Golinski v. United States Office of Personnel Management

Filing 167

STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3.d (2) filed byBipartisan Legal Advisory Group. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kircher, Kerry) (Filed on 9/29/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

PAUL D. CLEMENT (DC Bar 433215)
[e-mail]
H. CHRISTOPHER BARTOLOMUCCI (DC Bar 453423)
[e-mail]
CONOR B. DUGAN (MI Bar P66901)
[e-mail]
NICHOLAS J. NELSON (MD Bar)
[e-mail]
BANCROFT PLLC
1919 M Street, Northwest, Suite 470
Washington, District of Columbia 20036
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
202-234-2806
OF COUNSEL:
KERRY W. KIRCHER (DC Bar 386816)
[e-mail]
CHRISTINE DAVENPORT (NJ Bar)
[e-mail]
KATHERINE E. MCCARRON (DC Bar 486335)
[e-mail]
WILLIAM PITTARD (DC Bar 482949)
[e-mail]
KIRSTEN W. KONAR (DC Bar 979176)
[e-mail]
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
U.S. House of Representatives
219 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, District of Columbia 20515
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
202-226-1360
Attorneys for Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan Legal
Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives

18
19
20
21
22
23

LOCAL RULE 7-3(D)(2) STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION—CASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
)
MANAGEMENT, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
KAREN GOLINSKI,

Case No. 3:10-cv-0257-JSW

LOCAL RULE 7-3(d)(2)
STATEMENT OF
RECENT DECISION

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(d)(2), Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan Legal Advisory

10

Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (the “House”) respectfully submits this statement of

11

recent decision.

12

On September 28, 2011 (after the close of briefing on the House’s motion to dismiss in

13

this matter), the United States District Court for the Central District of California issued the

14

attached decision, which dismisses a complaint that, like the instant one, challenged on equal

15

protection grounds the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. §

16

7. See Order, Lui v. Holder, et al., No. 2:11-cv-01267-SVW (JCGx) (C.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2011),

17

attached as Ex. A hereto. The Lui decision is relevant to the House’s arguments, including (i) at

18

page fourteen of its memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss in this matter (regarding the

19

controlling nature of Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982)) and (ii) at pages

20

fourteen through twenty-two of the same memorandum (regarding the applicable standard of

21

equal protection scrutiny). See Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of [House]’s Mot. to Dismiss Pl.’s

22

Second Am. Compl. (June 3, 2011) (ECF No. 119-1) at 14.

23

1
LOCAL RULE 7-3(D)(2) STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION—CASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW

1

Respectfully submitted,

2

/s/ Paul D. Clement
Paul D. Clement
H. Christopher Bartolomucci
Conor B. Dugan
Nicholas J. Nelson
BANCROFT PLLC1
1919 M Street, Northwest, Suite 470
Washington, District of Columbia 20036
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

3
4
5
6
7

Counsel for the Bipartisan Legal Advisory
Group of the U.S. House of Representatives

8
9
10

OF COUNSEL:

15

Kerry W. Kircher, General Counsel
Christine Davenport, Senior Assistant Counsel
Katherine E. McCarron, Assistant Counsel
William Pittard, Assistant Counsel
Kirsten W. Konar, Assistant Counsel
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
U.S. House of Representatives
219 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, District of Columbia 20515
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

16

September 29, 2011

11
12
13
14

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

1

Kerry W. Kircher, as the ECF filer of this document, attests that concurrence in the
filing of the document has been obtained from signatories Paul D. Clement, H. Christopher
Bartolomucci, Conor B. Dugan, and Nicholas J. Nelson.
2
LOCAL RULE 7-3(D)(2) STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION—CASE NO. 3:10-CV-0257-JSW