8:12-cv-01137 #52

7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

1/29

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

CENTER FORHUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAWPeter A. Schey (Cal. Bar No. 58232)Carlos R. Holgun (Cal. Bar No. 90754)256 S. Occidental Blvd.Los Angeles, CA 90057Telephone: (213) 388-8693 (Schey Ext. 304, Holgun ext. 309)

Facsimile: (213) [email protected]@centerforhumanrights.org

Additional counsel listed next page

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARTIN R.ARANAS,IRMA RODRIGUEZ, ANDJANE DELEON,

Plaintiffs,

-vs-

JANETNAPOLITANO,Secretary of theDepartment of Homeland Security;DEPARTMENT OF HOMELANDSECURITY;ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS,Director, United States Citizenship and

Immigration Services;andUNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP &IMMIGRATION SERVICES,

Defendants.__________________________________

))))))

)))))))))))))

))))))))

A V - 7 BM (AJWx)

EX PARTE APPLICATION TOCONTINUE INTERVENORSMOTION TO DISMISS.

Argument not requested

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 52 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 23 Page ID #:1089

7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

2/29

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

2Ex Parte Application to Continue Motion to Dismiss Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law

256 S. Occidental Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90057

213/388-8693

Additional counsel for plaintiff Aranas:

PUBLIC LAW CENTERJulie Greenwald (Cal. Bar No. 233714)Monica Ashiku (Cal. Bar No. 263112)601 Civic Center Drive WestSanta Ana, CA 92701Telephone: (714) 541-1010 (Greenwald Ext. 263, Ashiku Ext. 249)Facsimile: (714) 541-5157

[email protected]@publiclawcenter.org

ASIAN LAW ALLIANCEBeatrice Ann M. Pangilinan (Cal. Bar No. 271064)184 Jackson Street, San Jose, CA 95112Telephone: (408) 287-9710Facsimile: (408) 287-0864

Email: [email protected]

Additional counsel for plaintiffs Rodriguez and DeLeon:

LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN &BENNETTGary H. Manulkin (Cal. Bar No.41469)Reyna M. Tanner (Cal. Bar No.197931)10175 Slater Avenue, Suite 111Fountain Valley, CA 92708Telephone: 714-963-8951

Facsimile: [email protected]@yahoo.com

/ / /


7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

3/29

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28




213/388-8693

COME NOW plaintiffs who apply to this Court ex parte for an order continuing

hearing on intervenor-defendant Bipartisan Legal Advisory Groups (BLAG) motion

to dismiss (Dkt. 37) until after the Court has ruled on defendants pending motion to

dismiss, or in the alternative, until 30 days following either the Courts granting

BLAG leave to file an oversize brief or BLAGs filing a brief in support of its

motion to dismiss within the page limit fixed by Local Rule 11-6.

This application is based upon the accompanying memorandum in support of

motion for ex parte application and declaration of counsel pursuant to Local Rule 7-

19.

Dated: October 9, 2012. CENTER FORHUMAN RIGHTS ANDCONSTITUTIONAL LAWPeter A. ScheyCarlos R. Holgun

PUBLIC LAW CENTERJulie Greenwald MarzoukMonica Ashiku

ASIAN LAW ALLIANCEBeatrice Ann M. Pangilinan

LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN &BENNETTGary H. ManulkinReyna M. Tanner

/s/ Peter A. Schey _______________

/s/ Carlos R. Holgun _____________

Attorneys for Plaintiffs/ / /


7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

4/29

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28




213/388-8693

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION

1. Names of opposing counsel.

For defendants: Jesi J. Carlson and Timothy M. Belsan, Department of Justice,

Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section, P.O. Box

868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044; (202) 305-7037;

[email protected], [email protected].

For defendant-intervenor: Kerry W. Kircher, William Pittard, Christine

Davenport, Todd B. Tatelman, Mary Beth Walker, Office of General Counsel, U.S.

House of Representatives, 219 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

20515, 202-225-9700; [email protected],

[email protected], [email protected],

[email protected], [email protected].

2. Reasons for seeking ex parte order; points and authorities.

This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging

discrimination in the granting of benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act

(INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101, et seq., against members of lawful marriages solely

because they are of the same sex. Plaintiffs contend that members of marriages

lawful under the law of the state of celebration are entitled to recognition as

spouses under the INA regardless of their members sex or sexual orientation.

Defendant U.S. Citizenship & Naturalization Services (CIS) does not deny that

members of same-sex marriages qualify as spouses under the INA, but it


7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

5/29

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28




213/388-8693

nevertheless declines to recognize them as such in accord with 3(a) of the Defense

of Marriage Act, Pub. L. 104-199, 3(a), 110 Stat. 2419, codified at1 U.S.C. 7

(DOMA).

By notice filed July 25, 2012, defendants Department of Homeland Security,

et al., advised that they agree DOMA 3 is unconstitutional and that they would not

defend the statute in this proceeding. (Dkt. 5.)

On September 26, 2012, the Court accordingly granted BLAG leave to

intervene as a party-defendant in this action solely to defend the constitutionality of

Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (1 U.S.C. 7). (Dkt. 43.)

On September 15, 2012well before the Court had even permitted it to

interveneBLAG unilaterally filed a motion to dismiss supported by a combined

brief of 60 pages in support of their motion to dismiss and in opposition to plaintiffs

pending motion for preliminary injunction. (Dkt. 37.) It did not lodge its motion or

seek an order permitting it to be filed.

On September 19, 2012, the Court rejected BLAGs oversized brief. (Dkt. 45.)

On October 3, 2012, BLAG asked the Court ex parte to reconsider its order of

September 19, 2012, or in the alternative for leave to file a combined 50-page brief.

(Dkt. 47.)

On October 4, 2012, the Court denied BLAGs application for reconsideration

and ordered it to file separate briefs in support of its motion to dismiss and in

opposition to plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction. (Dkt. 48.)

Undaunted, by email dated October 9, 2012, BLAG advised as follows:


7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

6/29

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28




213/388-8693

In light of the Judges Friday [second] denial of our request to file a revised

consolidated memo in support of our MTD and in opposition to Plaintiffs PI

motion, were going to try again. This time were going to seek leave to file

two separate memos, both oversized: one in support of our MTD

(approximately 45 pages in length) and one in opposition to Plaintiffs PI

motion (approximately 50 pages in length). Needless to say, except for the

section at the end dealing with Plaintiffs asserted injuries, they will be

virtually identical.

Exhibit 1 (emphasis added).

It accordingly appears that BLAG now intends to lodge for a third and fourth

time essentially the same brief the Court has twice rejected. Plaintiffs see no reason

to assume the Court will reverse its prior rulings now. See Standing Order (Dkt. 9) at

4 (Pursuant to Local Rule 11-6, Memoranda of Points and Authorities in support of

or in opposition to motions shall not exceed twenty five (25) pages, absent leave of

Court. Replies shall not exceed ten (10) pages. Only in rare instances and for good

cause shown will the Court grant an application to extend these page limitations.).

To the contrary, as things now stand plaintiffs cannot be sure what arguments

they are required to answer today, when their opposition is due under the stipulated

briefing order of September 26, 2012 (Dkt 44). Fundamental fairness requires that

plaintiffs have fair notice of what arguments they must answer and a reasonable time

to answer them.


7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

7/29

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28




213/388-8693

BLAG could have filed a brief within the page limits of the apposite rule; it

could have filed a conforming brief after the Court first rejected its oversized brief; it

could have filed a conforming brief after the Court again rejected its oversize brief.

Plaintiffs should not be prejudiced by BLAGs refusal or inability to make its case

concisely and in accordance with apposite rules.

Second, there no reason why BLAGs motion to dismiss could not and should

not be heard later on. The Court and the parties are currently dedicating time and

attention to plaintiffs motions for preliminary injunction and class certification and

defendants own motion to dismiss.1

Should the Court grant defendants motion to dismiss, BLAGs motion could

well be substantially truncated, thus allowing it to file a shorter brief in support of

dismissing the remainder of this action. Postponing BLAGs motion to dismiss

would in no way impair its ability to defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the

Defense of Marriage Act.

Though BLAG seeks a quick kill of this important litigation, its motion to

dismiss relies on multiple controversial factual claims to support the constitutionality

of DOMA 3: e.g., that same-sex marriage for federal purposes would have a large

and unpredictable effect on the budgets of various federal agencies;

Memorandum of Points & Authorities In Support of Motion to Dismiss, September

1 Plaintiffs have also initiated limited discovery regarding factual claims defendants make inopposition to plaintiffs motions for preliminary injunction and class certification. Defendants have


7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

8/29

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28




213/388-8693

14, 2012 (Dkt. 37), at 37; that whether same-sex marriage would prove socially

beneficial, socially harmful, or trivial is an empirical question informing DOMA

3s constitutionality, id. at 38; that marriage between a man and a woman has

produced countless immeasurable benefits.), id. at 39; that heterosexual

relationships implicate the state interest in responsible procreation in a different way,

and to a different degree, than do homosexual relationships id. at 41; that

children relate and react differently to mothers and fathers based on the typical

differences between men and women in parenting style, size, and voice tone.Id. at

47.

Intervenor will, of course, insist that DOMAs rationality should be affirmed

on the basis of untested speculative contentions such as those quoted, but plaintiffs

have explainedand defendants agreethat DOMA 3 must withstand heightend

scrutiny. Memorandum of Points & Authorities In Support Of Motion For

Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 12), at 6-10. Plaintiffs are accordingly entitled to test

intervenors factual assertions through discovery and the presentation of independent

evidence.2

declined to cooperate in any discovery at this time, and the parties have met and conferred pursuantto Local Rule 37-1.

2 And even were bare rationality all that is required of a statute that penalizes persons on the basisof sex and sexual orientation, plaintiffs should nonetheless be permitted a fair opportunity topresent evidence showing DOMA 3 wholly irrational. See e.g.,Mathews v. De Castro, 429 U.S.181, 185, 97 S. Ct. 431, 50 L. Ed. 2d 389 (1976) (rational basis test not a "toothless" test.). "[E]venin the ordinary equal protection case calling for the most deferential of standards, [courts] insist onknowing the relation between the classification adopted and the object to be attained."Romer v.Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633, 116 S. Ct. 1620, 134 L. Ed. 2d 855 (1996). The mere explication of ajustification in the face of contrary evidence does not satisfy the rational-basis test.E.g., City of


7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

9/29

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28




213/388-8693

Finally, BLAG has been permitted to intervene for a limited purpose. It should

not be allowed needlessly to arrogate to itself the legitimate prerogatives of the

parties to litigate their respective cases.

To date, however, BLAG improperly filed a motion to dismiss before the

Court had even allowed it to intervene. See, e.g., Coalition to Defend Affirmative

Action v. Granholm, 240 F.R.D. 368, 377 (E.D. Mich. 2006) (motion to dismiss filed

by proposed intervenor stricken because not filed by proper party to case), affd, 501

F.3d 775 (6th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 937 (2008);Michael v. Futhey, 2009

U.S. App. LEXIS 28217, *10; 2009 WL 4981688 (6th Cir. 2009) (As the proposed

Intervenors had not yet been granted intervenor status, the district court denied the

motion ...).

It has since called on Court to rule ex parte not once, but thrice on virtually

identical applications to file overlarge briefs.

Refusing to re-calendar its motion to dismiss, BLAG has since denied

plaintiffs fair notice of what brief they must answer and sought to force the parties

into assuming the Court will eventually grant it leave to file some version or other of

a badly distended brief the Court has already rejected.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs request the Court take BLAGs motion to

dismiss off calendar, subject to re-noticing once the Court has ruled on defendants

pending motion to dismiss.

Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 449-50, 105 S. Ct. 3249; 87 L. Ed. 2d 313.


7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

10/29

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

1

Ex Parte Application to Continue Motion to Dismiss Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law256 S. Occidental Blvd.


213/388-8693

Alternatively, plaintiffs request the Court continue hearing on BLAGs motion

to dismiss such that intervenors motion may be heard 30 days from the time BLAG

files a brief within the page limits of Local Rule 1-6, or the Court permits filing of an

oversized brief. Plaintiffs will file an opposition brief seven days thereafter, and

BLAG would then have seven days to file its optional reply.

Plaintiffs requested orders would avoid a fresh round of uncertainty and

confusion BLAGs multiple requests to file overlarge briefs and pretermit important

constitutional questions has already injected needlessly into these proceedings.

Dated: October 9, 2012. CENTER FORHUMAN RIGHTS ANDCONSTITUTIONAL LAWPeter A. ScheyCarlos R. Holgun

PUBLIC LAW CENTERJulie Greenwald MarzoukMonica Ashiku

ASIAN LAW ALLIANCEBeatrice Ann M. Pangilinan

LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN &BENNETTGary H. ManulkinReyna M. Tanner

/s/ Peter A. Schey _______________

/s/ Carlos R. Holgun _____________

Attorneys for Plaintiffs/ / /

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 52 Filed 10/09/12 Page 10 of 23 Page ID#:1098

7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

11/29

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

1



213/388-8693

DECLARATION RE NOTICE OF EX PARTE APPLICATION

I, Peter A. Schey, declare and say as follows:

1. I am an attorney admitted to the bar of the United States District Court for

the Central District of California. I am one of the attorneys for plaintiffs. My

business address is 256 S. Occidental Blvd., Los Angeles, California, 90057.

2. On October 9, 2012, at 10:55 a.m., I forwarded via email to attorneys for

defendants and intervenor in the within-entitled action the letter annexed hereto as

Attachment A and a proposed stipulation annexed hereto as Attachment B.

3. At 2:22 p.m. of the same day, counsel for defendants, Jesi Carlson, replied

to plaintiffs correspondence as follows: Defendants take no position other than to

indicate that we oppose the scheduling of two separate hearing dates for the motions

currently scheduled for the November 6, 2012 hearing (including BLAGs Motion to

Dismiss, Defendants Partial MTD, Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction and

Motion for Class Certification). To the extent Plaintiffs propose hearing all motions

on an alternative date, we would need to know the proposed date to take the matter

under consideration.


7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

12/29

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

1



213/388-8693

4. At 10:59 a.m. of the same day, counsel for intervenor Bipartisan Legal

Advisory Group, Kerry Kircher, acknowledged having received plaintiffs

correspondence, but intervenors thereafter provided no further response to plaintiffs

efforts to obviate the need for the presentation of the instant ex parte application.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 9th day of October 2012, at Los Angeles, California.

s/Peter A. Schey _________________

Peter A. Schey

/ / /


7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

13/29

Exhibit A


7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

14/29

CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW256 S. OCCIDENTAL BOULEVARD

LOS ANGELES, CA 90057

Telephone: (213) 388-8693 Facsimile: (213) 386-9484

www.centerforhumanrights.org

October 9, 2012

Via email and first class mail

Kerry W. Kircher, General CounselOffice of General Counsel,U.S. House of Representatives219 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515

Jesi J. CarlsonSenior Litigation CounselOffice of Immigration Litigation

P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin StationWashington, D.C. 20044

Re:Martin R. Aranas, et al., v. Janet Napolitano, et al.,No. CV SACV12-1137-JVS(MLGx)

Dear Kerry and Jesi:

We are in receipt of Kerrys email of today stating that in light of the JudgesFriday denial of BLAGs request to file a revised consolidated memo in support of itsMotion to Dismiss and in opposition to Plaintiffs preliminary injunction motion, BLAGintends to seek leave to file two separate memos, both oversized: one in support ofour MTD (approximately 45 pages in length) and one in opposition to Plaintiffs PI

motion (approximately 50 pages in length).

We are also in receipt of Jesis email of today sent on behalf of defendants statingthat defendants do not oppose the relief BLAG seeks regarding the filing of itsoversized briefs.

While plaintiffs did not oppose BLAGs motion to intervene for the limitedpurpose of defending the constitutionality of DOMA, it now appears that BLAGspersistent disregard for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules isprejudicing the efficient litigation of this case.

This process started with BLAG filing a motion to dismiss and noting a hearingdate on its motion before its motion to intervene had been disposed of by the Court.BLAG next filed a motion to dismiss on September 15, 2012, and at that time lodged acombined brief of 60 pages in support of their motion and in opposition to plaintiffspending motion for preliminary injunction. (Dkt. 37). On September 19, 2012, the Courtdenied BLAG leave to file a combined oversized brief. (Dkt. 45)

On October 3, 2012, BLAG asked the Court ex parte to reconsider its order ofSeptember 19, 2012, or in the alternative for leave to file a combined 50-page brief. (Dkt.47). On October 4, 2012, the Court denied BLAGs application for reconsideration and


7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

15/29

Kerry W. KircherJesi J. Carlson

October 9, 2012Page 2 of 2

ordered it to file separate briefs in support of its motion to dismiss and in opposition to

plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction. (Dkt. 48)Now, on the date plaintiffs opposition to BLAGs motion to dismiss is due,

BLAG informs us that it plans to file two oversized briefs, and assumes the Court willgrant its ex parte application allowing it to proceed with two oversized briefs.

Plaintiffs are hard-pressed to file an opposition today to a motion to dismiss thathas not yet been filed. We obviously do not know what arguments BLAG may includeor exclude in its next proposed memorandum of points and authorities in support of itsmotion to dismiss. Nor do we know or wish to predict if the Court will permit BLAG tofile an oversized brief approximately 45 pages in length.

Under these circumstances, we are proposing that BLAG agree that a hearing onBLAGs motion to dismiss be continued to the earliest available hearing date set by theCourt or by BLAG 30 days after BLAGs memorandum of points and authorities insupport of its motion to dismiss is filed and either complies with the local rulesregarding the page limit on such memoranda or following the Courts granting of anyex parte application filed by BLAG to file an oversized memorandum in support of itsmotion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs propose that they will file and serve their opposition to BLAGs motionto dismiss seven (7) days after BLAGs memorandum of points and authorities insupport of its motion to dismiss is filed with the court and either complies with the local

rules regarding the page limit on such memoranda or following the Courts granting ofany ex parte application filed by BLAG to file an oversized memorandum in support ofits motion to dismiss. We propose that BLAG shall file its reply brief, if any, withinseven days after plaintiffs file their opposition brief.

Unless the parties reach agreement on how to proceed, we will seek relief anddirection from the Court through an ex parte application we will file later today.

Unless BLAG agrees to continue a hearing on its motion to dismiss, plaintiffsoppose any further application by BLAG to file an oversized brief in support of itsmotion to dismiss. Should BLAG nevertheless proceed with an ex parte applicationtoday without agreeing to continue hearing on its motion, please fully advise the Court

of plaintiffs position as set forth in this correspondence. We are available for a meetand confer today on these issues and look forward to your prompt response.

Sincerely,

Peter ScheyPresident & Executive Director

enclosure


7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

16/29

Exhibit B


7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

17/29

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAWPeter A. Schey (Cal. Bar No. 58232)Carlos R. Holgun (Cal. Bar No. 90754)256 S. Occidental Blvd.Los Angeles, CA 90057Telephone: (213) 388-8693 (Schey Ext. 304, Holgun ext. 309)






MARTIN R.ARANAS,et al.,

Plaintiffs,

-vs-

JANET NAPOLITANO,Secretary of theDepartment of Homeland Security; etal.,

Defendants.__________________________________

)))))

)))))))))))

- x

STIPULATION TO CONTINUEBIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORYGROUPS MOTION TO DISMISS.

Hearing: None


7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

18/29

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

22Stipulation to Continue Motion to Dismiss Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law



213/388-8693


PUBLIC LAW CENTERJulie Greenwald (Cal. Bar No. 233714)Monica Ashiku (Cal. Bar No. 263112)601 Civic Center Drive West

Santa Ana, CA 92701Telephone: (714) 541-1010 (Greenwald Ext. 263, Ashiku Ext. 249)Facsimile: (714) 541-5157


ASIAN LAW ALLIANCEBeatrice Ann M. Pangilinan (Cal. Bar No. 271064)184 Jackson Street, San Jose, CA 95112Telephone: (408) 287-9710

Facsimile: (408) 287-0864Email: [email protected]


LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN &BENNETTGary H. Manulkin (Cal. Bar No. 41469)Reyna M. Tanner (Cal. Bar No. 197931)10175 Slater Avenue, Suite 111Fountain Valley, CA 92708

Telephone: 714-963-8951Facsimile: [email protected]@yahoo.com

/ / /


7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

19/29

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28




213/388-8693

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties through their

undersigned counsel, that hearing on Defendant-intervenor Bipartisan Legal

Advisory Groups (BLAG) motion to dismiss, currently set for hearing

November 6, 2012, be continued to the earliest available hearing date set byBLAG or the Court 30 days after BLAGs memorandum of points and

authorities in support of its motion to dismiss is filed with the court and

either complies with the local rules regarding the page limit on such

memoranda or following the Courts granting of any ex parte application

filed by BLAG to file an oversized memorandum in support of its motion todismiss.

Plaintiffs shall file and serve their opposition to BLAGs motion to

dismiss seven (7) days after BLAGs memorandum of points and authorities

in support of its motion to dismiss is filed with the court and either complies

with the local rules regarding the page limit on such memoranda or

following the Courts granting of any ex parte application filed by BLAG to

file an oversized memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss. BLAG

shall file its reply brief, if any, within seven days after plaintiffs file their

opposition brief.

This continuance is respectfully requested for the following reasons:

Plaintiffs opposition to BLAGs motion to dismiss is currently due

today, October 9, 2012. (Dkt. 44)


7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

20/29

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28




213/388-8693

BLAG filed its motion to dismiss on September 15, 2012, and at that

time lodged a combined brief of 60 pages in support of their motion and in

opposition to plaintiffs pending motion for preliminary injunction. (Dkt. 37).

On September 19, 2012, the Court denied BLAG leave to file acombined oversized brief. (Dkt. 45)

On October 3, 2012, BLAG asked the Court ex parte to reconsider its

order of September 19, 2012, or in the alternative for leave to file a combined

50-page brief. (Dkt. 47)

On October 4, 2012, the Court denied BLAGs application forreconsideration and ordered it to file separate briefs in support of its motion

to dismiss and in opposition to plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction.

(Dkt. 48)

BLAG has indicated it will require ___ days to file an amended brief

complying with the Courts order.

At this time, plaintiffs do not know what briefing they are required to

answer, and it is accordingly impossible for them to prepare and file an

opposition by today, as required by the Courts order of November 26, 2012.

A proposed order on this stipulation is lodged concurrently herewith.

Dated: October 9, 2012. CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ANDCONSTITUTIONAL LAWPeter A. ScheyCarlos R. Holgun

/s/ Peter A. Schey _____________


7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

21/29

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28




213/388-8693

/s/ Carlos R. Holgun __________


Dated: October 9, 2012. JESI J. CARLSONSenior Litigation CounselDistrict Court Section Office ofImmigration LitigationAttorneys for Defendants

/s/___________________________

Dated: October 9, 2012. Mary Beth WalkerCounsel for Intervenor-Defendant theBipartisan Legal Advisory Group of theUnited States House of Representatives

/s/___________________________

/ / /


7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

22/29

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28




213/388-8693

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

SACV12-01137 CBM (AJWx)

I hereby certify that on this 9th day of October, 2012, I electronically

filed the foregoing STIPULATION CONTINUING MOTION TO DISMISS with the

Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which provided an electronic

notice and electronic link of the same to all attorneys of record through the

Courts CM/ECF system.

Dated: October 9, 2012 /s/ ____________________

/ / /


7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

23/29

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

1



213/388-8693



I hereby certify that on this 9th day of October, 2012, I electronically filed the

foregoing EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE MOTION TO DISMISS with the

Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which provided an electronic notice

and electronic link of the same to all attorneys of record through the Courts

CM/ECF system.

Dated: October 9, 2012 /s/ _Carlos Holguin_______

/ / /


7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

24/29

Exhibit 1

Case 8:12-cv-01137-CBM-AJW Document 52-1 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 2 Page ID#:1112

7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

25/29

In light of the Judges Friday denial of our request to file a revised consolidated memo in support of ourMTD and in opposition to Plaintiffs PI motion, were going to try again. This time were going to seekleave to file two separate memos, both oversized: one in support of our MTD (approximately 45 pages inlength) and one in opposition to Plaintiffs PI motion (approximately 50 pages in length). Needless tosay, except for the section at the end dealing with Plaintiffs asserted injuries, they will be virtuallyidentical.Please let me know whether you consent to our ex parte application to file these two memos.

Thanks.kwk

"Kircher, Kerry"

Jesi Carlson , "[email protected]" , Peter

Schey , Carlos Holguin

"Pittard, William"

DOMA - Aranas Case


7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

26/29

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

CENTER FORHUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAWPeter A. Schey (Cal. Bar No. 58232)Carlos R. Holgun (Cal. Bar No. 90754)256 S. Occidental Blvd.Los Angeles, CA 90057Telephone: (213) 388-8693 (Schey Ext. 304, Holgun ext. 309)






MARTIN R.ARANAS,IRMA RODRIGUEZ, ANDJANE DELEON,

Plaintiffs,

-vs-

JANETNAPOLITANO,Secretary of theDepartment of Homeland Security;DEPARTMENT OF HOMELANDSECURITY;ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS,

Director, United States Citizenship andImmigration Services;andUNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP &IMMIGRATION SERVICES,

Defendants.__________________________________

)))))

)))))))))))))

)))))))))


[PROPOSED]EX PARTE ORDERCONTINUING INTERVENORS

MOTION TO DISMISS.

Argument not requested


7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

27/29

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

2[Proposed] Order Continuing Motion to Dismiss Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law



213/388-8693


PUBLIC LAW CENTERJulie Greenwald (Cal. Bar No. 233714)Monica Ashiku (Cal. Bar No. 263112)601 Civic Center Drive WestSanta Ana, CA 92701Telephone: (714) 541-1010 (Greenwald Ext. 263, Ashiku Ext. 249)Facsimile: (714) 541-5157


ASIAN LAW ALLIANCEBeatrice Ann M. Pangilinan (Cal. Bar No. 271064)184 Jackson Street, San Jose, CA 95112Telephone: (408) 287-9710Facsimile: (408) 287-0864

Email: [email protected]


LAW OFFICES OF MANULKIN &BENNETTGary H. Manulkin (Cal. Bar No.41469)Reyna M. Tanner (Cal. Bar No.197931)10175 Slater Avenue, Suite 111Fountain Valley, CA 92708Telephone: 714-963-8951

Facsimile: [email protected]@yahoo.com

/ / /


7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

28/29

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

3[Proposed] Order Continuing Motion to Dismiss Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law



213/388-8693

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs ex parte application to continue intervenor

Bipartisan Legal Advisory Groups motion to dismiss is granted.

[__] BLAGs motion to dismiss is taken off calendar, subject to re-noticing

after the Court has ruled on defendants pending motion to dismiss.

[__] Hearing on BLAGs motion to dismiss is continued such that intervenors

motion may be heard 30 days from the time the Court either accepts a supporting

brief that does not comply with the Local Rules or BLAG files a brief in support of

its motion to dismiss consistent with the Local Rules and within the page limits of

Local Rule 1-6. Plaintiffs will file an opposition brief seven days thereafter, and

BLAG will then have seven days to file its optional reply.

Dated:________________, 2012. ________________________

United States District Judge

Presented by: Carlos Holgun

One of the attorneys for plaintiffs

/s/Carlos Holguin ________________

/ / /


7/31/2019 8:12-cv-01137 #52

29/29

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28



I hereby certify that on this 9th day of October, 2012, I electronically filed the

foregoing [proposed] EX PARTE ORDER CONTINUING MOTION TO DISMISS with the

Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which provided an electronic notice

and electronic link of the same to all attorneys of record through the Courts

CM/ECF system.

Dated: October 9, 2012 /s/ _Carlos Holguin_______

/ / /


8:12-cv-01137 #52

Documents