Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 766

STATUS REPORT (Joint Status Statement) by Paul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo. (Monagas, Enrique) (Filed on 3/14/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
Theodore B. Olson, SBN 38137
[e-mail]
Matthew D. McGill, pro hac vice
Amir C. Tayrani, SBN 229609
1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
T: [phone] | F: [phone]
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., SBN 132009
[e-mail]
Christopher D. Dusseault, SBN 177557
Ethan D. Dettmer, SBN 196046
Sarah E. Piepmeier, SBN 227094
Theane Evangelis Kapur, SBN 243570
Enrique A. Monagas, SBN 239087
333 S. Grand Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90071
T: [phone] | F: [phone]
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
David Boies, pro hac vice
[e-mail]
333 Main St., Armonk, NY 10504
T: [phone] | F: [phone]
Jeremy M. Goldman, SBN 218888
[e-mail]
1999 Harrison St., Ste. 900, Oakland, CA 94612
T: [phone] | F: [phone]

16

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier,
Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo

17

[Additional counsel listed on signature page]

15

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al.,

CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 JW

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.

JOINT STATUS STATMENT
Hon: Chief Judge James Ware

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

09-CV-2292 JW JOINT STATUS STATMENT

Pursuant to this Court’s March 2, 2011 Reassignment Order, Doc #765, the parties in the

1
2

above-entitled action jointly submit this Joint Status Statement.

3

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 22, 2009, Plaintiffs Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J.

4
5

Zarrillo (“Plaintiffs”) filed the complaint. Doc #1. Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of

6

California’s Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth

7

Amendment, and named as defendants California’s Governor, Attorney General, Director of Public

8

Health, and Deputy Director of Health Information and Strategic Planning; the Alameda County

9

Clerk-Recorder; and the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk (collectively,

10

“Defendants”). Id.

11

On May 28, 2009, Defendant-Intervenors Proposition 8 Official Proponents Dennis

12

Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam, and Mark A. Jansson;

13

and ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal (“Defendant-Intervenors”)

14

moved to intervene in the case to defend Proposition 8, Doc #8, and this Court granted their motion

15

on June 30, 2009. Doc #77. In August 2009, the City and County of San Francisco (“Plaintiff-

16

Intervenor”) was also granted leave to intervene in the case. Doc #160.
On July 2, 2009, this Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Doc #154.

17
18

On October 14, 2009, this Court denied Defendant-Intervenors’ motion for summary judgment.

19

Doc #226. From January 11 to January 27, 2010, this Court conducted a twelve-day bench trial.

20

Doc #690. Closing arguments were held on June 16, 2010. Id. On August 4, 2010, this Court

21

ordered entry of judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor and against Defendants and

22

Defendant-Intervenors. Doc #708. A permanent injunction enjoining “Defendants in their official

23

capacities, and all persons under the control or supervision of defendants . . . from applying or

24

enforcing Article I, § 7.5 of the California Constitution [Proposition 8]” was entered on August 12,

25

2010. Doc #728. Defendant-Intervenors’ motion to stay judgment pending appeal, Doc #705, was

26

denied by this Court on August 12, 2010.1 Doc #727. On August 16, 2010, the Ninth Circuit entered

27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

1

Defendant-Intervenor Hak-Shing William Tam did not appeal this Court’s judgment and was
not a movant in the motion for a stay pending appeal.
1
09-CV-2292 JW JOINT STATUS STATMENT

1

a stay of the judgment pending appeal. Doc #751. On August 24, 2010, this Court granted Plaintiffs’

2

and Plaintiff-Intervenor’s motion to enlarge time to file a motion for attorney fees and costs, ordering

3

that that “any motion for fees and costs pursuant to FRCP 54(d) shall be filed not later than thirty

4

days after all appeals of the August 12, 2010 judgment, Doc #728, are final.” Doc #744.
On February 23, 2011, Plaintiffs moved to vacate the stay pending appeal in the Ninth Circuit.

5
6

Plaintiff-Intervenor joined Plaintiffs’ motion on February 24, 2011. On March 7, 2011, Defendant-

7

Intervenors Hollingsworth, Knight, Gutierrez, Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com filed an opposition.

8

As of March 14, 2011, the Ninth Circuit has not ruled on Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the stay pending

9

appeal.

10

II.

CASE STATUS
The case is currently on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

11
12

Circuit, and this Court’s judgment is stayed pending the outcome of that appeal. Thus, no action is

13

required by this Court at this time.

14
15

Respectfully submitted,
DATED: March 14, 2011

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

16
17

By:

/s/
Theodore B. Olson

18
19

and

20

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

21

David Boies

22

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER,
PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO

23
24
25

///

26

///

27

///

28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

2
09-CV-2292 JW JOINT STATUS STATMENT

1

DATED: March 14, 2011

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

2
3

By:

/s/
Therese M. Stewart

4

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

5
6
7

DATED: March 14, 2011

COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC

8
9

By:

/s/
David Thompson

10

Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenors
PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL PROPONENTS
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J. KNIGHT,
MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ, and MARK A. JANSSON;
and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM – YES ON 8,
A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL

11
12
13
14
15

DATED: March 14, 2011

LAW OFFICE OF TERRY L. THOMPSON

16
17

By:

/s/
Terry L. Thompson

18

Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor
HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM

19
20
21
22

DATED: March 14, 2011

KAMALA D. HARRIS
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA

23
24

By:

/s/
Tamar Pachter
Deputy Attorney General

25
26
27

Attorneys for Defendant
ATTORNEY GENERAL KAMALA D. HARRIS

28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

3
09-CV-2292 JW JOINT STATUS STATMENT

1

DATED: March 14, 2011

MENNEMEIER, GLASSMAN & STROUD LLP

2
3

By:

/s/
Andrew W. Stroud

4

Attorneys for Defendants
EDMUND G. BROWN JR.,
MARK B. HORTON, and LINETTE SCOTT
(the “Administration Defendants”)

5
6
7
8

DATED: March 14, 2011

9

RICHARD E. WINNIE, County Counsel in and
for the County of Alameda, State of California

10
By:

11

/s/
Claude F. Kolm,
Deputy County Counsel

12

Attorneys for Defendant
PATRICK O’CONNELL,
Alameda County Clerk-Recorder

13
14
15
16

DATED: March 14, 2011

THE OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL

17
18
19
20
21

By:

/s/
Judy Whitehurst

Attorneys for Defendant
DEAN C. LOGAN,
Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

4
09-CV-2292 JW JOINT STATUS STATMENT

1
2
3

ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER NO. 45
Pursuant to General Order No. 45 of the Northern District of California, I attest that concurrence
in the filing of the document has been obtained from each of the other signatories to this document.

4
5
6
7

By: /s/ Enrique A. Monagas
Enrique A. Monagas

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

5
09-CV-2292 JW JOINT STATUS STATMENT