Committee on Jobs Candidate Advocacy Fund et al v. Herrera et al

Filing 62

ORDER Granting 61 Continued Stay. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 5/13/10. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2010)

Case3:07-cv-03199-JSW Document61

Filed05/12/10 Page1 of 5

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

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Attorney WAYNE SNODGRASS, State Bar #148137 JONATHAN GIVNER, State Bar #208000 TARA M. STEELEY, State Bar #231775 Deputy City Attorney City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, California 94102-4682 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] E-Mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP FREDERICK K. LOWELL #66641 BRUCE A. ERICSON #76342 [e-mail] ANITA D. STEARNS MAYO #142749 MARC H. AXELBAUM #209855 [e-mail] 50 Fremont Street Post Office Box 7880 San Francisco, CA 94120-7880 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA COMMITTEE ON JOBS CANDIDATE ADVOCACY FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. DENNIS J. HERRERA, in his official capacity as City Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco, et al. Defendants. Case No. C07-3199 JSW JOINT STATUS REPORT; [PROPOSED] ORDER

JOINT STATUS REPORT; [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. C07-3199 JSW

Case3:07-cv-03199-JSW Document61

Filed05/12/10 Page2 of 5

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

JOINT STATUS REPORT Pursuant to the Joint Status Report and the Order filed November 30, 2009 (Dkt. 60), Plaintiffs Committee on JOBS Candidate Advocacy Fund and Building Owners and Managers Association of San Francisco Independent Expenditure PAC (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), and Defendants Dennis J. Herrera, Kamala D. Harris, the Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco, and the City and County of San Francisco (collectively, "Defendants"), jointly file this Status Report. In this case, Plaintiffs contend that Sections 1.114(c)(1) and 1.114(c)(2) of the San Francisco Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance ("CFRO"), codified in the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, and Regulation 1.114-2 of the Regulations to the CFRO, violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution by imposing limits on contributions to political committees for the purpose of making independent expenditures. The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction on September 20, 2007 (Dkt. 37), and that order has remained in effect since then pursuant to a series of stipulated orders. At the parties' request, the Court has stayed the litigation while the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals resolved a case presenting similar issues, Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce et al. v. City of Long Beach ("Long Beach," USCA Dkt. 0755691). In that case, the plaintiffs challenged a provision in the Long Beach Municipal Code that limits contributions to committees making independent expenditures supporting or opposing local candidates. On April 30, 2010, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Long Beach, -- F.3d --, 2010 WL 1729710. The court held that the Long Beach contribution limit was unconstitutional as applied to some of the plaintiffs, and held that the remaining plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the law. In light of the Ninth Circuit's decision, counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants have agreed to consult their clients to discuss potential settlement of this matter. Counsel anticipate that they will have those discussions in the coming days. Counsel have agreed that a six-week extension of the current stay will allow them sufficient time to explore the option of settlement.

JOINT STATUS REPORT; [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. C07-3199 JSW

1

Case3:07-cv-03199-JSW Document61

Filed05/12/10 Page3 of 5

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

For that reason, the parties agree that it would be most efficient and would best preserve the interests of judicial economy to continue the current stay. Subject to agreement by this Court, the parties agree that, by June 25, 2010, they will meet and confer to discuss how best to proceed with this case and submit a joint status report or request for a case management conference. The parties agree that no case management conference is necessary at this time.

Dated: May 12, 2010 DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney WAYNE SNODGRASS JONATHAN GIVNER TARA M. STEELEY Deputy City Attorneys By: /s/ Jonathan Givner JONATHAN GIVNER Attorneys for Defendants

Dated: May 12, 2010 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP FREDERICK K. LOWELL BRUCE A. ERICSON ANITA D. STERNS MAYO MARC H. AXELBAUM *By: /s/ Bruce A. Ericson BRUCE A. ERICSON Attorneys for Plaintiffs *Pursuant to GO 45, the electronic signatory has obtained approval from this signatory.

JOINT STATUS REPORT; [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. C07-3199 JSW

2

Case3:07-cv-03199-JSW Document61

Filed05/12/10 Page5 of 5

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 Dated: __________________ May 13, 2010

[PROPOSED] ORDER Pursuant to the agreement of the parties set forth in the foregoing Joint Status Report, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 37) and the Stipulation and Order Staying Litigation entered by the Court on October 26, 2007 (Dkt. 51) shall remain in effect. 2. By June 25, 2010, the parties shall meet and confer and submit a joint status report or request for a case management conference. IT IS SO ORDERED.

________ _________________________ Hon. Jeffrey S. White United States District Judge

JOINT STATUS REPORT; [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. C07-3199 JSW

4