Court Filings

5 pages
145 views

09-17241 #21

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 5
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Share
Description
Doc #21
Transcript
  N OS .   09-17241,   09-17551U NITED S TATES C OURT OF A PPEALS  F OR T HE N INTH C IRCUIT   KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees ,v.DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al.  Defendant-Intervenors-Appellants .Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of CaliforniaCivil Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW (Honorable Vaughn R. Walker)  APPELLANTS’/PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEEDPAGE LIMITATIONS Andrew P. PugnoL AW O FFICES OF A NDREW P.   P UGNO  101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100Folsom, California 95630(916) 608-3065; (916) 608-3066 FaxBrian W. RaumJames A. CampbellA LLIANCE D EFENSE F UND  15100 North 90th StreetScottsdale, Arizona 85260(480) 444-0020; (480) 444-0028 FaxCharles J. Cooper   David H. Thompson   Howard C. Nielson, Jr.   Nicole J. MossJesse PanuccioPeter A. PattersonC OOPER AND K IRK ,   PLLC1523 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 220-9600; (202) 220-9601 Fax  Attorneys for Appellants/Petitioners Case 09-17241 Document 21 Filed 11/23/09 2 pagesCase 09-17551 missing from docket    - 1 -Pursuant to 9th Cir. R. 32-2, Appellants/Petitioners respectfully seek theCourt’s leave to file a brief in excess of the ten pages allotted by rule for replies tomotions. See Fed. R. App. P. 27(d)(2). Specifically, Appellants/Petitioners res-pectfully submit that an expanded page limit of 15 pages is warranted and requestthe Court’s leave to file a brief of that length.Appellants’ reply brief addresses both the jurisdictional issues implicated bythe show-cause briefing and the merits issues relating to the stay application. ThisCourt in its November 20 order permitted Appellees/Respondents to file a brief that exceeded the usual page limits for a single brief in opposition to a motion, andAppellees have filed a brief of 35 pages. We respectfully submit that the same ra-tionale warrants an expansion of the page limits governing Appellants’/Petitioners’reply brief. We therefore request leave to file a reply brief of no more than 15pages.Dated: November 23, 2009 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Charles J. Cooper Charles J. CooperAttorney for Appellants  N OS .   09-17241,   09-17551U NITED S TATES C OURT OF A PPEALS  F OR T HE N INTH C IRCUIT   KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees ,v.DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al.  Defendant-Intervenors-Appellats .Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of CaliforniaCivil Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW (Honorable Vaughn R. Walker)  DECLARATION OF JESSE PANUCCIO Andrew P. PugnoL AW O FFICES OF A NDREW P.   P UGNO  101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100Folsom, California 95630(916) 608-3065; (916) 608-3066 FaxBrian W. RaumJames A. CampbellA LLIANCE D EFENSE F UND  15100 North 90th StreetScottsdale, Arizona 85260(480) 444-0020; (480) 444-0028 FaxCharles J. Cooper   David H. Thompson   Howard C. Nielson, Jr.   Nicole J. MossJesse PanuccioPeter A. PattersonC OOPER AND K IRK ,   PLLC1523 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 220-9600; (202) 220-9601 Fax  Attorneys for Appellants/Petitioners Case 09-17241 Document 21-1 Filed 11/23/09 3 pages    - 1 -I, Jesse Panuccio, declare as follows:1.   I am an attorney at the law firm of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, and I am one of the attorneys for Appellant/Petitioners Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Mar-tin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam, Mark A. Jannson, and ProtectMar-riage.com – Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal. I make this declaration insupport of Appellants/Respondents’ Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitationsin connection with their Reply in Support of (1) Motion for Stay and (2) Brief inResponse to Order to Show Cause, submitted pursuant to an Order of this Courtdated November 20, 2009. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein.2.   Per the Court’s November 20, 2009 order, Appellees/Respondents’ responsebrief addressed two issues—their opposition to the Appellants/Petitioners motionfor a stay and the jurisdictional issue raised in the Court’s order to show cause. Inthe same order, the Court expanded the page limitation for Appellees/Respondents’response to thirty-five pages. Nov. 20, 2009 Order at 3. Appellants/Petitioners re-ply addresses both arguments, as well; consequently, they respectfully request thatthey be permitted to exceed the page limitations that would ordinarily govern a re-ply to a motion.
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x