amend the complaint to more accurately reflect the current state
2
Order (1:13-CV-00965-LJO-JLT)

1

of the law as Plaintiffs see it in light of the decisions in Hollingsworth and Windsor. If no

2

amendment is made, the Complaint will be the subject of a motion to strike and a dispositive

3

motion for judgment on the pleadings.

4

F.

The California Defendants and Plaintiffs all believe it would be easier for all parties

5

to coordinate their schedules in this matter if the defendants were operating with the same

6

deadlines.

7

AS SUCH PLAINTIFFS AND THE STATE DEFENDANTS STIPULATE AS

8

FOLLOWS:

9

1.

10

Plaintiffs may amend to the complaint in this action in light of recent changes in the

law which transpired after the instant action was filed;

11

2.

Debra Bowen, the California Secretary of State and Selvi Stanislaus, Executive

12

Officer of the California Franchise Tax Board and all the United States Entities shall have until

13

the latest date a responsive pleading is due from any of the defendants to file their responsive

14

pleadings so that all parties will be on the same schedule; and

15

///

16

///

17

///

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
3
Order (1:13-CV-00965-LJO-JLT)

1

3.

The mandatory scheduling conference currently set for October 8, 2013 shall be

2

continued to a date that is after January 1, 2014, according to the convenience of the court.

3

Dated: September 30, 2013

KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
MARC A. LEFORESTIER
Supervising Deputy Attorney General

4
5
6

/s/ Nancy J. Doig__________
NANCY J. DOIG
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for
Office of Secretary of State and Selvi
Stanislaus, Executive Officer of the
Franchise Tax Board

7
8
9
10
11

Dated: September ___, 2013

BOBBY CLOUD LAW

12
See Attached Signature Page___
BOBBY L. CLOUD, JR. (SBN 258081)
Attorneys for
Known Doe Plaintiffs

13
14
15
16
17

ORDER ON STIPULATION

18

Based upon the stipulation of the parties:

19

1.

Plaintiffs may amend the complaint in this action in light of recent changes in the law

20

which transpired after the instant action was filed but must do so before any defendant appears

21

in the action or they must seek leave of the Court for file an amended complaint;

22

2.

Debra Bowen, the California Secretary of State and Selvi Stanislaus, Executive

23

Officer of the California Franchise Tax Board and all the United States defendants shall have

24

until the latest date a responsive pleading is due from any of the defendants to file their

25

responsive pleadings so that all defendants will be on the same schedule; and

26

///

27

///

28

///
4
Order (1:13-CV-00965-LJO-JLT)

1
2

3.

The mandatory scheduling conference currently set for December 5, 2013 shall be

continued to January 8, 2014 at 9:30 a.m.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 2, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Order (1:13-CV-00965-LJO-JLT)