SUPREME COURT Copy

"1. .(') il.\ '.::"'"1

. \. , .. /.

L.... - ;1
FEB 16 ZOll
fU' :9
Case No. 8189476
_.
CALlFOltNlA SlJIUMB COURT
PERRY, etc, et a4
PLAlNTIFF\REsPONoENT
VS.
SCHWARTZENEGOER
On C.ertit'iCd Question from
The 9
iTi
Ckcuit Court of Appeal
Case # 10-16696
APPLICA110N TO BE RELIEVED OF DEFAULT
Pursuant to Califumia Rule ofCourt, Rule 8.6O(d), an order
to file tetter brief, and grant Amicus Curiae Standing in this
court; Proofof service
JAMES JOSEPH LYNCH, JR.
AtlDmey At Law (SON 8S8Q5)
POB215802
CA 95821-8302
Phone: (916) 312-7369
Alternate:
Email: jjlynehjr@jamesjosephlynchjr.com
S189476 10
APPUCATION
MARGIE REILLY, amicus curiae in the 9&11 Circuit, HEREBY APPLIES, pursuant to
California Rules of Court, Rule 8.6O(d) to be relieved of default and an order permitting the
filing of her letter brief in support of granting the Certification request and fur permitting her
appearance herein.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
The 9
th
circuit filed its ORDER CERTIFYING A QUESTION TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF CALIFORNIA, on January 4, 2011.
The City Attorney of San Francisco by its letter brief ofJ.anuary 24,2011, requested ~ s
court accept the certification.
Amicus Curiae did not have notice of the request for certification and first learned of it
when served with the City and County of San Francisco letter brief dated January 24, 2011 by
mail on or abo\1t January 29. Amicus Curiae served, and mailed to this court, her letter brief
setting out why this court ought to accept the certified question, stated another related question,
as permitted by the <jh Circuit Order, on February 7.
Plaintiff was without notice of the order of certification. That order appears to be dated
January 24. 20 days from 1/24 would be Febnwy 13. Hence the letter briefis timely. The clerk
insisted the Ietw- briefwas late. As Rule 8.543(e)(1) is without limitation on who may support
the certified question in this case, the abbn:viated"parties" in (e)(2) was understood to mean aU
of those listed in (e)(I). Under that construction, Amicus letter brief was timely. The clerk
insisted amicus was not a party, therefore could not file under (e). The clerk insisted that
Amicus was not a party. hence rule (e)(2) was not available for her use.
I followed the applicable ~ infra, which suggested that Amicus was timely.
It is unlikely that anyone would be prejudiced in responding should the court grant the
application.
This application follows.
APPUCABLE RULE OF COURT
Rule 8.548{e), provides as follows:
(e) Letters in support or opposition
(1) Within 20 days after the request is f i J ~ any party or othe1' peISOO or
entity wanting to support or oppose the request must send a letter to the
Supreme Court. with service on the parties and on the requesting court.
(2) Within 10 days after service of a letter under (1), any party may
1
send a reply letter to the SUpreme Court. with service on the other
parties and the JBqUeSting court.
(3) A letter or reply asking the court to restate the question under
(f)(5) must propose new WOfding.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
I.
A PARTY MAY APPLY TO VACATE A DEFAULT
California Rules,of Court provide, inte1' alia:
"Rnle 8.6O(d) Retiefftom default
"For good cause, a Rviewing court may relieve a party iiom default fur any failure
to comply with these mIes except the failtIm to file a timely notice ofappeal or a timely
statement of reasonable grounds in s ~ of a certificate ofprobable cause.
"(Subd (d) relettered effective January 1,2001; adopted as Subd (e).)'"
ll.
DUE PROCESS PROTECTS APPElJ.ATE RIGHTS
Due process requires that an. opposing party have a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
Pennoyerv. Ne.f}; 95 US 714 (1878) ."),foOowed in Bumham v. Superior Court OjCaJ., Marin
County, 495 U.S. 604 (1990); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 is 254 (1m.
All parties, including amicus curiae, in THE 9TI-l Circuit are entitled to notice and
opportunity to be heard because the issues affi:ct the disposition in a court where amicus is an
interested person in the outcome. See generQ/ly, Pl!1I1It1)IUv. Neft supra.,
The court should grant the motion for leave to file the letter briet: and enter Amicus'
request to note her appeanmce.
CONCLUSION
WEREFORE AMICUS prays that the court enter her appearance and order the filing of
her letter brief.
Dated; 02113/11
JAMES JOSEPH L
Attorney for Amicus
2
DECLARATION OF COUNSEL
I ~ JAMES JOSPH LYNCH, ~ heRby declare:
I am the attorney fur Amicus curia, and penonaIIy familiar with the faas regarding the
procedures followed in this case..
I incotporate by retere.t1Ce the STATEMENT OF THE FAct'S IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION set furth supra at page 1.
I declare UDder penalty of perjury undr:r the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and c:otte:d 2Dd dUll this declanrioD. W1IS c:ucutr.d on [date:} 02113111
lAMES JOSPH LvAdlrM
Attorney At Law
3
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, JAMES JOSEPH LYNCi4 JR (SBN 8 5 3 0 S ) ~ am a citilm ofthc United States, a member of
the California bet, and DOt aparty to the within action.
On Febmary 7,2011, J served the foDowing doeume.ut:
LETTER TO 1HE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT re certification request pending from the
9
1b
Cir Cowt ofAppcal, Case # 16-16696
On eacla ofthe following persons by the Mode of Service indicated:
earthlink
_ 1 _
s
PS
PS
SPS auf Benjamin UntDn SPS
1 KeystDne Avenue
oshua Irwin Sc::hiIIer
. JasonBdan
IES, SCHflJ.ER &
FU:xNER. LlP
15 Lexington A.... fir
York. NY 10022
C. Mefir-.neier. Jr SPS
Stroud
GlASSUAN
STROUOLLP
9th Street, Stita 1700
\SaC:ran'l8l1lto, CA 9581-4
Michael Go1dman
SCHILLER &
NER. UP
1999 HarrisOn Street
1Oak1and. CA 94812
IL 60082
SPS J. ShackelfOrd. SPS
hief Counsel
Mateer
-7.
PS
SPS
SPS
D. S1aYe':
COUNSEL
055 Maitland Center
2
nd
Rr.
Nine. CA 94612
S.S...
fnstitsdft
W PItMlO Parttway,
1600
......IIU.. TX 7S07S
s
PS
. L W8sseI
NNtNG & MARDER KASSl
Obstter
on
. L Stayer
BERTY COUNSEL
.0. Box 54Qn4 '
FL32854
1730 M Street N.W., Suite
10
Lynn Dennis Wardle SPS
Cherokee J.n.
H'Cl1lO, UT 84604
LLP
1 S. Figuefoe Street
Angeles. CA 90017
KentEhat S
aBJomia Legal ReseaJch.
nco
187 North 1150 East
1Lll1l1AIlI1., UT 84042-2527
Uzabe1h J. Cabr8Ier
fEFF CABAASER
EtMANN&
NSTEIN, LLP
!Emlt.rcilldero center West
7S __, S1Net. 29 th Ar
Francisco,' CA 94111
SPS HunWMoon SPS
F.Maees
R. PWAI., Jr.
nitBd StaIM CIdhaIic
11 Four1h S1nllet.
.E.
0020017
Frands Sweeney Thomas 0'Ban
EY & GREENE llP tenKW8ggoner
Cent8r II S, U&
1 E. Stockton Blvd., Ste. NSTRY. PllC
18 uit84900
Ik GrtMI, CA 95624 Pl8ceTower
Find Avenl.8,
A
WA98121
S S
John Pafford SPS
Roth
5ekuIow
CENTER FOR
.W
FFORD, LAWRENCE &
OSS, PLlC
1100 ComrneR:e Street
ynchburg, VA 24504
-4
s
PS
SPS
SPS
SPS
SPS
eat'1ichaet
5elindaWBy
Gatos, CA 95032
erbert Geofge Grey SPS
ttomey at Law
uite320
S.W. Griffith Drive
IBeaverb:>n, OR 97005
PS
sPS'
SPS
SPS
SPS
SPS
SPS
USPS
B.Wydra,Chief
. 300
129 K Street, NW
. OC20006
unset
onstitutional AccountabiJ
ugene Dong
86 HoRy oak OrNe
aID Alto, CA 94303
_l\_
" -
1200 18th Street NW
8shington, DC 20038
S.w.Id
jStarmm Law Sc:hoaI
~ m Quadrangle
Nahm AMal w..,
talldfani, CA 94305
uI Man:h Smith
\JENNER & BLOCK LLP
. 900
1099 New Yen Avenue. NW
ashington, DC 20001
s
SPS
Ho, MsistInt CounIeI
Cp Legat Defense and
1EdU::a1io1't81 ~
SPS
SPS
AshbuI1Dn Piaat
MA02108
FIShman
Mall'DUlis
NN EMANUEL
RQUHART&
IVAN, LlP
Twin DaIphin OrNe.
th Floor
edwood Shares. CA .
ohn D. Freed
NGTON & BURUNG
LP
- Front StnMtt, Sun. 3500
an Fnmdsco, CA 94111
SPS iter Pizer
L A J l m [ ~ LEGAl
EFENSEANO
DUCATION FUND,
NC.
325 Wdshife BWd.,
Lite 1300
os Angeles, CA
1Q..1729
PS
s
SPS
s
SPS
PS
CaIc:lW8lllesle &

1000'llillhire BJvd.,

AJtgeIea. CA 90017
CA 92101.08498
s SPS
west 1181h SInMt
Y NY1Q027

"
Deputy fgov.OI8
City HaD. Room 234 .
_ Dr. C.-B, QQQcIIctt Pl
941..4612
USPS senric:8 waa salingIJ'Ue Md correct copy of the doc:&.II*It in
9f18Iat:Ie. poetIIte and d8paaiIItg the..",.. into a fIICiIIy of the United St8les
Postontee
All other 88fYice WD by Em8iI shown by email addIea and was accomplished by standard
llItehiemail.
I declare under penally of perjury under the laws of1M State of CaIifomia thetthe fcngoing
is true and correct.
EXECUlED FEBRUARY 15, 2011.
IsJ James JoIeJJh Lynch. Jr.
JAMES JOSEPH lYNCH, JR.
-7