No.

14-50196
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
CLEOPATRA DE LEON, NICOLE DIMETMAN, VICTOR HOLMES, and
MARK PHARISS,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
RICK PERRY, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas;
GREG ABBOTT, in his official capacity as Texas Attorney General; and
DAVID LAKEY, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Texas
Department of State Health Services,
Defendants-Appellants.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT
OF TEXAS, SAN ANTONIO DIVISION, NO. 5:13-CV-00982

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
APPELLANTS MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME

DANIEL McNEEL LANE, JR. (TX #2367886)
BARRY A. CHASNOFF (TX # 4153500)
MATTHEW E. PEPPING (TX # 24065894)
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER
& FELD LLP
300 Convent St., Ste. 1600
San Antonio, Texas 78205
Telephone: 210.281.7000
Facsimile: 210.224.2035
nlane@akingump.com
bchasnoff@akingump.com
mpepping@akingump.com
JESSICA WEISEL (CA# 174809)
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER
& FELD LLP
2029 Century Park East, Ste. 2400
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: 310.229.1000
Facsimile: 310.229.1001
jweisel@akingump.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS - APPELLEES
CLEOPATRA DE LEON, NICOLE DIMETMAN, VICTOR HOLMES, AND MARK PHARISS.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512700424 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2014
1

ARGUMENT
Appellees oppose Appellants motion for an extension of time through July
28, but would not oppose a brief extension through this Friday, July 18, in order for
Appellants to finalize their brief, which by now has surely been written.
In its February 26, 2014 order granting the preliminary injunction (the
Order) that is the subject of the instant appeal, the district court found that Texas
ban on same-sex marriages deprives Appellees of their Fourteenth Amendment due
process and equal protection rights. (E.g., Order at 2.) Moreover, the district court
found that Texas law caused Appellees to suffer irreparable harm due to the denial
of their Constitutional rights. (Order at 43-44.) However, recognizing that the
Supreme Court and courts in other circuits had stayed similar orders, the district
court stayed its order pending resolution of an appeal to this Court.
Appellees did not oppose Appellants first request for a one-week extension.
Yesterday, the day before their brief is due, Appellants requested a second
extension of effectively 12 days. The only justification offered in the Motion for
Extension of Time is that the Solicitor General needs sufficient time to prepare a
brief that is thorough, accurate, and helpful to the Court. (Mot. at 2.) However,
the Solicitor General has had nearly five months since the Order was entered and
the Notice of Appeal was filed, and previously indicated the brief would be ready
for filing today.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512700424 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2014
2

The Motion should be denied because Appellants do not offer a justifiable
basis to extend their briefing deadline. It is now nearly five months since the
district court issued the injunction and Appellants filed their notice of appeal.
Docket No. 74, De Leon v. Perry, No. 5:13-cv-982 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2014).
Appellees filed a motion to seek expedited briefing in April 2014, which
Appellants opposed, because Appellees constitutional rights were being denied.
Opposed Motion for Expedited Appeal of Hearing, De Leon v. Perry, No. 14-
50196 (5th Cir. filed April 14, 2014). The Court denied that request and issued its
briefing notice on May 30, 2014forty-seven days ago. The briefing notice
originally required Appellants to submit their brief by July 9, 2014. On July 3,
2014, Appellees agreed to and the Court granted Appellants request for a one-week
extension, moving Appellants briefing deadline to July 16, 2014. In light of the
reasons proffered by Appellants, Appellees cannot agree to the requested extension.
The Solicitor Generals vague claim of being too busy to prioritize this appeal
simply does not justify further delaying this dispute. Appellees are suffering
irreparable harm due to the violation of their Constitutional rights, and that harm
should not be extended merely because nearly five months have proven an
insufficient amount of time for the Solicitor General to prepare Appellants opening
brief.
Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512700424 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/16/2014
3

The Motion also should be denied because it fails to comply with this
Courts rules. First, it fails the requirements of Fifth Circuit Local Rule 31.4.2,
which states: As justification for extensions, generalities such as that the purpose
of the motion is not for delay or that counsel is too busy are not sufficient. 5th
Cir. L.R. 31.4.2. Instead, where a party moves for an extension due to conflicts
with other matters, the moving party must: (1) identify the other matter by caption,
number, and court; (2) describe any efforts to defer the other litigation and any
ruling thereon; (3) explain why other litigation should receive priority over the
matter in this Court; and (4) provide any other relevant circumstances, including
why other associated counsel cannot prepare the brief or relieve the movants
counsel of the other litigation. 5th Cir. L.R. 31.4.2(a). Second, the motion is
untimely. By rule, extension requests must be filed at least 7 days before the due
date. . . . 5th Cir. L.R. 31.4.1(a). As the Motion reflects, the current due date for
Appellants opening brief is July 16, 2014. (Mot. at 1.) Filing this Motion the
evening before the brief is due plainly violates this Courts rule.
Appellees oppose Appellants request to extend their filing deadline to July
28, 2014. However, as stated above, Appellees do not oppose a brief extension
through Friday, July 18, 2014.

Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512700424 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/16/2014
4

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion should be denied.

Dated: July 16, 2014 AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER &
FELD LLP

By: s/ Daniel McNeel Lane, Jr.
Daniel McNeel Lane, Jr.

Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellees
Cleopatra De Leon, Nicole Dimetman,
Victor Holmes, and Mark Phariss



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies the foregoing document has been filed with
the clerk of the court and served by ECF on July 16, 2014 upon all counsel of
record.


s/ Daniel McNeel Lane, Jr.
Daniel McNeel Lane, Jr.

Case: 14-50196 Document: 00512700424 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/16/2014