Kristin M. PERRY; Sandra B. Stier; Paul T. Katami; Jeffrey J. Zarrillo, Plaintiffs-Appellees, City and County of San Francisco, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of California; Kamala D. Harris, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California; Mark B. Horton, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health & State Registrar of Vital Statistics; Linette Scott, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; Patrick OConnell, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; Dean C. Logan, in his official capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, Defendants, and Dennis Hollingsworth; Gail J. Knight; Martin F. Gutierrez; Hak-Shing William Tam; Mark A. Jansson; Protect-marriage.com - Yes On 8, A Project of California Renewal, as official proponents of Proposition 8, Intervenor-Defendants-Appellants

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit2011-03-23No. No. 10-16696

639 F.3d 1153

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

ORDER

Having considered all of the factors set forth in Nken v. Holder, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 1756, 173 L.Ed.2d 550 (2009), and all of the facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the stay pending appeal, as well as the standard for vacatur set forth in Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 472 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir.2006), we deny Plaintiffs’ motion at this time.