Dragovich et al v. United States Department of the Treasury et al

Filing 73

ORDER EXPEDITING BRIEFING ON BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 72 MOTION TO INTERVENE FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/3/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

MICHAEL DRAGOVICH; MICHAEL GAITLEY;
ELIZABETH LITTERAL; PATRICIA
FITZSIMMONS; CAROLYN LIGHT; CHERYL
LIGHT; JOANNE SCHMIDT; REIDE GARNETT;
DAVID BEERS and CHARLES COLE, on
behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY; TIMOTHY GEITHNER, in his
official capacity as Secretary of the
Treasury, United States Department of
the Treasury; INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE; DOUGLAS SHULMAN, in his
official capacity as Commissioner of
the Internal Revenue Service; BOARD
OF ADMINISTRATION OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM;
and ANNE STAUSBOLL, in her official
capacity as Chief Executive Officer,
CalPERS,

No. C 10-01564 CW
ORDER EXPEDITING
BRIEFING ON
BIPARTISAN LEGAL
ADVISORY GROUP OF
THE U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES’
MOTION TO
INTERVENE FOR A
LIMITED PURPOSE
(Docket No. 72)

Defendants.
/

23
24

The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House

25

of Representative (the House) moves for leave to intervene as a

26

party defendant in the present action.

27

seeks to intervene for the limited purpose of litigating the

28

Docket No. 72.

The House

1

constitutionality of section three of the Defense of Marriage Act

2

under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due

3

Process Clause in the context of a motion or cross-motion for

4

summary judgment, and/or noticing an appeal from any final judgment

5

by this Court holding that the provision is unconstitutional.

6

The motion indicates that federal Defendants, the United

7

States Department of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, the Internal

8

Revenue Service and Douglas Shulman, do not oppose the House’s

9

intervention as a party, but federal Defendants intend to file a

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

response explaining their position.

11

non-federal Defendants, the Board of Administration of California

12

Public Employees’ Retirement System and Anne Stausboll, do not

13

oppose its motion.

14

intend to argue that it should be required to participate as amicus

15

rather than as a party.

The House also states that

However, according to the House, Plaintiffs

16

In the interest of expeditiously resolving the manner in which

17

the House will participate in this action, the parties that wish to

18

respond and/or oppose its motion to intervene shall do so by May

19

10, 2011.

20

The House may submit a reply on or before May 17, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

Dated: 5/3/2011
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

2