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

Filing 68

ORDER re 67 Status Report and CONTINUING Stay Until February 11, 2011. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on November 5, 2010. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/5/2010)

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

Doc. 68

Case3:07-cv-03199-JSW Document67

Filed11/05/10 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

THERESE M. STEWART, State Bar # 104930 Chief Deputy City Attorney WAYNE SNODGRASS, State Bar #148137 JONATHAN GIVNER, State Bar #208000 TARA M. STEELEY, State Bar #231775 Deputy City Attorneys 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, State Bar #66641 BRUCE A. ERICSON, State Bar #76342 [e-mail] ANITA D. STEARNS MAYO, State Bar #142749 MARC H. AXELBAUM, State Bar #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
Dockets.Justia.com

Case3:07-cv-03199-JSW Document67

Filed11/05/10 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 filed August 20, 2010 (Dkt. 65) and the Order filed August 23, 2010 (Dkt. 66), 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 stayed the litigation while the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered a case presenting similar issues, Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce et al. v. City of Long Beach ("Long Beach," USCA Dkt. 0755691). As described in the parties' May 12, 2010 status report (Dkt. 61), the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Long Beach in April 2010, holding that the contribution limit in that case was unconstitutional as applied to some of the plaintiffs, and that the remaining plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the law. See 603 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 79 U.S.L.W. 3176 (U.S. Oct. 4, 2010). In light of the Ninth Circuit's decision, counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants initiated discussions regarding potential settlement over the summer. Those discussions have continued since the filing of the August 20 status report, and are currently proceeding in earnest. The parties continue to believe that settlement discussions could be fruitful. Negotiations will continue to be timeconsuming in part because any settlement of this matter would likely require approval of the organizational plaintiffs and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and Ethics Commission. For
JOINT STATUS REPORT; [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. C07-3199 JSW

1

Case3:07-cv-03199-JSW Document67

Filed11/05/10 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

that reason, the parties have agreed that an extension of the current stay until February 11, 2011 should allow them sufficient time to pursue the possibility of settlement. During that period, 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 no later than February 11, 2011, 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: November 5, 2010 THERESE M. STEWART Chief Deputy City Attorney WAYNE SNODGRASS JONATHAN GIVNER TARA M. STEELEY Deputy City Attorneys By: /s/ Jonathan Givner JONATHAN GIVNER Attorneys for Defendants

Dated: November 5, 2010 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP FREDERICK K. LOWELL BRUCE A. ERICSON ANITA D. STEARNS MAYO MARC H. AXELBAUM *By: /s/ Marc H. Axelbaum MARC H. AXELBAUM 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 Document67

Filed11/05/10 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 November 5, 2010 Dated: __________________

[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 February 11, 2011, the parties shall meet and confer and submit a joint status report or request for a case management conference. At that time, the stay shall be lifted and the case will proceed or be settled. IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

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

4