Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    State Bar #139669: Motion For Leave To File Brief of San Francisco With Supporting Declaration (Proposed) Order

    Uploaded by

    Equality Case Files
    The City and County of San Francisco filed a motion for leave to submit an amicus brief in a federal case challenging California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage. As an issuer of marriage licenses, San Francisco has a direct interest in the legal issues. It also has a large LGBT community and believes denying marriage equality violates citizens' rights. San Francisco developed expertise in prior marriage equality cases and its analysis could assist the court in deliberations over Proposition 8's constitutionality.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    State Bar #139669: Motion For Leave To File Brief of San Francisco With Supporting Declaration (Proposed) Order

    Uploaded by

    Equality Case Files
    20 views3 pages
    The City and County of San Francisco filed a motion for leave to submit an amicus brief in a federal case challenging California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage. As an issuer of marriage licenses, San Francisco has a direct interest in the legal issues. It also has a large LGBT community and believes denying marriage equality violates citizens' rights. San Francisco developed expertise in prior marriage equality cases and its analysis could assist the court in deliberations over Proposition 8's constitutionality.

    Original Description:

    Doc #50

    Original Title

    3:09-cv-02292 #50

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The City and County of San Francisco filed a motion for leave to submit an amicus brief in a federal case challenging California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage. As an issuer of marriage licenses, San Francisco has a direct interest in the legal issues. It also has a large LGBT community and believes denying marriage equality violates citizens' rights. San Francisco developed expertise in prior marriage equality cases and its analysis could assist the court in deliberations over Proposition 8's constitutionality.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    20 views3 pages

    State Bar #139669: Motion For Leave To File Brief of San Francisco With Supporting Declaration (Proposed) Order

    Uploaded by

    Equality Case Files
    The City and County of San Francisco filed a motion for leave to submit an amicus brief in a federal case challenging California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage. As an issuer of marriage licenses, San Francisco has a direct interest in the legal issues. It also has a large LGBT community and believes denying marriage equality violates citizens' rights. San Francisco developed expertise in prior marriage equality cases and its analysis could assist the court in deliberations over Proposition 8's constitutionality.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document50 Filed06/18/09 Page1 of 3

    1 DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669


    City Attorney
    2 THERESE M. STEWART, State Bar #104930
    Chief Deputy City Attorney
    3 DANNY CHOU, State Bar #180240
    Chief of Complex and Special Litigation
    4 CHRISTINE VAN AKEN, State Bar #241755
    Deputy City Attorney
    5 MOLLIE M. LEE,* State Bar #251404
    Deputy City Attorney
    6 City Hall, Room 234
    One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
    7 San Francisco, California 94102-4682
    Telephone: (415) 554-4708
    8 Facsimile: (415) 554-4699

    9
    Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
    10 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

    11

    12
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    13
    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    14
    KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW
    15 PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J.
    ZARRILLO, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF
    16 AMICUS CURIAE CITY AND COUNTY OF
    Plaintiffs, SAN FRANCISCO WITH SUPPORTING
    17 DECLARATION; [PROPOSED] ORDER
    vs.
    18 AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF
    ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A
    19 official capacity as Governor of California; PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
    EDMUND G. BROWN JR., in his official
    20 capacity as Attorney General of California; Hearing Date: July 2, 2009
    MARK B. HORTON, in his official capacity Time: 10:00 a.m.
    21 as Director of the California Department of Place: Courtroom 6, 17th Fl.,
    Public Health and State Registrar of Vital 450 Golden Gate Ave.
    22 Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official
    capacity as Deputy Director of Health Trial Date: Not set
    23 Information & Strategic Planning for the
    California Department of Public Health;
    24 PATRICK O'CONNELL, in his official
    capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of
    25 Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his
    official capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County
    26 Clerk for the County of Los Angeles,

    27 Defendants.

    28 * Admission to the Northern District of California pending.

    MO/BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE SAN FRANCISCO n:\govli1\li2009\070779\00563478.doc


    CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
    Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document50 Filed06/18/09 Page2 of 3

    1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

    2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT the City and County of San Francisco respectfully requests

    3 the Court's leave to participate as amicus curiae in the above-captioned case in support of Plaintiffs'

    4 motion for preliminary injunction. Amicus has conferred with counsel for the Defendants and

    5 Proposed Intervenors, and all counsel have consented to this motion.

    6 I. STANDARD FOR MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE

    7 The Court has broad discretion to permit third parties to participate in an action as amici curiae.

    8 Gerritsen v. de la Madrid Hurtado, 819 F.2d 1511, 1514 n.3 (9th Cir. 1987). Participation of amici

    9 curiae may be particularly appropriate where the legal issues in a case have potential ramifications

    10 beyond the parties directly involved or where amici can offer a unique perspective that may assist the

    11 Court. Sonoma Falls Devs., LLC v. Nev. Gold & Casinos, Inc., 272 F. Supp.2d 919, 925 (N.D. Cal.

    12 2003).

    13 II. STATEMENT OF IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

    14 The City and County of San Francisco is a unit of local government charged with the

    15 responsibility to issue civil marriage licenses and to solemnize and record marriages. See Cal. Fam.

    16 Code §§ 67, 300, 350, 359, 400, 401, 423. Proposition 8 presently compels San Francisco to deny

    17 lesbian and gay couples the marriage licenses that it issues to similarly situated heterosexual couples,

    18 even though San Francisco believes this violates the federal constitutional rights of its lesbian and gay

    19 citizens. See Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, 33 Cal. 4th 1055, 1080–82, 1085–86

    20 (2004) (city and county officials may not decline to enforce statutory restrictions on marriage until

    21 appellate court holds them unconstitutional). San Francisco therefore has a direct interest in the

    22 vindication Plaintiffs seek in this case.

    23 The discriminatory marriage regime imposed by Proposition 8 is also at odds with San

    24 Francisco's fundamental values, which include the belief that its lesbian and gay citizens should be

    25 treated with the same dignity and respect as all other citizens. San Francisco has a large and vibrant

    26 lesbian and gay community and is often a leader in political and legal actions to recognize and protect

    27 the rights of lesbians and gay men. For this reason, too, San Francisco is keenly interested in the

    28 resolution of this case.


    MO/BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE SAN FRANCISCO 1 n:\govli1\li2009\070779\00563478.doc
    CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW
    Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document50 Filed06/18/09 Page3 of 3

    III. REASONS WHY AMICUS CURIAE'S EXPERTISE WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO THIS


    1 COURT
    2 As one of the lead Plaintiffs in In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757 (2008), and Strauss v.
    3 Horton, 2009 WL 1444594, San Francisco developed extensive knowledge of many of the legal and
    4 factual issues raised in the above-captioned matter. In particular, San Francisco has developed
    5 expertise in the history of discrimination against gay men and lesbians, the use of initiative measures
    6 to repeal advances in equality for gay men and lesbians, and the recent cases regarding marriage
    7 equality in California. San Francisco respectfully suggests that its analysis of these issues could assist
    8 the Court in its deliberations.
    9 IV. CONCLUSION
    10 Wherefore, San Francisco requests this Court's leave to submit an amicus brief in support of
    11 Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction.
    12
    Dated: June 18, 2009 DENNIS J. HERRERA
    13 City Attorney
    THERESE M. STEWART
    14 Chief Deputy City Attorney
    DANNY CHOU
    15 Chief of Complex & Special Litigation
    CHRISTINE VAN AKEN
    16 MOLLIE M. LEE
    Deputy City Attorneys
    17

    18
    By: /s/
    19 THERESE M. STEWART

    20 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae


    CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    27

    28
    MO/BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE SAN FRANCISCO 2 n:\govli1\li2009\070779\00563478.doc
    CASE NO. 09-CV-2292 VRW

    You might also like