2:12-cv-00887 #69
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
1/28
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
Paul D. Clement (DC Bar 433215)
H. Christopher Bartolomucci (DC Bar 453423)
Nicholas J. Nelson (DC Bar 1001696)
Michael H. McGinley (DC Bar 1006943)
BANCROFT PLLC
1919 M Street, N.W.
Suite 470
Washington, D.C. 20036
202-234-0090 (telephone)
202-234-2806 (facsimile)
Of Counsel:
Kerry W. Kircher, General Counsel (DC Bar 386816)
William Pittard, Deputy General Counsel (DC Bar 482949)
Christine Davenport, Senior Assistant Counsel (NJ Bar 043682000)
Todd B. Tatelman, Assistant Counsel (VA Bar 66008)
Mary Beth Walker, Assistant Counsel (DC Bar 501033)
Eleni M. Roumel (SC Bar 75763)
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
219 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515202-225-9700 (telephone)
202-226-1360 (facsimile)
Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan
Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69 Filed 12/13/12 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:1096
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
2/28
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Western Division
) No. 2:12-cv-00887-CBM (AJWx)
TRACEY COOPER-HARRIS and )
MAGGIE COOPER-HARRIS, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., )
) Hearing: Jan. 28, 2013
Defendants, ) Time: 10:00 a.m.) Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall
and )
)
BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY )
GROUP OF THE U.S. HOUSE )
OF REPRESENTATIVES, )
)
Intervenor-Defendant. )
)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan Legal
Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (House) will move this
Court on Monday, January 28, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel
may be heard, in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Western Division, Courtroom 2, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles,
California 90012, for an order granting the Houses Motion to Stay Proceedings.
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for the reasons set forth
in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the House
respectfully moves for entry of an order staying all proceedings in this case pending
NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION OF
INTERVENOR-
DEFENDANT TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69 Filed 12/13/12 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:1097
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
3/28
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Windsor v. United States, No. 12-
307. The Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari on December 7,
2012, oral argument will be scheduled in March 2013, and a decision most likely
will issue by the end of the current Term in June 2013.
LOCAL RULE 7-3 STATEMENT
On December 12, 2012, counsel for the House contacted Christine Sun and
Adam Romero, counsel for plaintiffs, by email. On December 13, 2012, counsel
for the House also conferred with Mr. Romero by telephone and by email, and Mr.
Romero informed the House that Plaintiffs oppose this motion.
On December 12 and 13, 2012, counsel for the House also contacted JeanLin with the Department of Justice, counsel for the United States of America,
Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., and Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric K.
Shinseki, who, at the time of filing, had not indicated a position on this motion.
A proposed Order is submitted herewith and oral argument is not requested.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ H. Christopher BartolomucciH. Christopher Bartolomucci
BANCROFT PLLC1
Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant the
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the
December 13, 2012 U.S. House of Representatives2
1
Kerry W. Kircher, as ECF filer of this document, attests that concurrence in the filingof the document has been obtained from signatory H. Christopher Bartolomucci.
2The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, which speaks for the House in litigation matters,
currently is comprised of the Honorable John A. Boehner, Speaker of the House, the Honorable
Eric Cantor, Majority Leader, the Honorable Kevin McCarthy, Majority Whip, the Honorable
Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, and the Honorable Steny H. Hoyer, Democratic Whip. The
Democratic Leader and the Democratic Whip have declined to support the position taken by theGroup on the merits of DOMA Section 3s constitutionality in this case.
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69 Filed 12/13/12 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:1098
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
4/28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on December 13, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing
Notice of Motion and Motion of Intervenor-Defendant to Stay Proceedings with
the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which provided an electronic
notice and electronic link of the same to the following attorneys of record through
the Courts CM/ECF system:
Caren E. Short, Esquire
Christine P. Sun, Esquire
Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Esquire
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
400 Washington Avenue
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Adam P. Romero, Esquire
Rubina Ali, Esquire
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP7 World Trade Center
New York City, New York 10007
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Eugene Marder, Esquire
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69 Filed 12/13/12 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:1099
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
5/28
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
Randall R. Lee, Esquire
Matthew D. Benedetto, Esquire
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
350 South Grand Avenue Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90071
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Jean Lin, Trial Attorney
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Civil Division - Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue, Northwest
Washington, District of Columbia 20530
[email protected] for the Executive Branch defendants
/s/ Mary Beth Walker
Mary Beth Walker
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69 Filed 12/13/12 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:1100
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
6/28
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2324
25
26
27
28
Paul D. Clement (DC Bar 433215)
H. Christopher Bartolomucci (DC Bar 453423)
Nicholas J. Nelson (DC Bar 1001696)
[email protected] H. McGinley (DC Bar 1006943)
BANCROFT PLLC
1919 M Street, N.W.
Suite 470
Washington, D.C. 20036
202-234-0090 (telephone)
202-234-2806 (facsimile)
Of Counsel:
Kerry W. Kircher, General Counsel (DC Bar 386816)
William Pittard, Deputy General Counsel (DC Bar 482949)
Christine Davenport, Senior Assistant Counsel (NJ Bar 043682000)
Todd B. Tatelman, Assistant Counsel (VA Bar 66008)[email protected]
Mary Beth Walker, Assistant Counsel (DC Bar 501033)
Eleni M. Roumel (SC Bar 75763)
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
219 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515
202-225-9700 (telephone)
202-226-1360 (facsimile)
Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan
Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 1 of 22 Page ID#:1101
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
7/28
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Western Division
) No. 2:12-cv-00887-CBM (AJWx)
TRACEY COOPER-HARRIS and )
MAGGIE COOPER-HARRIS, ))
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., )
)
)
Defendants, )
)and )
)
BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY )
GROUP OF THE U.S. HOUSE ) Hearing: Jan. 28, 2013
OF REPRESENTATIVES, ) Time: 10:00 a.m.
) Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall
Intervenor-Defendant. )
)
MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION OF
INTERVENOR-
DEFENDANT TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 2 of 22 Page ID#:1102
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
8/28
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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................. ii
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 1
ARGUMENT .......................................................................................... 6
I. A Stay Pending a Decision in WindsorWill PromoteJudicial Economy ............................................................... 8
II. There is No Fair Possibility Plaintiffs Will SufferAdditional Harm if a Stay is Granted ................................. 10
A.Only the Secretary Can Award the Benefits thatPlaintiffs Seek ............................................................... 10B.Any Eventual Award of Compensation Will Date
Back to the Filing Date of VA Form 21-686c .............. 12
C.Plaintiffs Election of this Forum Over the VAAdministrative Process Belies Their Claim of Injury ... 12
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 3 of 22 Page ID#:1103
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
9/28
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
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Statutes
1 U.S.C. 7 ....................................................................................... 1, 4
38 U.S.C. 101 ............................................................................. 1, 4, 8
38 U.S.C. 511 ................................................................... 8, 10, 11, 12
The Veterans Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, div. A.,
102 Stat. 4105 (1988) ............................................................... 10
Cases
Aetna State Bank v. Altheimer,
430 F.2d 750 (7th Cir. 1970) ...................................................... 9
Aranas v. Napolitano,
No. 8:12-cv-01137 (C.D. Cal.) ................................................... 6
Beamon v. Brown,
125 F.3d 965 (6th Cir. 1997) .................................................... 11
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Grp. of the U.S. House of Representatives
v. Gill,
No. 12-13 (S. Ct.) ................................................................... 2, 5
Cardona v. Shinseki,
No. 11-3083 (Ct. App. Vet. Cl.) ......................................... 4, 5, 6
CMAX, Inc. v. Hall,
300 F.2d 265 (9th Cir. 1962) ...................................................... 7
Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States,
424 U.S. 800, 96 S. Ct. 1236, 47 L. Ed. 2d 483 (1976) ............. 6
Dragovich v. U.S. Dept of the Treasury,
Nos. 12-16461 & 12-16628 (9th Cir.) .................................... 3, 9
Golinski v. U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt.,
Nos. 12-15388 & 12-15409 (9th Cir.) ................................ 2, 3, 4
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 4 of 22 Page ID#:1104
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
10/28
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
iii
Hollingsworth v. Perry,
No. 12-144 (S. Ct.) ................................................................. 5, 7
Hosp. of Barstow, Inc.v. Sebelius,
No. 11-cv-10638, 2012 WL 893784 (C.D. Cal.) ...................... 10
Landis v. N. Am. Co.,299 U.S. 248, 57 S. Ct. 163, 81 L. Ed. 153 (1936) ............ 6, 8, 9
Lockyer v. Mirant Corp.,
398 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) .................................................... 7
Lopez v. Am. Express Bank, FSB,
No. 09-cv-07335, 2010 WL 3637755 (C.D. Cal.) .................... 10
Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept of Health & Human Servs.,
Nos. 10-2204, 10-2207, & 10-2214 (1st Cir.) ............................ 4
Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept of HHS,
682 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) ........................................................ 2, 4
Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept of HHS,
No. 12-97 (S. Ct.) ....................................................................... 2
McLaughlin v. Panetta,
No. 1:11-cv-11905 (D. Mass.) .................................................... 4
Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Golinski,
No. 12-16 (S. Ct.) ....................................................................... 3
Office of Pers. Mgmt.v. Pedersen,
No. 12-302 (S. Ct.) ..................................................................... 3
Pedersen. v. Office of Pers. Mgmt,
Nos. 12-3273 & 12-3872 (2d Cir.) ............................................. 3
Pedersen. v. Office of Pers. Mgmt.,No. 12-231 (S. Ct.) ..................................................................... 3
Shipley v. United States,
608 F.2d 770 (9th Cir. 1979) ...................................................... 9
U.S. Dept of HHS v. Massachusetts,
No. 12-15 (S. Ct.) ....................................................................... 2
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 5 of 22 Page ID#:1105
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
11/28
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
iv
United States v. Windsor,
No. 12-307 (S. Ct.) ..................................................... 1, 3, 4, 5, 7
Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki,
678 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) .................................. 10
Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki,No. 12-296 (S. Ct.) ................................................................... 11
Windsor v. United States,
No. 12-63 (S. Ct.) ....................................................................... 3
Windsor v. United States,
Nos. 12-2335 & 12-2435(2d Cir.) ............................................. 3
Regulations and Other Agency Rules
38 C.F.R. 3.400 (2006) .................................................................... 12
Other Authorities
Order List, Supreme Court of the United States (Dec. 7, 2012) ....... 1, 5
Supreme Court Calendar, October Term .............................................. 6
Letter from Eric H. Holder, Jr., Atty Gen., to the Honorable
John A. Boehner, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives
(Feb.17, 2012) ............................................................................. 8
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 6 of 22 Page ID#:1106
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
12/28
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
1
INTRODUCTION
Intervenor-Defendant the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S.
House of Representatives (House) respectfully brings this motion to stay all
proceedings in this case pending a ruling by the Supreme Court on the
constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. 7
(DOMA). On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court granted a petition for writ
of certiorari in United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307. See Order List, Supreme
Court of the United States (Dec. 7, 2012), http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/
courtorders/120712zr_3f14.pdf (Order List). The Windsorpetition specifically
seeks constitutional review of DOMA Section 3, the identical question before the
Court in this case. See Pet. for a Writ of Cert. Before J. at *I, United States v.
Windsor, No. 12-307 (S. Ct. Sept. 11, 2012), 2012 WL 3991414 (Windsor
Petition) (The question presented is: Whether Section 3 of DOMA violates the
Fifth Amendments guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons
of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their State.). Because
of the substantial likelihood that the Supreme Court will rule on the
constitutionality of DOMA Section 3 by the end of the current Supreme Court
Term, because Plaintiffs can prevail only if DOMA Section 3 is found
unconstitutional, and because Plaintiffs can present no credible claim of harm that
they would suffer from a delay until the Supreme Court decides the Windsorcase,
likely in June 2013, this case should be stayed until the Supreme Courts
disposition ofWindsor.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Tracey Cooper-Harris and Maggie Cooper-Harris, a same-sex
couple married under California law, challenge on equal protection grounds, and in
the context of a claim for certain veterans benefits, the constitutionality of (i)
Section 3 of DOMA and (ii) 38 U.S.C. 101(3) & (31). See Compl. for
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 7 of 22 Page ID#:1107
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
13/28
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
2
Declaratory, Injunctive, & Other Relief 3, 6-11, 65, 69, Prayer for Relief (Feb.
1, 2012) (ECF No. 1) (Complaint).
On May 29, 2012, the House filed a motion to stay this case pending the
outcome ofGolinski v. U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt., Nos. 12-15388 & 12-15409, a
consolidated appeal pending in the Ninth Circuit. SeeNotice of Mot. & Mot. of
[House] to Stay Proceedings (May 29, 2012) (ECF No. 39) (First Stay Motion).
Plaintiffs opposed the stay, Pls. Mem. of L. in Oppn to [House]s Mot. to Stay
(June 18, 2012) (ECF No. 42) (Pls. Oppn), and the Court entered an order
denying the Houses motion on August 3, 2012. In Chambers Order (Aug. 3,
2012) (ECF No. 50).
At the time the House first sought a stay in this case, no petition for a writ of
certiorari regarding the question of the constitutionality of DOMA Section 3 had
been filed with the Supreme Court. Since that time, eight petitions in four different
cases were filed regarding that question:
On June 29, 2012, the House asked the Supreme Court to review the FirstCircuits decision inMassachusetts v. U.S. Dept of HHS, 682 F.3d 1 (1st
Cir. 2012). See Pet. for a Writ of Cert.,Bipartisan Legal Advisory Grp.
of the U.S. House of Representatives v. Gill, No. 12-13 (S. Ct. June 29,
2012), 2012 WL 2586935.
On July 3, 2012, the Executive Branch parties petitioned for a writ ofcertiorari in the same case. See Pet. for a Writ of Cert., U.S. Dept of
HHS v. Massachusetts, No. 12-15 (S. Ct. July 3, 2012), 2012 WL
2586937.
On July 20, 2012, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed aconditional cross-petition for writ of certiorari in the same case. See
Conditional Cross-Pet. for a Writ of Cert.,Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept of
HHS, No. 12-97 (S. Ct. July 20, 2012), 2012 WL 3027167.
On July 3, 2012, the Executive Branch party in Golinski v. U.S. Office of
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 8 of 22 Page ID#:1108
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
14/28
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
3
Pers. Mgmt., Nos. 15388 & 15409 (9th Cir.), petitioned for pre-judgment
Supreme Court review in that case. See Pet. for a Writ of Cert. Before J.,
Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Golinski, No. 12-16 (S. Ct. July 3, 2012), 2012
WL 2586938.1
On July 16, 2012, the plaintiff in Windsor v. United States, Nos. 12-2335& 12-2435(2d Cir.), petitioned for pre-judgment Supreme Court review
in that case. See Pet. for a Writ of Cert. Before J., Windsor v. United
States, No. 12-63 (S. Ct. July 16, 2012), 2012 WL 2904038.
On September 11, 2012, the Executive Branch parties petitioned for awrit of certiorari in the same case. SeeWindsorPet.
On August 21, 2012, the plaintiffs in Pedersen. v. Office of Pers. Mgmt,Nos. 12-3273 & 12-3872 (2d Cir.), petitioned for pre-judgment Supreme
Court review in that case. See Pet. for a Writ of Cert. Before J.,
Pedersen. v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. 12-231 (S. Ct. Aug. 21, 2012),
2012 WL 3613467.
And, on September 11, 2012, the Executive Branch parties petitioned fora writ of certiorari in the same case. See Pet. for a Writ of Cert. Before
J., Office of Pers. Mgmt.v. Pedersen, No. 12-302 (S. Ct. Sept. 11, 2012),
2012 WL 3991479.
The Ninth Circuit recently stayed two DOMA Section 3 appeals pending a
decision by the Supreme Court on the petitions. See Order,Dragovich v. U.S.
Dept of the Treasury, Nos. 12-16461 & 12-16628 (9th Cir. Sept. 21, 2012) (ECF
No. 12) (briefing stayed until at least February 26, 2013); Order, Golinski v. U.S.
Office of Pers. Mgmt., Nos. 12-15388 & 12-15409 (9th Cir. July 27, 2012) (ECF
No. 147) (case held in abeyance pending resolution of the writ of certiorari then
1Karen Golinski, the plaintiff-appellee in that case, supported the Executive Branch
partys request for pre-judgment review. See Br. of the Respt in Supp. of Pet. for Cert. BeforeJ., Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Golinski, No. 12-16 (S. Ct. July 25, 2012), 2012 WL 3027182.
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 9 of 22 Page ID#:1109
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
15/28
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
4
before the Supreme Court and, if certiorari is granted, pending determination of
the case on the merits); see alsoGolinski v. U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt., Nos. 12-
15388 & 12-15409 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 2012) (ECF No. 156) (case held in abeyance
pending the decision of the United States Supreme Court in United States v.
Windsor, No. 12-307). Another case challenging both DOMA Section 3 and 38
U.S.C. 101(3) & (31) filed last October in the District of Massachusetts,
McLaughlin v. Panetta, No. 1:11-cv-11905 (D. Mass.),2
has been stayed since
February 27, 2012, and will be stayed pending the First Circuits Mandate in
Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 682 F.3d 1 (1st
Cir. 2012) a case that considered the issue of DOMA Section 3s
constitutionality under the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause.
See Electronic Order,McLaughlin v. Panetta, No. 1:11-cv-11905 (D. Mass. Feb.
15, 2012) (granting joint motion to stay case for 60 days); Electronic Order,
McLaughlin v. Panetta, No. 1:11-cv-11905 (D. Mass. June 6, 2012) (granting
opposed motion to stay until 30 days after First Circuit issues its mandate in
Massachusetts v. HHS). Likewise, the First Circuits Mandate inMassachusetts is
stayed pending further order of that court. Judgment,Massachusetts v. U.S.
Dept of Health & Human Servs., Nos. 10-2204, 10-2207, & 10-2214 (1st Cir. May
31, 2012) (ECF No. 5645272). Additionally, in the case ofCardona v. Shinseki,
the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims which the House believes is the proper
venue for Plaintiffs to have brought this action recently granted the Houses
motion to postpone oral argument that had been scheduled for November 29, 2012,
for forty-five days to allow the Supreme Court to act on the eight Petitions as it
now has. See Order, Cardona v. Shinseki, No. 11-3083 (Ct. App. Vet. Cl. Nov. 15,
2012). In so ordering, the Court contemplated further staying the case in the
2McLaughlin, like this case, challenges DOMA Section 3 and 38 U.S.C. 101(3) & (31)
(among other provisions) on equal protection grounds. See Compl. for Declaratory, Injunctive
and Other Relief 3, 13, 14, 128, 139, 144; WHEREFORE Clauses (a), (b),McLaughlin v.Panetta, No. 1:11-cv-11905 (D. Mass. Oct. 27, 2011) (ECF No. 1).
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 10 of 22 Page ID#:1110
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
16/28
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
5
interest of judicial efficiency pending the issuance of [the Supreme Courts]
decision considering the constitutionality of DOMA. Id. at 2. As with
McLaughlin and the instant case, Cardona challenges both DOMA Section 3 and
38 U.S.C. 101(31) on equal protection grounds.
On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court considered the eight petitions
presenting the question of DOMA Section 3s constitutionality. See, e.g., Docket,
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives v. Gill, No.
12-13, available athttp://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/
docketfiles/12-13.htm. On the same day, the Supreme Court issued an order
granting certiorari in United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307. See Order List. The
central question before the Supreme Court in Windsoris identical to one of the two
presented here: Whether Section 3 of DOMA violates the Fifth Amendments
guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who
are legally married under the laws of their State.3 WindsorPet. at *I. The
Supreme Court did not act on the other seven petitions, effectively holding them in
abeyance, presumably pending a decision in Windsor.
On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court also granted a petition for a writ
of certiorari inHollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144. See Order List. Perry seeks
review of the constitutionality of Californias Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that
amended the California Constitution to provide that: Only marriage between a
man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. See Pet. for a Writ of Cert.
at *2,Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144 (S. Ct. July 30, 2012), 2012 WL
3109489. The question presented by the petition in Perry is: Whether the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California
3The Supreme Court will also consider two additional questions: (1) whether the
Executive Branchs agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives thisCourt of jurisdiction to decide this case; and (2) whether intervenor-defendant the Bipartisan
Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives has Article III defendant
standing in Windsor.
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 11 of 22 Page ID#:1111
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
17/28
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
6
from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Id. at *i.
The Supreme Court likely will hear oral argument on DOMA Section 3
during the March 2013 argument session, and the Court almost certainly will issue
a decision before it recesses in late June. See Supreme Court Calendar, October
Term 2012, available athttp://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/
2012termcourtcalendar.pdf (June 24, 2012, is last currently-scheduled non-
argument day before Court recesses for remainder of Term). On the same
schedule, the Supreme Court will consider in Perry whether a state constitutionally
can define marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
ARGUMENT
Currently, there are 11 cases challenging the constitutionality of DOMA
Section 3 pending in the U.S. District Courts or Courts of Appeals.4
Except for
this case andAranas v. Napolitano, No. 8:12-cv-01137 (C.D. Cal.), all of these
cases have either been stayed or have fully-briefed dispositive motions pending
(which were pending before the Supreme Courts grant of certiorari in Windsor).
This Court has substantial discretion to grant a stay. [T]he power to stay
proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the
disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself,
for counsel, and for litigants. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S. Ct.
163, 81 L. Ed. 153 (1936); see also Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United
States, 424 U.S. 800, 817, 96 S. Ct. 1236, 47 L. Ed. 2d 483 (1976) (federal courts
decision whether to abstain from a case rest[s] on considerations of [w]ise
judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and
comprehensive disposition of litigation).
The determination of whether to grant a stay calls for the exercise of
judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.
4As noted above, there is one additional case currently pending in the Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims. See Cardona v. Shinseki, No. 11-3083.
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 12 of 22 Page ID#:1112
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
18/28
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
7
Landis, 299 U.S.at 254-55. In determining whether a stay is appropriate, the
Court should consider (1) the possible damage which may result from granting the
stay; (2) the hardship to the parties if the suit is allowed to proceed; and (3) the
orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of
issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.
Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting CMAX, Inc.
v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). These factors counsel in favor of a
stay in this case.
This Court should stay consideration of this case pending a ruling by the
Supreme Court in Windsorbecause:
the identical issue of DOMA Section 3s constitutionality under the
equal protection component of the Due Process Clause presented in
this case is before the Supreme Court in Windsor;
the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear and considerWindsorbefore
the end of its current Term;
the Supreme Courts ruling in Windsorlikely will be dispositive of
this Courts disposition of Plaintiffs equal protection claim as to
DOMA Section 3, which well could be dispositive of Plaintiffs entire
case, and will, at a minimum, substantially inform this Courts
analysis of Plaintiffs Title 38 claim;
this Term in Perry,the Supreme Court also is scheduled to hear and
consider the question of whether a state constitutionally can define
marriage as a union between a man and a woman, the answer to which
undoubtedly will inform, and possibly could control, the outcome of
the Title 38 question in this case;
Plaintiffs can prevail here only if this Court holds unconstitutional
both DOMA Section 3 andthe Title 38 provisions; and
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 13 of 22 Page ID#:1113
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
19/28
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
8
Plaintiffs can make no credible claim of harm from the short delay
occasioned by awaiting the decisions of the Supreme Court in
Windsorand Perry.
I. A Stay Pending a Decision in Windsor Will Promote Judicial Economy.
The overriding consideration here is that the DOMA Section 3 issue being
considered by the Supreme Court in Windsoris legally identical to the DOMA
Section 3 issue raised by the Plaintiffs here. Accordingly, a ruling by the Supreme
Court in Windsoron the merits of Section 3s constitutionality directly will control
this Courts determination of the merits of Plaintiffs DOMA Section 3 claim. If
the Supreme Court were to uphold the constitutionality of DOMA Section 3,
Plaintiffs case would be over, because Plaintiffs can prevail only ifboth DOMA
Section 3 and the Title 38 provisions they challenge are found to be
unconstitutional. That is, if DOMA Section 3 is found constitutional by the
Supreme Court, this Court would have no occasion to reach Plaintiffs Title 38
claim.5
Even if a Supreme Court ruling on DOMA Section 3 is not dispositive of this
case in its entirety (i.e., if the Supreme Court were to find DOMA Section 3
unconstitutional), the decision by the Supreme Court necessarily will be dispositive
of the DOMA Section 3 claim in this case. Moreover, because the definitional
language in 38 U.S.C. 101(3) & (31) differs so little from the language of DOMA
Section 3,6
the ruling in Windsorlikely will shed considerable light on the question
of the constitutionality of 38 U.S.C. 101(3) & (31). See Landis, 299 U.S. at 256
([A] decision in the cause then pending [elsewhere] may not settle every question
5As a practical matter, this Court also would not need to reach the question of whether it
has jurisdiction to hear this case under 38 U.S.C. 511 because it would be clear on the face ofPlaintiffs Complaint that their claims fail based on DOMA Section 3 alone.
6See Letter from Eric H. Holder, Jr., Atty Gen., to the Honorable John A. Boehner,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives at 2 (Feb.17, 2012) (equating 38 U.S.C. 101 (3) & (31)
with DOMA Section 3), attached as Ex. 3 to Notice to the Ct. (Feb. 24, 2012) (ECF No. 16).
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 14 of 22 Page ID#:1114
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
20/28
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
9
of fact and law in suits by other [parties], but in all likelihood it will settle many and
simplify them all.). Any decision in Perry regarding the constitutionality of the
state definition of marriage as between a man and a woman also undoubtedly will
inform this Courts consideration of Plaintiffs Title 38 claim.
This case has been pending before this Court only since February 1, 2012.
The question of DOMA Section 3s constitutionality was first presented to the
Supreme Court on June 29, 2012, and will be argued in March 2013. The scope of
the proposed stay is not immoderate because the length of the stay is almost
certain to conclude with a decision by the Supreme Court, which is expected by the
time the Court recesses in late June 2013. See Landis, 299 U.S. at 257 (a stay is
immoderate and unlawful unless appropriately limited).
This Court should follow the Ninth Circuits lead inDragovich and Golinski
and postpone briefing and argument on the merits pending a final decision by the
Supreme Court in the Windsorand Perry cases.7
Such a stay makes sense for this
Court and makes sense for the parties to avoid[] unnecessary duplication of
judicial machinery. Shipley v. United States, 608 F.2d 770, 775 (9th Cir. 1979)
(quotingAetna State Bank v. Altheimer, 430 F.2d 750, 755 (7th Cir. 1970),
overruled on other grounds byCalvert Fire Ins. Co. v. Will, 560 F.2d 792 (7th Cir.
1977) (district court properly stayed case, but opinion overruled once stay
continued beyond a ruling by Supreme Court),judgment reversed by Will v.
Calvert Fire Ins. Co., 437 U.S. 655, 98 S. Ct. 2552, 57 L. Ed. 2d 504 (1978)).
A stay pending resolution ofWindsorand Perry will allow this Court to
substantially narrow the issues in this case. This Court and the parties will be
better served by preserving scarce judicial and government resources (including
taxpayer dollars) by waiting for the Supreme Court to answer the question of
7Notably,Dragovich, like this case, involves a non-DOMA Section 3 claim. The Ninth
Circuit has stayed that case notwithstanding the other claim in that case. See Order,Dragovich
v. U.S. Dept of the Treasury, Nos. 12-16461 & 12-16628 (9th Cir. Sept. 21, 2012) (ECF No.
12).
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 15 of 22 Page ID#:1115
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
21/28
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
10
DOMA Section 3s constitutionality. See, e.g.,Hosp. of Barstow, Inc.v. Sebelius,
No. 11-cv-10638, 2012 WL 893784, at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012) (granting
HHS Secretarys motion for stay where issues in case were before Ninth Circuit in
another case; stay would promote judicial economy). As such, the prudential
course is for this Court to stay the case until the Supreme Court has an opportunity
to address the constitutionality of DOMA Section 3. Moreover, to require the
parties to proceed to dispositive motion briefing that will, at a minimum, almost
certainly need to be revised in a few short months will place an unnecessary
burden on all parties who will be forced to expend additional time and resources
re-litigating the issues before this Court. Under these circumstances, the balance
tips decidedly in favor of a stay. See Lopez v. Am. Express Bank, FSB, No. 09-cv-
07335, 2010 WL 3637755, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2010) (even though plaintiffs
faced a fair possibility they would be harmed, case stayed pending Supreme
Court resolution of a separate judicial proceeding that [would] directly affect the
case at hand).
II. There is No Fair Possibility Plaintiffs Will Suffer Additional Harm if aStay is Granted.
A. Only the Secretary Can Award the Benefits that Plaintiffs Seek.Plaintiffs do not seek an award of benefits in this case, and with good
reason. The Veterans Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, div. A., 102
Stat. 4105 (1988) (VJRA), codified at various sections in Title 38, confers
exclusive jurisdiction on the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary) to decide
all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under a law
that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to veterans or the dependents
or survivors of veterans. 38 U.S.C. 511;8see alsoVeterans for Common Sense
838 U.S.C. 511 states, in pertinent part:
(a) The Secretary shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision
by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary
to veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans.(Continued . . .)
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 16 of 22 Page ID#:1116
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
22/28
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
11
v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013, 1025 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) ( 511 precludes
jurisdiction over a claim if it requires the district court to review VA decisions that
relate to benefits decisions, including any decision made by the Secretary in the
course of making benefits determinations. (quotation marks and citations
omitted)).9 Because the VJRA confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Secretary over
benefits claims, this Court has no jurisdiction to order an award of benefits by the
VA to Plaintiff Tracey Cooper-Harris nor to order that the VA be bound by its
determination of Plaintiffs constitutional claims. See 38 U.S.C. 511 (explicitly
prohibiting review by way of writ of mandamus);Beamon v. Brown, 125 F.3d 965,
971 (6th Cir. 1997) ([T]he VJRA explicitly granted comprehensive and exclusive
jurisdiction to the [Court of Veterans Appeals] and the Federal Circuit over claims
seeking review of VA decisions that relate to benefits decisions under 511(a).
This jurisdiction includes constitutional issues . . . .). In other words, regardless
of the outcome of this case, Plaintiff Tracey Cooper-Harris must seek a
determination of her right to receive additional dependent benefits through the
administrative review process of the VA.
The injunctive relief that Plaintiffs seek here in the form of an order that
their marriage . . . be recognized by the federal government, which they suggest
Subject to subsection (b), the decision of the Secretary as to any such question
shall befinal and conclusive and may not be reviewed by any other official or byany court, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise .
(emphases added).
9A petition for a writ of certiorari in Veterans for Common Sense, filed on September 5,
2012, currently is pending before the Supreme Court. The petition presents the question ofwhether 38 U.S.C. 511 precludes jurisdiction from federal district courts over systemic
challenges to the United States Department of Veterans Affairs failures to provide timelymedical benefits and to resolve in a timely manner claims for service-connected death and
disability benefits. See Pet. for a Writ of Cert., Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, No. 12-
296 (S. Ct. Sept. 5, 2012), 2012 WL 3902592. A response to this petition was filed onNovember 30, 2012, and the case has distributed for the January 4, 2013 conference. See
Docket, Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, No. 12-296, available athttp://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-296.htm.
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 17 of 22 Page ID#:1117
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
23/28
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
12
will have the effect of conferring benefits, Pls Oppn at 20, plainly is barred by the
VJRA. See 38 U.S.C. 511. Thus, the very most that Plaintiffs can obtain in this
case is declaratory relief which will not result in an award of additional benefits.
B. Any Eventual Award of Compensation Will Date Back to theFiling Date of VA Form 21-686c.
Plaintiffs are aware that benefits only can be awarded by the VA. Indeed,
they candidly acknowledge that Plaintiff Tracey Cooper-Harris already has a
concurrent administrative claim on file. See Pls. Oppn at 8 n.2.
The VAs regulations provide that an award of disability compensation dates
from the date of receipt of the claim. See 38 C.F.R. 3.400 (2006) (Except as
otherwise provided, the effective date of an evaluation and award of . . .
compensation . . . based on . . . a claim for increase will be the date of receipt of
the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is the later.). Accordingly, if
the VA ultimately awards Plaintiff Tracey Cooper-Harris dependent benefit
compensation based on her marriage to Plaintiff Maggie Cooper-Harris, Tracey
will be entitled to those benefits from the filing date of VA Form 21-686c. See 38
C.F.R. 3.400.
In short, any insistence by Plaintiffs that they will lose benefits during the
pendency of a stay, is inaccurate. Rather, if Plaintiff Tracey Cooper-Harris
ultimately is awarded these benefits through the VA administrative process, the
benefits will be awarded from April 19, 2011, onward. See Compl. 40; see also
38 C.F.R. 3.400.
C. Plaintiffs Election of this Forum Over the VA AdministrativeProcess Belies Their Claim of Injury.
Because the VA has exclusive jurisdiction to award benefits, Plaintiffs road
to any potential benefits award necessarily runs through that venue. But the lack of
dispatch with which Plaintiffs have prosecuted their VA claim demonstrates that a
stay here would work minimal, if any, additional harm to them. Plaintiff Tracey
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 18 of 22 Page ID#:1118
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
24/28
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
13
Cooper-Harris filed VA Form 21-686c on April 19, 2011. Compl. 40. Plaintiffs
delayed for six months after they received their second VA Regional Office letter on
August 8, 2011, to file their Complaint in this case. Compl. 43. They also waited
seven months to appeal that same decision to the Board of Veterans Appeals. See
id.; Pls. Oppn at 8 n.2 (On March 19, 2012, Tracey filed VA Form 9, appealing
the VA Regional Offices denial of her claim to the Board of Veterans Appeals
. . . .). Finally, Plaintiff Tracey Cooper-Harris apparently sought a stay of her VA
claim pending resolution of this case, id., which has resulted in further delay.
In other words, Plaintiffs made a series of strategic decisions that has resulted
in their benefits adjudication being substantially delayed before the VA. Their
protracted procedural maneuverings including a decision to not seek[] damages
here, Pls. Oppn at 20; see also Compl. at Prayer for Relief, in an apparent effort
to preserve this Courts jurisdiction. After choosing this much slower method of
resolving their claims, Plaintiffs are hardly in a position to complain that they will be
injured if this Court chooses to await the Supreme Courts likely judgment on
DOMA Section 3s constitutionality before proceeding on Plaintiffs challenge to
that very same statute.
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 19 of 22 Page ID#:1119
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
25/28
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
14
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Houses Motion to Stay Proceedings should
be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ H. Christopher Bartolomucci
H. Christopher Bartolomucci
BANCROFT PLLC10
Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant the
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S.
House of Representatives
December 13, 2012
10Kerry W. Kircher, as ECF filer of this document, attests that concurrence in the filing
of the document has been obtained from signatory H. Christopher Bartolomucci.
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 20 of 22 Page ID#:1120
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
26/28
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
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on December 13, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion of Intervenor-
Defendant to Stay Proceedings with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF
system, which provided an electronic notice and electronic link of the same to the
following attorneys of record through the Courts CM/ECF system:
Caren E. Short, Esquire
Christine P. Sun, Esquire
Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Esquire
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
400 Washington Avenue
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Adam P. Romero, Esquire
Rubina Ali, Esquire
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP7 World Trade Center
New York City, New York 10007
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Eugene Marder, Esquire
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 21 of 22 Page ID#:1121
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
27/28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Randall R. Lee, Esquire
Matthew D. Benedetto, Esquire
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
350 South Grand Avenue Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90071
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Jean Lin, Trial Attorney
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Civil Division - Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue, Northwest
Washington, District of Columbia 20530
[email protected] for the Executive Branch defendants
/s/ Mary Beth Walker
Mary Beth Walker
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69-1 Filed 12/13/12 Page 22 of 22 Page ID#:1122
-
7/30/2019 2:12-cv-00887 #69
28/28
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Western Division
) No. 2:12-cv-00887-CBM (AJWx)
TRACEY COOPER-HARRIS and )
MAGGIE COOPER-HARRIS, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., )
)
Defendants, ))
and )
)
BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY )
GROUP OF THE U.S. HOUSE )
OF REPRESENTATIVES, )
)
Intervenor-Defendant. )
)
UPON CONSIDERATION OF the Motion of Intervenor-Defendant to Stay
Proceedings (Motion), the opposition, if any, and the entire record herein, it is by
this Court this ____ day of _________, 2013, hereby ORDERED
That the Motion is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
That this case is stayed STAYED pending the ruling of the United States
Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307.
___________________________
Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall
United States District Judge
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Case 2:12-cv-00887-CBM-AJW Document 69-2 Filed 12/13/12 Page 1 of 1 Page ID#:1123