Case: 12-16729

08/31/2012

ID: 8306842

DktEntry: 9

Page: 1 of 4

Case No. 12-16729 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION; JOHN DUMMETT; LEONARD VOLODARSKY; CREG MARONEY, Appellants, v.

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE; AND DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ,

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS EMERGENCY MOTION FOR INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL

ie

nd s

Fr

of

Th e

Appeal from the United States District Court, District of Arizona District Court No. 2:11-cv-02089

Paul F. Eckstein D. Andrew Gaona PERKINS COIE LLP 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788 Telephone: 602.351.8000 Facsimile: 602.648.7000 peckstein@perkinscoie.com agaona@perkinscoie.com

Attorneys for Appellees Democratic National Committee and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz

Fo

Appellees.

gb

ow

.c o

Case: 12-16729

08/31/2012

ID: 8306842

DktEntry: 9

Page: 2 of 4

On August 31, 2012, Appellants filed an Emergency Motion for

filed on August 10, 2012, which is now fully briefed.

Appellants Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal dated August 24, 2012 [Doc. 6-

Motion. Specifically, Appellants request for an injunction pending appeal should

sustain irreparable harm; (3) the balance of equities weighs decidedly against them; and (4) the public interest does not favor granting temporary equitable relief that would harm both President Obama and the tens of millions of Americans who wish to cast a vote in his favor on November 6, 2012.

making. The district court entered its order of dismissal on July 11, 2012 [R. 41],

Fr

ie

nd s

and Appellants did not file their notice of appeal until August 6, 2012 [R. 43],

some 26 days later. Appellants then waited another 25 days to file the Emergency Motion, and did so on the last working day before they claim that injunctive relief is required. The Court should not reward Appellants failure to timely assert their right to request emergency relief when they have been well aware of the alleged

of

Moreover, Appellants claimed emergency is entirely of their own

Th e
1

Fo

be denied because: (1) they are certain to fail on the merits; (2) they will not

gb

1], which is incorporated herein by reference, Appellees oppose the Emergency

ow

For the reasons set forth in Appellees Response in Opposition to

.c o

is substantively identical to their Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 4-1]

Preliminary Injunction (the Emergency Motion) with this Court [Doc. 8-1] that

Case: 12-16729

08/31/2012

ID: 8306842

DktEntry: 9

Page: 3 of 4

deadline imposed by the holding of the Democratic National Convention since

Dated: August 31, 2012.

Respectfully submitted,

Fr

ie

nd s

of

Th e

Fo

Attorneys for Appellees Democratic National Committee; and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz

gb

s/ D. Andrew Gaona Paul F. Eckstein D. Andrew Gaona PERKINS COIE LLP 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788

ow

.c o

they first instituted this litigation in October 2011. [R. 1.]

Case: 12-16729

08/31/2012

ID: 8306842

DktEntry: 9

Page: 4 of 4

Certificate of Service

appellate CM/ECF system on August 31, 2012.

the appellate CM/ECF system.

Dated: August 31, 2012.

s/ D. Andrew Gaona D. Andrew Gaona

63920-0001.0010/LEGAL24561000.1

Fr

ie

nd s

of

Th e

Fo

gb

ow

Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by

.c o

Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the