Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 733

Declaration of Enrique A. Monagas in Support of #732 MOTION to Shorten Time filed byCity and County of San Francisco, Paul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Related document(s) #732 ) (Monagas, Enrique) (Filed on 8/17/2010)

Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Doc. 733

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
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Theodore B. Olson, SBN 38137 [e-mail] Matthew D. McGill, pro hac vice 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., SBN 132009 [e-mail] Christopher D. Dusseault, SBN 177557 Ethan D. Dettmer, SBN 196046 333 S. Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP David Boies, pro hac vice [e-mail] 333 Main Street, Armonk, New York 10504 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] Jeremy M. Goldman, SBN 218888 [e-mail] 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900, Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiffs KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO Dennis J. Herrera, SBN 139669 Therese M. Stewart, SBN 104930 Danny Chou, SBN 180240 One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, California 94102-4682 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs, and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants, and PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al., Defendant-Intervenors.
09-CV-2292 VRW DECLARATION OF ENRIQUE A. MONAGAS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
Dockets.Justia.com

CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW DECLARATION OF ENRIQUE A. MONAGAS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' AND PLAINTIFFINTERVENOR'S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

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
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

I, Enrique A. Monagas, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. I am an associate at the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, counsel of record for Plaintiffs Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo ("Plaintiffs"). I make this declaration in support of Plaintiffs' and Plaintiff-Intervenor's motion to shorten time. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify hereto. 2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B)(i) provides prevailing parties with 14 days after the entry of judgment in which to file a motion for attorney's fees and related expenses. This Court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law on August 4, Doc #708, and entered a permanent injunction on August 12, Doc #728. Since that time, the parties have been expeditiously briefing Defendant-Intervenors' motion to stay this Court's decision pending appeal. 3. Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor are filing concurrently herewith a motion to enlarge time to file a motion for attorney's fees and related expenses. Civil Local Rule 6-3(c) provides four days for a party to oppose a motion to enlarge time. Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor seek an order shortening time for Defendant-Intervenors to respond so that the Court may rule on the concurrently filed motion to enlarge time in advance of the deadline to file a motion for attorney's fees and related expenses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B)(i). Substantial prejudice would result if the Court were to deny this motion to shorten time because, in the event the Court were to deny Plaintiffs' and PlaintiffIntervenor's motion to enlarge time, Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor would likely not have sufficient time to file their motion for attorney's fees and related expenses. 4. Due to the exigencies of the situation, Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor have not contacted the other parties seeking a stipulation to shorten time. As described in the declaration in support of the motion to enlarge time filed concurrently herewith, Plaintiffs contacted all parties involved in an attempt to obtain a stipulation to enlarge time, which would have alleviated the need for a motion to shorten time. 5. The underlying dispute is whether Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor should be permitted an enlargement of time in which to file their motion for attorney's fees and related expenses due to 2
09-CV-2292 VRW DECLARATION OF ENRIQUE A. MONAGAS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

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
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

the pendency of the appeal and expedited briefing schedule ordered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 6. I am aware of four previous time modifications in this case, two by Court order, see Doc #170, Doc #710, and two by stipulation, see Doc #266, Doc #615. 7. The requested time modification would not affect the schedule of this case. I declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States, that these facts are true and correct and that this Declaration is executed this 17th day of August 2010 at San Francisco, California. /s/ Enrique A. Monagas Enrique A. Monagas

3
09-CV-2292 VRW DECLARATION OF ENRIQUE A. MONAGAS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME