ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal et al v. Bowen et al
Filing
97
STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER to AMEND the #68 Amended Complaint #1. (Attachments: #1 Third Amended Complaint)(Bieniek, Scott) Modified on 5/21/2009 (Kaminski, H).
ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal et al v. Bowen et al
Doc. 97
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
James Bopp, Jr. (Ind. State Bar No. 2838-84)* Richard E. Coleson (Ind. State Bar No. 11527-70)* Barry A. Bostrom (Ind. State Bar No.11912-84)* Sarah E. Troupis (Wis. State Bar No. 1061515)* Scott F. Bieniek (Ill. State Bar No. 6295901)* BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROM 1 South Sixth Street Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510 Telephone: (812) 232-2434 Facsimile: (812) 235-3685 Counsel for All Plaintiffs Benjamin W. Bull (AZ Bar No. 009940)* ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND 15100 North 90th Street Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 Telephone: (480) 444-0020 Facsimile: (480) 444-0028 Counsel for All Plaintiffs Timothy D. Chandler (Cal. State Bar No. 234325)** ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 932-2850 Facsimile: (916) 932-2851 Counsel for All Plaintiffs * Admitted Pro Hac Vice ** Designated Counsel for Service United States District Court Eastern District of California Sacramento Division
ProtectMarriage.com, et al., v. Debra Bowen, et al., Defendants. Plaintiffs,
Case No. 2:09-CV-00058-MCE-DAD STIPULATION TO AMEND COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING THE SAME Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.
Stipulation to Amend Complaint; [Proposed] Order Regarding the Same
1
Dockets.Justia.com
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
Plaintiffs ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal ("ProtectMarriage.com"), National Organization for Marriage California - Yes on 8, Sponsored by National Organization for Marriage ("NOM-California"), and John Doe #1, on behalf of the proposed Class of Major Donors, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) submit the following stipulation to amend complaint for the Court's approval. Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in this mater on January 7, 2009. On January 9, 2009, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint, adding Plaintiff John Doe #1, an individual, and as a representative of the proposed Class of Major Donors. On January 22, 2009, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), the Court granted Plaintiffs' request to file a Second Amended Complaint, replacing Defendant Eileen Teichert with Defendant Dennis J. Herrera. Plaintiffs filed a Rule 20 Motion to Add Plaintiff National Organization for Marriage California PAC ("NOM-California PAC") concurrently with this stipulation. NOM-California PAC formed on February 6, 2009, as a "general purpose committee." Cal. Gov't Code § 82027.5. As set forth in Plaintiffs' Rule 20 Motion to Add Plaintiff National Organization for Marriage California PAC, there are common questions of law and fact making joinder of NOMCalifornia PAC appropriate in this action. If the Court grants Plaintiffs' Rule 20 Motion to Add Plaintiff National Organization for Marriage California PAC, the Second Amended Complaint should be amended to reflect this change. As set forth below, Defendants have consented to the filing of Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Stipulation to Amend Complaint; [Proposed] Order Regarding the Same
2
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
So Ordered: Date: May ____, 2009 __________________________________________ The Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge
So Stipulated: Date: May ___, 2009
Scott F. Bieniek Attorney for All Plaintiffs
Date: May ___, 2009
___________________________________________ Zackery P. Morazzini Attorney for Defendants Debra Bowen and Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
Date: May ___, 2009
___________________________________________ Judy W. Whitehurst Attorney for Defendant Dean C. Logan
Date: May ___, 2009
___________________________________________ Terence J. Cassidy Attorney for Defendant Jan Scully
Stipulation to Amend Complaint; [Proposed] Order Regarding the Same
3
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
Stipulation to Amend Complaint; [Proposed] Order Regarding the Same
Date: May ___, 2009
___________________________________________ Mollie M. Lee Attorney for Defendants Dennis J. Herrera and Department of Elections - City and County of San Francisco
Date: May ___, 2009
__________________________________________ Lawrence T. Woodlock Attorney for Defendant Members of the Fair Political Practices Commission
4
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
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott F. Bieniek, am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1 South Sixth Street, Terre Haute, Indiana 47807. On May 20, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document described as Stipulation to Amend Complaint; [Proposed] Order Regarding the Same, with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to: Zackery P. Morazzini zackery.morazzini@doj.ca.gov Attorney for Defendants Debra Bowen and Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Judy W. Whitehurst jwhitehurst@counsel.lacounty.gov Attorney for Defendant Dean C. Logan Terence J. Cassidy tcassidy@porterscott.com Attorney for Defendant Jan Scully Mollie M. Lee mollie.lee@sfgov.org Attorney for Defendants Dennis J. Herrera and Department of Elections - City and Count of San Francisco Lawrence T. Woodlock lwoodlock@fppc.ca.gov Attorney for Defendant Members of the Fair Political Practices Commission I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Indiana that the above is true and correct. Executed on May 20, 2009.
/s/ Scott F. Bieniek Scott F. Bieniek (Ill. State Bar No. 6295901) Counsel for All Plaintiffs
Stipulation to Amend Complaint; [Proposed] Order Regarding the Same
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?