United States Court of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
v.
PROPOSITION 8 OFFICIAL
PROPONENTS,
Defendant-intervenor-Appellee,
CAMPAIGN FOR CALIFORNIA FAMILIES,
Defendant-intervenor-Appellant,
15347
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW
Case: 09-16959 11/19/2009
Document306
Page: 2 ofFiled12/11/09
17 DktEntry:
Page2
7136152
of 17
and
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his
official capacity as Governor of
California; EDMUND G. BROWN, JR.,
in his 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 No. 09-16959
Department of Public Health; D.C. No.
PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his official
capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the
3:09-cv-02292-
VRW
County of Alameda; DEAN C.
OPINION
LOGAN, in his official capacity as
Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk
for the County of Los Angeles,
Defendants,
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH; GAIL J.
KNIGHT; HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM;
MARK A. JANSSON;
PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM- YES ON 8,
A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA
RENEWAL,
Defendant-intervenors,
MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ,
Defendant-intervenor.
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW
Case: 09-16959 11/19/2009
Document306
Page: 3 ofFiled12/11/09
17 DktEntry:
Page3
7136152
of 17
OPINION
BACKGROUND
1
As to other parties seeking intervention, the district court granted the
City of San Francisco’s motion to intervene in part, but denied interven-
tion to a coalition of gay and lesbian advocacy groups.
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW
Case: 09-16959 11/19/2009
Document306
Page: 6 ofFiled12/11/09
17 DktEntry:
Page6
7136152
of 17
I. INTERVENTION AS OF RIGHT
24, we do not consider standing here. See id. (noting that “we need not
reach [the issue of standing] because . . . the district court erred in granting
intervenor-defendants’ motion to intervene on grounds other than whether
intervenor-defendants had independent standing”); see also Portland
Audubon Soc. v. Hodel, 866 F.2d 302, 308 n.1 (9th Cir. 1989) (noting that
“we in the past have resolved intervention questions without making refer-
ence to standing doctrine”).
Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW
Case: 09-16959 11/19/2009
Document306
Page: 8 ofFiled12/11/09
17 DktEntry:
Page8
7136152
of 17
CONCLUSION