Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 743

Memorandum in Opposition re #742 MOTION for Extension of Time to File A Bill of Costs, #729 MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Motion for Attorney's Fees and Related Expenses filed byMartin F. Gutierrez, Dennis Hollingsworth, Mark A. Jansson, Gail J. Knight, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit of Brian W. Raum in Support of Defendant-Intervenors' Opposition to Motion to Enlarge Time)(Raum, Brian) (Filed on 8/23/2010)

Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Doc. 743 Att. 1

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

COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC Charles J. Cooper (DC Bar No. 248070)* [e-mail] David H. Thompson (DC Bar No. 450503)* [e-mail] Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (DC Bar No. 473018)* [e-mail] Nicole J. Moss (DC Bar No. 472424)* [e-mail] Peter A. Patterson (OH Bar No. 0080840)* [e-mail] 1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO Andrew P. Pugno (CA Bar No. 206587) [e-mail] 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND Brian W. Raum (NY Bar No. 2856102)* [e-mail] James A. Campbell (OH Bar No. 0081501)* [e-mail] 15100 North 90th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, MARK A. JANSSON, and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM ­ YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL * Admitted pro hac vice UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, Plaintiffs, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Attorney General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California

CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW DECLARATION OF BRIAN W. RAUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, MARK A. JANSSON, AND PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME

DECLARATION OF BRIAN W. RAUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

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

Department of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; PATRICK O'CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, Defendants, and PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM and MARK A. JANSSON; and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM ­ YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL, Defendant-Intervenors. Additional Counsel for Defendant-Intervenors ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND Timothy Chandler (CA Bar No. 234325) [e-mail] 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100, Folsom, California 95630 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] Jordan W. Lorence (DC Bar No. 385022)* [e-mail] Austin R. Nimocks (TX Bar No. 24002695)* [e-mail] 801 G Street NW, Suite 509, Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: [phone], Facsimile: [phone] * Admitted pro hac vice

DECLARATION OF BRIAN W. RAUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

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

I, Brian W. Raum, declare as follows: 1) I am an attorney in the above-captioned case for Defendant-Intervenors Hollingsworth, Knight, Gutierrez, Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com ("Proponents"). I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge. 2) Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors have filed motions to enlarge the time to file their motions for attorney's fees and costs. See Doc #729, Doc #742. Specifically, Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors are requesting that the Court delay consideration of attorney's fees and costs until 30 days after all appeals become final, or in the alternative, within "45 days of the latter of: (A) the entry of an order resolving the instant motion, or (B) the entry of judgment by this Court." Pl.'s Mot. to Enlarge Time, Doc #729 at 4. 3) Proponents oppose this motion because it is at odds with the reasons Rule 54 has a 14day deadline to submit a motion for attorney's fees and costs. One of the main purposes of that rule is to "assure that the opposing party is informed of the claim before the time for appeal has elapsed." Advisory Committee Notes to 1993 Amendments, Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B). "Prompt filing [also] affords an opportunity for the court to resolve fee disputes shortly after trial, while the services performed are freshly in mind." Id. 4) Here, the Governor, the Attorney General, and the County Clerks for Los Angeles and Alameda counties have not yet filed their notice of appeal. They--and the voters who put them in office as well as the legislators who are currently embroiled in a budget stand-off with the Governor--deserve to know before the time to appeal has expired the potential liability they face from attorney's fees and costs generated by Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors. It is those parties, not proponents, that have potential liability for attorney's fees and costs. Although these parties have not objected to Plaintiffs' motion to enlarge time, their failure to do so cannot override the clear interests that the State and its People have in making a fully informed decision on whether to appeal. 5) It is also important that attorney's fees and costs be decided at this stage so that the facts and litigation are fresh in the Court's mind. That policy is even more crucial in complex cases like
1 DECLARATION OF BRIAN W. RAUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

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

this one, which involves many parties, scores of attorneys, months of attorneys' time, an extensive discovery battle, and a lengthy trial in a high-profile case. 6) Moreover, the clear weight of authority is that a mere appeal is insufficient reason to delay consideration of a request for attorney's fees and costs. The small burden imposed on Plaintiffs to file their motion for attorney's fees and costs cannot outweigh Congress's policy reasons for prompt consideration of fee disputes. 7) Proponents file contemporaneously with this declaration a memorandum of law in opposition to Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors' motions. 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 23rd day of August, 2010, at Scottsdale, Arizona. DATED: August 23, 2010 ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT, MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, MARK A. JANSSON, AND PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM ­ YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL By: /s/ Brian W. Raum Brian W. Raum

2 DECLARATION OF BRIAN W. RAUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW