Opinion
Case No. CV 4:10-01564-CW
01-06-2012
MICHAEL DRAGOVICH, MICHAEL GAITLEY, ELIZABETH LITTERAL, PATRICIA FITZSIMMONS, CAROLYN LIGHT, CHERYL LIGHT, DAVID BEERS, CHARLES COLE, RAFAEL v. DOMINGUEZ, and JOSE G. HERMOSILLO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, 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, Defendants.
William C. McNeill, III, State Bar No. 64392 Claudia Center, State Bar No. 158255 Elizabeth Kristen, State Bar No. 218227 LEGAL AID SOCIETY- EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER Daniel S. Mason, State Bar No. 54065 Patrick Clayton, State Bar No. 240191 Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jean Lin, Counsel for the Federal Defendants
William C. McNeill, III, State Bar No. 64392
Claudia Center, State Bar No. 158255
Elizabeth Kristen, State Bar No. 218227
LEGAL AID SOCIETY
EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER
Daniel S. Mason, State Bar No. 54065
Patrick Clayton, State Bar No. 240191
Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION OF THE PLAINTIFFS, THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS,
AND INTERVENOR THE BILATERAL LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FOR LEAVE TO FILE OVERLENGTH BRIEFS RE: MOTION(S) FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ORDER
[Local Rules 7-2(b), 7-3(a), 7-3(c), 7-4(b) and 7-11]
[Hon. Claudia Wilken]
Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-2(b), 7-3(a), 7-3(c), 7-4(b) and 7-11, the Plaintiffs, the Federal Defendants, and Intervenor Bilateral Legal Advisory Group jointly request leave to file overlength briefs with respect to the Motion(s) for Summary Judgment, as described herein.
This joint request is warranted based upon the complexity and number of issues which must be reviewed. See Bloom v. Calderon, 72 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995) (complexity of death penalty case warranted increased pages); Stutz Motor Car v. Reebok Intern., 909 F. Supp. 1353, 1359 (C.D. Cal. 1995) ("relatively complex" patent dispute justified increased pages).
The undersigned parties will set forth their arguments succinctly and concisely, and will not submit papers that are "cumulative or prolix." See Stutz, 909 F. Supp. at 1359 (permitting longer briefs may be proper where the requesting party's papers are not "cumulative or prolix.").
No party opposes this administrative motion.
Plaintiffs' Request.
The Plaintiffs respectfully request leave of the Court to file a motion for summary judgment on January 19, 2012 of up to 35 pages (ten pages more than are provided under the rules). The Plaintiffs also seek leave to file a combined opposition and reply brief on March 22, 2012 of up to 35 pages (ten pages more than are provided under the rules).
The Plaintiffs' request is warranted given the myriad issues to be considered in their motion for summary judgment, which encompass: (1) the procedural and legal history of this matter, including the several state and federal laws implicated; (2) the undisputed facts relating to the plaintiffs and class members and relating to the CalPERS Long-Term Care Program; (3) the appropriate level of scrutiny to be applied to the Plaintiffs' constitutional claims for violations of equal protection and due process, pursuant to the factors set forth in Carolene Products and in other Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit cases; and (4) an articulation of the equal protection and due process claims of the plaintiff couples who were married in California during the marriage equality window in 2008, and of the plaintiff couples who are registered domestic partners but who were not married in 2008, which will include, inter alia: (a) a review of the legislative history, meaning, and intent of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), including its expression of animus towards gays and lesbians and their relationships, and its prohibition of any recognition under federal law of the relationships of gay and lesbian couples, regardless of state law; (b) the disparate impact of the federal tax code as amended by the DOMA upon the lives of the gay and lesbian couples who are plaintiffs and class members in this matter, and the relevance of such impact under Arlington Heights and other federal precedents; and (c) the continued disparate treatment by the federal government, enforcing the federal tax code as amended by the DOMA, with respect to straight couples who are in state-recognized relationships as compared to gay and lesbian couples who are in state-recognized relationships.
Federal Defendants' Request.
The Federal Defendants respectfully request leave of the Court to file a brief on January 19, 2012 in support of Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment of up to 30 pages (five pages more than are provided under the rules). The brief will set forth the position of the Department of Justice regarding the appropriate level of scrutiny to be applied to review DOMA. The Department will require up to 30 pages because examination of the factors traditionally applied by the Supreme Court to make this determination is necessarily complex. The brief will also discuss the role the federal government has played in the history of discrimination against gay and lesbian individuals. The Federal Defendants further respectfully request leave of the Court to file a combined brief of up to 30 pages (five pages more than as provided under the rule) on February 21, 2012 in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and in cross moving for partial summary judgment. Federal Defendants require the page extension for many of the same reasons explained above by Plaintiffs. The combined brief will need to address Plaintiffs' substantive due process arguments, among other things, and move for judgment regarding Plaintiffs' domestic partner claims.
Request of the Intervenor Bilateral Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives.
Intervenor the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives ("the House") respectfully requests leave of the Court to file a combined brief of up to 30 pages (five pages more than as provided under the rule) on February 21, 2012, in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and in cross moving for summary judgment. The House will require that number of pages both to respond to plaintiffs' overlength brief in support of their summary judgment motion, and to identify and explain the many government interests advanced by DOMA.
Respectfully submitted,
LEGAL AID SOCIETY -EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER
Claudia Center, Counsel for Plaintiffs
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION
By: _______________
Jean Lin, Counsel for the Federal Defendants
PAUL D. CLEMENT
H. CHRISTOPHER BARTOLOMUCCI
CONOR B. DUGAN
NICHOLAS J. NELSON
BANCROFT PLLC
By:_______________
H. Christopher Bartolomucci, Counsel for
Intervenor the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of
the United States House of Representatives
ORDER
The Plaintiffs are granted leave to file to file a motion for summary judgment on January 19, 2012 of up to 35 pages. The Plaintiffs are further granted leave to file a combined opposition and reply brief on March 22, 2012 of up to 35 pages.
The Federal Defendants are granted leave to file a brief on January 19, 2012 in support of Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment of up to 30 pages. The Federal Defendants are further granted leave to file a brief on February 21, 2012 of up to 30 pages in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and in cross moving for partial summary judgment.
Intervenor the Bilateral Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives is granted leave to file a brief on February 21, 2012 of up to 30 pages in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and in cross moving for summary judgment.
It is so ordered.
_______________
UNTITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE