Joint Appendix — Chamber of Commerce of United States v. Brown

Supreme Court brief2008

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

a Om ee — -—

“a ee o —

yg as

363 PR No. 06-939

—_—_—_—_—_—_— rrr

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA, ET AL.,

Petitioners,

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Z7'AL.,

Respondents.

On Writ of Certiorari

to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit

JOINT APPENDIX

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR. WILLIS J. GOLDSMITH

Attorney General of the (Counsel of Record)

State of California JONES DAY

ANGELA SIERRA 222 East 41st Street

Supervising Deputy New York, NY 10017

Attorney General (212) 326-3649

(Counsel of Record) Counsel for Petitioners

300 South Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90013

(213) 620-6312

Counsel for Respondents

Edmund G. Brown, Jr.,

et al.

WiLSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. — (202) 789-0096 — WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

Petition for Certiorari Filed January 5, 2007

Petition for Certiorari Granted November 20, 2007

JANET GAARD

Acting Chief Assistant

Attorney General

MANUEL M. MEDEIROS

State Solicitor General

LOUIS VERDUGO, JR.

Senior Assistant Attorney

General

GORDON BURNS

Deputy Solicitor General

RICHARD T. WALDOW

Supervising Deputy

Attorney General

300 South Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90013

(213) 620-6312

Counsel for Respondents

Edmund G. Brown, Jr.,

et al.

STEPHEN P. BERZON

ScoTT A. KRONLAND

(Counsel of Record)

STACEY M. LEYTON

ALTSHULER BERZON LLP

177 Post Street, Ste. 300

San Francisco, CA 94108

(415) 421-7151

Counsel for Respondents

American Federation of

Labor and Congress of

Industrial Organizations

and California Labor

Federation

MICHAEL A. CARVIN

NOEL J. FRANCISCO

LUKE A. SOBOTA

JONES DAY

51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001

(202) 879-3939

Counsel for Petitioners

ROBIN S. CONRAD

SHANE BRENNAN

NATIONAL CHAMBER

LITIGATION CENTER, INC.

1615 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20062

(202) 463-5337

Of Counsel for Petitioners

STEVEN J. LAW

STEPHEN A. BOKAT

OFFICE OF CHIEF LEGAL

OFFICER AND GENERAL

COUNSEL, U.S. CHAMBER OF

COMMERCE

1615 H STREET, NW

WASHINGTON, DC 20062

(202) 463-5576

Of Counsel for Petitioners

BRADLEY W. KAMPAS

SCOTT OBORNE

JACKSON LEWIS LLP

199 Fremont Street

10th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

(415) 394-9400

Of Counsel for Petitioners

CONTENTS

Docket Sheet, Case No. 03-55166 in the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Docket Sheet, Case No. 03-55169 in the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

I a denlicnpecnsceres 24

Docket Sheet, Case No. CV-02-00377-GLT in

the United States District Court for the

Central District of California, Southern

EE SG RS SSE IIT A AR EA AAS YS 48

District Court Docket Entry 1, Complaint, filed

(SRE VED Se ST ep ce ok” Ae Se ee 94

District Court Docket Entry 30, Declaration of

Nancy Armentrout in Support of Plaintiffs’

Motion for Summary Judgment and

Exhibits, filed 5/24/2002 ..................cssseeeeeeeeeeees 128

District Court Docket Entry 32, Declaration of

Ronald S. Cohen in Support of Motion for

Summary Judgment, filed 5/24/2002 ............... 152

District Court Docket Entry 34, Declaration of

Stephen Highland in Support of Plaintiffs’

Motion for Summary Judgment, filed

SIE REA RS SARE OE Od 155

District Court Docket Entry 41, Declaration of

Mort Swales in Support of Plaintiffs’

Motion for Summary Judgment, filed

RE SRS RTS DR TRE 160

a." 2

fi ae me els as, eee ee are

ET ge Pop Oe ee EEE hee! PP CE ee ae ne

CONTENTS

(continued)

District Court Docket Entry 43, Declaration of

Daniel Zilafro in Support of Plaintiffs’

Motion for Summary Judgment, filed

Gr aahaticencidnthclaivincitdadtbiaidiinigcancinpessaccscerioce

District Court Docket Entry 75, Exhibits to

Declaration of Mark A. Johnson in Support

of Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice,

NEE I ihseidsichcspintncnninibereanarsiveccerccercacece

District Court Docket Entry 76, Exhibits to

Declaration of Nancy Armentrout in

Support of Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial

Notice, filed 6/28/2002 ...........sccsccssecesssseeseeees

District Court Docket Entry 96, Declaration of

Gene Morrow in Support of Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment, and

Exhibits, filed 8/05/2002 ............c..sccscssseseeseeees

District Court Docket Entry 97, Declaration of

Frank Vanacore in Support of Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment, and

Exhibits, filed 8/05/2002 ..............sscccsscseeeesseees

District Court Docket Entry 107, Declaration

of Frank Azcarte in Opposition to Plaintiffs’

Motion for Summary Judgment, and

Exhibits, filed 8/19/2002 ................sssssssseeseeeees

a — ee? bg oy a. -

Rey Pet ety pees NS ORD ae og eG Ae id

Pe Tae ee we ee

—2 Lar. ther

ee |

a #5)

;

iil

CONTENTS

(continued)

District Court Docket Entry 110, Declaration

of Nicholas Ross in Opposition to Plaintiffs’

Motion for Summary Judgment, and

Exhibits, filed 8/19/2002 ..................ssescseceseeeeees 280

District Court Docket Entry 118, Declaration

of Darryl Nixon, filed 8/19/2002 ....................... 298

District Court Docket Entry 119, Exhibits to

Declaration of Bradley W. Kampas in

Opposition to Defendants’ and Intervenors’

Motion for Summary Judgment, filed

ids ic ice cetera libvdataidibliavesecerenrcecece 303

District Court Docket Entry 126, Intervenors’

Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion

for Summary Judgment, filed 8/30/2002.......... 322

District Court Docket Entry 130, Defendants’

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in

Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment,

aia scnsansvovnsese 330

District Court Docket Entry N/A, [Proposed]

Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and

Conclusions of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’

Motion for Summary Judgment, placed in

file, not used, 9/25/2002 .................ccccceseeeeeeeeeees 337

District Court Docket Entry 166, Judgment

and Order, filed 1/03/2008 ...................cccceeeeeeees 348

General Docket

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals Docket #: 03-55166

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED

STATES, et al.

Plaintiffs— Appellees

Vv.

BILL LOCKYER, Attorney General, e¢ a/.

Defendants

1/28/03 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. CADS

SENT (Y/N): N. setting schedule as

follows: Fee payment is due 2/11/03 ;

: appellant's designation of RT is due

1/17/03, ; appellee's designation of RT is

. due 1/27/03,, ; appellant shall order

transcript by 2/6/03, ; court reporter shall

file transcript in DC by 3/10/03; certificate

of record shall be filed by 3/17/03 ;

appellant's opening brief is due 4/25/03, ;

appellees' brief is due 5/27/03,, ; 3

appellants' reply brief is due 6/9/03, ; [03-

55166] (pg) [03-55166]

1/28/03 Filed representation statement by Scott

A. Kronland for Intervenors-Appellants .

served on 01/6/03 attached to NOA |

(CASEFILE) [03-55166] (pg) [03-55166]

1/28/03 _—‘ Filed Scott A. Kronland for Appellant CA q

Labor Federation, Appellant AFL-CIO &

- PS ey : aon te tee e

a ee er ee le Se ae ee

ae. ee eee ee Oe re eee ee

2/5/03

2/12/03

2/14/03

Wholesale Civil Appeals Docketing

Statement served on 1/6/03 (to

CONFATT) [03-55166] [03-55166] (pg)

[03-55166] |

Received notification from District Court

re payment of docket fee. ( Date: pd:

2/4/03) [03-55166] (lu) [03-55166]

Filed Appellants in 03-55169 mtn to stay

judgment of the District Court, to

consolidate appeals 03-55169 and 03-

55166, to exp briefing and oral argument

served on 2/11/03 MOATT. [03-55169, 03-

55166] (kkw) [03-55166 03-55169]

Case rejected from Circuit Mediation

Program. (sa) (02-17161 02-17351 02-

17508 02-57002 02-57052 02-57092 02-

57146 02-57166 03-15032 03-15041 03-

15087 03-15192 03-35023 03-55012 03-

55056 03-55147 03-55166 03-55169 03-

55232]

Filed aplts mtn for joinder to stay

judgment, to consolidate appeals, & to

expedite brfg & oral argument &

declaration in support of; served on

2/14/03 (MOATT) [03-55166, 03-55169]

(mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Received Appellant American Federation

of Labor & Congress of Industrial

Organizations dated 2/13/03 re: req their

name be corrected. [03-55166] (mhf) [03-

55166]

3/4/03

3/13/03

ae ae Se

4/8/03

4/16/03

5 haw ie

Filed Aplt's reply to aples' opposition to

stay, consolidate & expedite brfg & oral

argument; served on 3/4/03 (Aple's

opposition not recd yet) (MOATT) [03-

55166] (mhf) [03-55166]

Filed order ( Robert R. BEEZER, M. M.

McKEOWN, ): (MOATT) APLTS' MTNS:

to consolidate 03-55166 with 03-55169 is

GRANTED, to stay dc judgment is

DENIED, to expedite these appeals is

GRANTED. The opn br is due 4/16/03;

the answ br is due 5/16/03 & the opt rpy

br is due w/in 14 days from svc of the

answ brs. The clk shall place these

consolidated appeals on the next available

calendar aft completion of brfg. [03-

55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Rec'd notice of correct mailing address

from Suzanne M. Ambrose for Bill

Lockyer, et al dated 4/7/03 (Chg to:

Supervising Deputy Atty Gen, Office of

the Atty Gen, 1300 "I" Street, 9th FI,

Sacramento, CA 95814, phoe 916/324-

0244, fax 916/327-8192) [03-55166, 03-

55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed original and 15 copies Aplts AFL-

CIO's opening brief ( Informal: NO) 48

pages and five excerpts of record in

lvolumes; served on 4/15/03 [03-55166,

03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Received Appellant Bill Lockyer in 03-

;

‘

;

4/24/03

5/9/03

5/20/03

5/21/03

55169's brief in 15 copies 24 pages

( Informal: NO) & 5 copies of Excs in 1 vol

deficient (Missing proof of svc): notified

counsel. [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Received aplt (Bill Lockyer)'s satisfaction

of (major) brief deficiency, served on

4/23/03 (Proof of svc of the opn br.) [03-

55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169}

Filed original and 15 copies Appellant Bill

Lockyer in 03-55169 opening brief

( Informal: NO) 24 pages and five excerpts

of record in lvolumes; served on 4/15/03

[03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed aplts' motion to extend time to file

reply brief until 6/13/03 [03-55166, 03-

55169] served on 5/9/03 [Work in progress

per PROMO) [03-55166, 03-55169]} (mhf)

[03-55166 03-55169]

Filed order (Deputy Clerk: gss) (PROMO)

Aplts' motion for an ext of tm to file the

reply br is GRANTED. The optional reply

br is due 6/13/03. If aples wish to have an

ext of time to file their br, they must file a

motion on their behalf. in 03-55166, 03-

55169 [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Filed AMENDED order (Deputy Clerk:

gss) (PROMO) The order filed 5/20/03 is

AMENDED: The answering br is due

~ a oe

’

Bet fn in Se

ee la ae a Bee i Ae, [-

5/23/03

6/3/03

5/23/03. The optional reply br is due

6/13/03. All parties are reminded if a

party requests for an extension of time to

file a br, the moving party can only

request for an extension of time to file a

br for their own side & must show good

cause for the request for the extension.

9th C.R. 31-2.2 [03-55166, 03-55169]

(mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed original and 15 copies appellee 's 61

pages brief, & 5 copies of Supplemental

Excerpts of Record in 3 vols; served on

5/23/03 [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Filed aples motion of take judicial notice

and deputy clerk order: (Deputy Clerk:

tah) Aples' request for judicial notice, any

related filings, & any future such requests

are referred for disposition to thepanel

that considers the merits of the case.

( Motion recvd 5/23/03) [03-55166, 03-

55169] (mhf) (03-55166 03-55169]

Received amicus brief of Amicus LPA, Inc

& Assoc Builders & Contractors, Inc. in

support of Aples; 15 copies of 34 pages;

deficient: (Need mtn to file); served on

5/30/03 Notified counsel. [03-55166, 03-

55169] response to brief deficiency notice

due 6/17/03 in 03-55166, in 03-55169;

(mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Received amicus Associated Builders &

Contractors, Inc's satisfaction of (major)

ave

vient

bys

= am

RS 4

se r

6 ae,

£ >

“3

A thd

Piga*

> a

, 2

ay)

. >>

yo?

née

7 Pe

R 2

, 4

Sam

Sad

wey.

“a

ess

;

6/3/03

6/5/03

6/12/03

6/17/03

6/20/03

brief deficiency. (by verification of the

parties consent on page 1 of the br) [03-

55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed original and 15 copies of Amicus

Curiae LPA, Inc & Assoc Builders &

Contractors br of 34 pages in support of

Aples; served on 5/30/03 [03-55166, 03-

55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed original and 15 copies NLRB brief of

29 pages; served on 6/4/03 (NOTE:

National agency- no mtn required) [03-

55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed aplts' mtns to ext the time to file the

reply brief until 6/20/03 & order: (Deputy

Clerk: tah) (PROMO) The mtn is

GRANTED. in 03-55166, 03-55169

( Motion recvd 6/6/03) [(03-55166, 03-

55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Calendar check performed [03-55166, 03-

55169] (mw) [03-55166 93-55169]

Received orig. 15 copies defs/aplts Bill

Lockyer et al in 03-55169, reply brief

( Informal: no ) of 21 pages; served on

6/19/03 deficient no cert of comp. Notified

counsel. response to brief deficiency notice

due 7/7/03 (dg) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed aplt's motion to take judicial notice

of; served on 6/19/03 [MERITS per promo]

[03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

wn a

ae i Ee SE eae PO LPN Ee ee OS en

iS i aoe

rr WL Be gt

6/23/03

6/25/03

6/27/03

55169]

Filed aplts' motion to take judicial notice

[03-55166, 03-55169] served on 6/20/03

(MERITS per 6/3/03 order) [03-55166, 03-

55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Received original and 15 copies aplts'

substitute brief of 37 pages; served on

6/20/03 (Deficient: oversized - recd with

mtn to file oversz br) (1 copy of br with _

mtn to PROMO) [03-55166, 03-55169]

(mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed Appellants’ motion to file oversized

brief [03-55166, 03-55169] served on

6/20/03 [Work in progress per PROMO)

[03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Received dfdt aplts Bill Lockyer's

satisfaction of (major) brief deficiency,

served on 6/24/03 (Cert of Compliance)

[03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed original and 15 copies aplts Bill

Lockyer, et al's reply br in 03-55169

(Informal: NO ) 21 pages; served on

6/19/03 [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Filed Aplts AFL-CIO's response to aples'

req for judicial notice; served on 6/20/03

(MERITS) [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Calendar materials being prepared. [03-

7/1/03

7/9/03

7/14/03

7/28/03

8/26/03

55166, 03-55169] [03-55166, 03-55169]

(aw) [03-55166 03-55169]

CALENDARED: PASA Sept 12 2003 900

am Courtroom 3 ** case to be heard 1st

on cal ** [03-55166, 03-55169] (aw) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Sent document: aplt's mtn to file

oversized reply br (filed 6/23/03) w/copy of

brief sent to PANEL per request of

PROMO [03-55166, 03-55169] (gar) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Filed order (Deputy Clerk: hh)

Intervenors-appellants' motion for leave

to file an oversized reply brief, filed

6/23/03, is GRANTED. [4775262-1] The

clerk is instructed to file the reply brief,

recvd 6/23/03. [03-55166, 03-55169] (hh)

[03-55105 03-55169]

Filed original and 15 copies intvrs-aplts

AFL-CIO & Wholesale and CA Labor

Federation in 03-55166 reply brief,

( Informal: n ) 37 pages; served on 6/20/03

(to PANEL) [03-55166, 03-55169] (hh) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Filed certificate of record on appeal RT

filed in DC : 3/21/03 [03-55166] (pg) [03-

55166]

Filed order (Deputy Clerk: hh) Plaintiffs-

Aples' request for judicial notice filed

6/3/03 is GRANTED. Defendants-aplts'

request for judicial notice, filed 6/20/03 is

9/12/03

4/20/04

4/23/04

4/29/04

GRANTED. Intervenors-aplts' request for

judicial notice filed 6/23/03 is GRANTED.

[03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

ARGUED AND SUBMITTED TO Robert

R. BEEZER, Raymond C. FISHER,

Morrison C. England [03-55166, 03-

55169] (rmw) [03-55166 03-55169]

FILED OPINION: AFFIRMED. Each

party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

( Terminated on the Merits after Oral

Hearing; Affirmed; Written, Signed,

Published. Robert R. BEEZER; Raymond

C. FISHER, author; Morrison C.

England. ) FILED AND ENTERED

JUDGMENT. [03-55166, 03-55169]

(mhf) [(03-55166 03-55169]

Filed itv Appellants (AFL-CIO) motion for

a 14-day ext of tm to file the pet for rhrg

& rhrg en banc; served on 4/23/04

[PANEL] [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Filed order ( Raymond C. FISHER, ):

granting intv appellant's mtn for ex of tm

to file a pet for rhrg & rhrg enbanc. The

pet shall be filed on or bef 5/18/04.

(PHONED cs] & Faxed to PANEL: 3:42)

[(03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed Appellant Bill Lockyer motion to

extend time to file petition for rehearing

until 5/18/04 [03-55166, 03-55169] served

5/3/04

5/6/04

5/18/04

on 4/28/04 [Faxed to PANEL] [03-55166,

03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169])

Filed Aplts (Dept of Health Svcs,

Vanacore & Bonta)'s mtn for ext of tm

until 5/18/04 to file pet for rhrg & rhrg en

banc; served on 4/30/04 (Faxed to PANEL)

[03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed order ( Raymond C. FISHER, ):

granting aplt Dept of Health Services,

Vanacore & Bonta's mtn for ext of tm to

file the pet for rhrg & suggestion for rhrg

enbanc. The pet is due 5/18/04.

(PHONED/Faxed tv csl/PANEL: 3:26) in

03-55166, 03-55169 [03-55166, 03-55169]

(mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed order ( Raymond C. FISHER, ):

granting appellant's Cal Atty Gen Bill

Lockyer's mtn for an ext of tm to file the

pet for rhg & suggestion for rhrg enbanc.

The pet is due 5/18/04. (Phoned/Faxed

csl/Panel: 3:26) in 03-55166, 03-55169

[03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed original and 50 copies Appellant Bill

Lockyer in 03-55169 petition for panel

rehearing and petition for rehearing en

banc 9 p.pages, served on 5/17/04 (PANEL .

& ALL ACTIVE JUDGES) [03-55166, 03-

55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed original and 50 copies Aplts Itvs

AFL-CIO & Wholesale, CA Labor

6/9/04

6/30/04

7/9/04

Federation in 03-55166 petition for panel

rehearing and petition for rehearing en

banc 18 p.pages, served on 5/18/04

(PANEL & ALL ACTIVE JUDGES) [03-

55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed order ( Robert R. BEEZER,

Raymond C. FISHER, Morrison C.

England, ): Within 21 days from the date

of this order, plfts aples are directed to

file a resp to the separate pets for rhrg en

banc filed on 5/18/04. Fifty copies of the

resp shall be filed w/the clk of crt in SF,

CA & shall not exceed 15 pgs. [03-55166,

03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Received Appellee Chamber of Commerce

et al's oversized response to petition for

rhearing and rehearing en banc [5065755-

1} [5066430-1] served on 6/30/04 [03-

55166, 03-55169] PANEL AND ALL

ACTIVE JUDGES (gar) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Received Intervenors AFL-CIO &

California Labor Federation AFL-CIO's

reply in support of petition for rehearing

and rehearing en banc of 5 pages; served

on 7/9/04 (PANEL ONLY) [03-55166, 03-

55169] (gva) [(03-55166 03-55169]

Filed Intervenor/Aplts AFL-CIO and CA

Labor Federation AFL-CIO's motion for

leave to file reply in support of petition for

rehearing and rehearing en banc; served

. ‘ y

a Oe}. Ore ere ee ‘al

10/12/04

10/22/04

3/7/05

5/13/05

on 7/9/04 (PANEL) (03-55166, 03-55169]

(gva) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed aplt American Federation in 03-

55166 additional citations, served on

10/12/04 (PANEL & ALL ACTIVE

JUDGES) [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Filed aples' Chamber of Commerce's mtn

to strike intervenors' supp] authority;

served on 10/22/04 (Copies to PANEL

only) (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Received Appellants AFL-CIO's letter

dated 3/4/05 re: the status of their mtn for

leave to file their reply br in support of

the pete for rhrg; (PANEL) [03-55166, 03-

55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed order FOR PUBLICATION ( Robert

R. BEEZER, Raymond C. FISHER,

Morrison C. England, ): The petition for

panel rehearing is granted, and the case

shall be resubmitted as of the date of this

order, without additional oral argument.

The panel's opinion is withdrawn and

shall not be cited as precedent by or to

this court or any district court of the

Ninth Circuit, except to the extent

adopted by the panel upon rehearing.

(redktd to correct entry) [03-55166, 03-

55169] (eu) [(03-55166 03-55169]

Case resubmitted on this date to Robert

R. BEEZER, Raymond C. FISHER,

Morrison C. England. (See 5/13/05 order)

le ee q ae . Te 4,

ia tte

5/26/05

9/6/05

9/13/05

submission.) Order filed: 5/13/05. [03-

55166, 03-55169] (eu) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed Chamber of Commerce et al's

additional citations, served on 5/26/05

PANEL [03-55166, 03-55169] (gar) [03-

55166 03-55169]

FILED OPINION: AFFIRMED

( Terminated on the Merits after Oral

Hearing; Affirmed; Written, Signed,

Published. Robert R. BEEZER, author;

Raymond C. FISHER, dissenting;

Morrison C. England. ) FILED AND

ENTERED JUDGMENT. [03-55166, 03-

55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed order ( Robert R. BEEZER, ): Each

of the parties to this appl is requested to

file a br addressing the question of

whether this appl should be heard en

banc. The br requested shall not exceed

15 pages and may be prepared in letter

form. The br requested shall be filed with

the clerk of the ct within 21 days from the

date of this order. Such filings shall

include 50 copies, together with a signed

original of the requested br. Amicus br

are not invited at this time. [03-55166]

(gar) [(03-55166]

Filed Appellant CA Labor Federation,

Appellant American Federation's motion

to extend time to file petition for

rehearing until 10/20/05 [03-55166, 03-

55169] served on 9/13/05 [5560991]

9/16/05

9/23/05

9/29/05

10/5/05

- PANEL [03-55166, 03-55169] (gar) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Filed order ( Robert R. BEEZER, ): A mtn

for ext of time to file a pet for rhg en banc

was filed 9/13/05. By reason of a sua

sponte call for rhrg en banc made by one

of the judges of this ct, the mtn for ext of

time is moot. This order with w/o

prejudice to any further filings by the

parties in response to the pending call for

reconsideration en banc or for ext of time

to make filings beyond the time

prescribed by rule. PHONED [5560991-1]

[03-55166] (gar) [(03-55166]

Filed Appellants CA Labor Federation &

AFL's unopposed mtn for ext of tm to file

brs regarding whether appeal should be

reheard en banc & Declaration in support

of; served on 9/23/05 [Faxed to PANEL]

[03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [(03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed Appellants Bill Lockyer in 03-

55169's joinder to mtn for ext of tm to file

brs regarding whether appeal should

reheard & declaration in support of;

served on 9/28/05 [PANEL] [03-55166, 03-

55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed order ( Robert R. BEEZER,

Raymond C. FISHER, Morrison C.

England, ): Aplts' mtn for ext of tm to file

Briefs Regarding Whether Appeal Should

Be Reheard En Banc filed on 9/23/05 is

10/12/05

10/25/05

10/26/05

11/2/05

GRANTED (Phoned/Faxed: 12:29) in 03-

55166, 03-55169 [03-55166, 03-55169]

(mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Received Appellant American Federation

of Labor & Congress's letter dated

10/10/05 re: sveral clerical errors in the

caption on the Opinion filed 9/16/05

(PANEL by FED X) [03-55166, 03-55169]

(mhf) [(03-55166 03-55169]

Filed Intervenors Appellants (AFL-CIO &

CA Labor Fed)'s response to crt order of

9/13/05 re Whether this case should be

reheard en banc; served on 10/25/05

(PANEL & ALL ACTIVE JUDGES ANY

INTERESTED SENIOR JUDGE) [03-

55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed Appellees (Charaber of Commerce,

et al)'s response to crt order of 9/13/05 re

Whether the case should be reheard en

banc; served on 10/25/05 (PANEL & ALL

ACTIVE JUDGES & ANY INTERESTED

SENIOR JUDGE) [03-55166, 03-55169]

(mhf) [(03-55166 03-55169]

Filed Appellants Bill Lockyer, et al's in

response to crt's 9/13/05 as to Whether the

appeal should be reheard en banc; served

on 10/25/05 (PANEL & ALL ACTIVE

JUDGES & ANY INTERESTED SENIOR

JUDGE) [03-55166, 03-55169]} (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Filed aples' mtn to strike intervenors'

12/15/05

1/17/06

1/20/06

1/25/06

aplts' br in support of en banc review;

served on 11/2/05 [PANEL only) (mhf)

[03-55166 03-55169]

Filed AFL-CIO, CLF additional citations,

FRAP 28()) letter, served on 12/15/05

(PANEL & ALL ACTIVE &

INTERESTED SENIOR JUDGES) [03-

55166, 03-55169] (ru) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed order (Mary M. SCHROEDER, ):

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused

regular active judges of this crt, it is

ordered that this case be reheard by the

en banc court pursuant to Circ Rule 35-3.

The three-judge panel opinion shall not be

cited as precedent by or to this crt or any

dc of the 9th Cir, except to the extent

adopted by the en banc court. [03-55166,

03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed order (Mary M. SCHROEDER) The

parties shall forward to the clerk of court

thirty (30) copies of their origina! briefs

and excerpts of record within 7 days from

the date of this order. (phoned/faxed) [03-

55166, 03-55169] (gva) [(03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed order (Mary M. SCHROEDER, ):

Oral argument shall be reheard en banc

in S.F., CA on Tuesday, 3/21/06 at 2:30

p.m. (PHONED/Faxed: 3:08) [03-55166,

03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed aples' (FAXED) req for ext of time (1

day) to provide copies of brs & excs of rec

eae eee ee Se en ee ere

ge ie

a es ee ee ee a eek ee ti

1/25/06

1/26/06

1/31/06

2/2/06

to enbanc court; [03-55166, 03-55169]

served on 1/25/06 [SCHROEDER) (mhf)

[03-55166 03-55169]

CALENDARED: SAN FRAN Mar 21 2006

230 pm Courtroom 1 [03-55166, 03-

55169] (aw) [03-55166 03-55169]

Recd Aplt Bill Lockyer’s opn brs, Jt excs

in 2 vols & rpy brs (EN BANC PANEL)

[03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Recd aplts’ req for judicial notice

originally filed on 6/20/06 (EN BANC

PANEL) [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Received from intervenor appellants AFL-

CIO, California Labor Federation: 30

copies of (1) intervenor-appellant's brief

filed 4/16/03; (2) reply brief filed 7/14/03;

(3) response to appellees’ request for

judicial notice filed 6/25/03; (4) intervenor

appellant's request for judicial notice filed

6/23/03. (to En Banc Court) [03-55166, 03-

55169] (ru) [(03-55166 03-55169]

Filed notice of appearance of Angela Siera

(Withdrew as counsel: [03-55166, 03-

55169] (mhf) [(03-55166 03-55169]

Recd aple Chamber of Commerce's

Answering br & supp! exc in 3 vols (EN

BANC PANEL) [03-55166, 03-55169]

(mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Recd addl copies of Aples' Additional Cites

2/2/06

2/3/06

2/6/06

2/9/06

previously filed on 5/26/06 (EN BANC

PANEL) [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

~ Reed addl copies of aples’ Req for judicial

notice previously recd on 5/23/03 (EN

BANC PANEL) [03-55166, 03-55169]

(mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Received from amicus parties 30 copies of

(1) brief of amici curiae LPA, Inc. and

Associated Builders filed or 5/3/03 and (2)

brief of amicus curiae National Labor

Relations Board (NLRB) filed on 6/5/03.

(to En Banc Court) [03-55166, 03-55169]

(ru) [(03-55166 03-55169]

Filed order (Mary M. SCHRODER): Aple

Chamber of Commerce's mtn for ext of tm

is GRANTED. The Chamber of

Commerce's br & excs are ordered filed. in

03-55166, 03-55169 [03-55166, 03-55169]

(mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed Aples Chamber of Commerce, et al's

motion to reschedule enbanc oral

argument to either 3/22, 23 or 24, 2006;

served on 2/6/06 (FAXED to EN BANC

PANEL) [5714438] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed order (Mary M. SCHROEDER, ):

Aple's unopposed mtn to reschedule en

banc argument is DENIED because of

previous scheduling commitments of the

ert. in 03-55166, 03-55169 [03-55166, 03-

55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

2/9/06

2/23/06

2/28/06

3/6/06

3/9/06

Filed order (Mary M. SCHROEDER, ):

Upon the vote of a majority of the en banc

court, the opinion & dissent filed on

9/6/05, slip op 12167, & appearing at 422

F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2005), are withdrawn.

[03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed mtn & Declaration by Amicus South

Coast Air Quality Management Dist for

exemption from Circ Rule 46-5; [03-55166,

03-55169] served on 2/23/06 [5737417]

(mhf) [(03-55166 03-55169]

Filed Amicus South Coast Air Quality

Management District motion to become

amicus curiae [03-55166, 03-55169]

served on 2/28/06 [EN BANC PANEL)

(mhf) [(03-55166 03-55169]

Received Amicus South Coast Air Quality

Management District's brief in 50 copies

of 16 pages; served on 2/28/06; deficient:

(Mtn to file pending) (EN BANC PANEL)

[03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed order (Mary M. SCHROEDER, ):

Amicus South Coast Air Quality

Management District csi Winter King's

mtn for exemption from Circuit Rule 46-5

is GRANTED. in 03-55166, 03-55169 [03-

55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [(03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed order (Mary M. SCHROEDER, ):

South Cost Air Quality Management

3/9/06

3/21/56

3/21/06

District's mtn for leave to file br of amicus

curiae is GRANTED. (PHONED/FAXED:

9:46) in 03-55166, 03-55169 [03-55166,

03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed original and 50 copies South Coast

Air Quality's amicus curiae br of 16

pages ;served on 2/28/06 [03-55166, 03-

55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed Los Angeles Taxi Ind's mtn for lv to

file amicus br in support of neither party ;

served on 3/20/06 [EN BANC PANEL)

(03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Received Amicus Los Angeles Taxi

Industry in support of neither party's

brief in 50 copies of 19 pages; served on

3/20/06; deficient: (mtn to file

pending)(Copies to EN BANC PANEL

w/mtn) Notified counsel. [03-55166, 03-

55169] (mhf) [(03-55166 03-55169]

ARGUED AND SUBMITTED TO Mary

M. SCHROEDER, Stephen R.

REINHARDT, Robert R. BEEZER, Alex

KOZINSKI, Andrew J. KLEINFELD,

Michael D. HAWKINS, Sidney R.

THOMAS, Barry G. SILVERMAN, M. M.

McKEOWN, Kim M. WARDLAW,

Raymond C. FISHER, Richard A. PAEZ,

Johnnie B. RAWLINSON, Richard R.

CLIFTON, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN

[03-55166, 03-55169] (ca) [03-55166 03-

55169]

4/26/06

5/1/06

5/16/06

9/21/06

oF Ret ow Ps

Filed aples Chamber of Commerce, et al's

additional citations, served on 4/26/06

(EN BANC PANEL by FED X) [03-55166,

03-55169] (mhf) [(03-55166 03-55169]

Filed aples Chamber of Commerce's mtn

to take judicial notice; served on 4/26/06

[EN BANC PANEL by FED X) (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Filed Intervenor Aplts (CA Labor

Federation & American Federation)'s

response to notice of supplemental

authority & opposition to req for judicial

notice; served on 5/1/06 (EN BANC

PANEL by FED X) [03-55166, 03-55169]

(mhf) [03-55166 03-55 169]

Filed order (Mary M. SCHROEDER, ):

denying appellee's request for judicial

notice. in 03-55166, 03-55169 [03-55166,

03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

FILED OPINION: REVERSED and its

injunction is VACATED. We remand for

further proceedings consistent with this

opinion ( Terminated on the Merits after

Oral Hearing; Reversed; Written, Signed,

Published. Heard en banc; Mary M.

SCHROEDER; Stephen R. REINHARDT;

Robert R. BEEZER, dissenting; Alex

KOZINSKI; Andrew J. KLEINFELD;

Michael D. HAWKINS; Sidney R.

THOMAS; Barry G. SILVERMAN; M.

M. McKEOWN; Kim M. WARDLAW;

Raymond C. FISHER, : uthor; Richard A.

10/5/06

11/20/06

a i le ee es ett ee ee ee ek, ee >) a ee ar

PAEZ; Johnnie B. RAWLINSON; Richard

R. CLIFTON; CONSUELO M.

CALLAHAN. ) FILED AND ENTERED

JUDGMENT. [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf)

[(03-55166 03-55169]

Filed Aples' motion to stay the mandate;

served on 10/5/06 (PANEL) (gva) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Filed Aples' motion to stay issuance of

mandate; served on 10/5/06 (MMS)

5970201) (gva) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed order (Mary M. SCHROEDER,

Stephen R. REINHARDT, Robert R.

BEEZER, Alex KOZINSKI, Andrew J.

KLEINFELD, Michael D. HAWKINS,

Sidney R. THOMAS, Barry G.

SILVERMAN, M. M. McKEOWN, Kim M.

WARDLAW, Raymond C. FISHER,

Richard A. PAEZ, Johnnie B.

RAWLINSON, Richard R. CLIFTON,

CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, ): Aples'

mtn to stay the mandate filed 10/6/06 is

GRANTED. The mandate is stayed

pending the filing of a pet for writ of

certiorari in the Supreme Court. The stay

expires 90 days from the date of this order

unless aples file a pet for the writ & so

notify the clerk of court in writing within

the period of the stay. In that case, the

stay shall continue until final disposition

by the Supreme Court.

(PHONED/FAXED: 12:01) in 03-55169,

03-55166 [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

Mee as

12/18/06

1/8/07

1/12/07

2/16/07

11/26/07

55166 03-55169]

Received letter from the Supreme Court

dated 12/12/06 re: application for an ext of

tm to file a pet for a writ of certiorari has

been extended to & including 1/5/07 [03-

55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Rec'd notice of FIRM NAME CHANGE

from Scott A. Kronland for Appellants

dated 1/5/07. Chg to: ALTSHULER

BERZON LLP. The firm's address &

telephone & fax numbers remain the

same. [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Received notice from Supreme Court:

petition for certiorari filed Supreme

Court No. 06-939 filed on 1/5/07. [03-

55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed aples' motion for further stay until

disposition of their pet for writ of

certiorari with the Supreme Court; served

on 2/16/07 (MMS) (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Received notice from Supreme Court,

petition for certiorari GRANTED on

11/20/07 . Supreme Court No. 06-939

PANEL (gar) [03-55166 03-55169]

- : > oe she re ‘ ; ae ee. re eee SRE ee Vee ee we ity \ hs ne hei sees =e

P te 3 5 RS er . a) ee ioe ld ee Ne PSO Ae eee > > ale “ Te 6 “iy a oy Pe i te ne ee GE sig aS 4 > is “ .

sem Sl A i ee i ee hal” el ee vr a or ac be ee is pa Bal ot): ae a fd See eee oF ihe ; ig~ ie -< ‘ Se :

re TE, wert

General Docket

US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals Doc’\t #: 03-55169

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED

STATES, et al, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

Vv.

BILL LOCKYER, Attorney General, et a/,,

Defendants

1/29/03 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. CADS

SENT (Y/N): N. setting schedule as

follows: appellant’s designation of RT is

due 1/23/03,, ; appellee’s designation of RT

is due 2/3/03,, ; appellant shall order

transcript by 2/12/03,, ; court reporter

shall file transcript in DC by 3/17/03;

certificate of record shall be filed by

3/24/03 ; appellant’s opening brief is due

5/1/03,, ; appellees’ brief is due 6/2/03;

appellants’ reply brief is due 6/16/03 ; [03-

55169] (pg) [03-55169]

1/29/03 Filed representation statement by

Suzanne M. Ambrose for Defendants-

Appellants served on 01/26/03

(CASEFILE) [03-55169] (pg) [03-55169]

1/29/03 Filed Suzanne M. Ambrose for Appellant

Bill Lockyer in 03-55169 Civil Appeals

Docketing Statement served on 1/9/03 (to

2/12/03

2/14/03

2/24/03

2/28/03

CONFATT) [03-55169] {03-55169} (pg)

[03-55169]

Filed Appellants in 03-55169 mtn to stay

judgment of the District Court, to

consolidate appeals 03-55169 and 03-

55166, to exp briefing and oral argument

served on 2/11/03 MOATT. [03-55169, 03-

55166] (kkw) [03-55166 03-55169]

Case rejected from Circuit Mediation

Program. (sa) [02-17161 02-17351 02-

17508 02-57002 02-57052 02-57092 02-

57146 02-57166 03-15032 03-15041 03-

15087 03-15192 03-35023 03-55012 03-

55056 03-55147 03-55166 03-55169 03-

55232]

Filed aplts mtn for joinder to stay

judgment, to consolidate appeals, & to

expedite brfg & oral argument &

declaration in support of; served on

2/14/03 (MOATT) [03-55166, 03-55169]

(mhf) (03-55166 03-55169}

Filed Appellees’ opposition to Aplts’ mtn

to stay judgment of the District Court, to

consolidate appeals and to expedite

briefing and oral argument schedule

served on 2/24/03 MOATT. [03-55169]

(kkw) [03-55169]

Filed Appellees Corporate Disclosure

Statement. Served on 2/28/03 CASEFILE.

[03-55169] (kkw) [03-55169]

3/4/03

3/13/03

4/8/03

4/16/03

Filed State Aplts’ reply to Aples’

opposition to mtn to stay, consolidate

appeals and to expedite appeal; served on

3/3/03 MOATT. [03-55169] (kkw) [03-

55169]

Filed order (Robert R. BEEZER, M. M.

McKEOWN,): (MOATT) APLTS’ MTNS: to

consolidate 03-55166 with 03-55169 is

GRANTED, to stay dc judgment is

DENIED, to expedite these appeals is

GRANTED. The opn br is due 4/16/03;

the answ br is due 5/16/03 & the opt rpy

br is due w/in 14 days from svc of the

answ brs. The clk shall place these

consolidated appeals on the next available

calendar aft completion of brfg. [03-

55166, 03-55169] (mhf)

[(03-55166 03-55169]

Rec’d notice of correct mailing address

from Suzanne M. Ambrose for Bill

Lockyer, et al dated 4/7/03 (Chg to:

Supervising Deputy Atty Gen, Office of

the Atty Gen, 1300 “I” Street, 9th F',

Sacramento, CA 95814, phone 916/324-

0244, fax 916/327-8192) [03-55166, 03-

55169] (mhf) [(03-55166 03-55169]

Filed original and 15 copies Aplts AFL-

CIO’s opening brief (Informal: NO) 48

pages and five excerpts of record in

lvolumes; served on 4/15/03 [03-55166,

4/16/03

4/24/03

5/9/03

5/20/03

03-55169] (mhf) [(03-55166 03-55169]

Received Appellant Bill Lockyer in 03-

55169’s brief in 15 copies 24 pages

(Informal: NO) & 5 copies of Excs in 1 vol

deficient (Missing proof of svc): notified

counsel. [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Received aplt (Bill Lockyer)’s satisfaction

of (major) brief deficiency, served on

4/23/03 (Proof of svc of the opn br.) [03-

55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed original and 15 copies Appellant Bill

Lockyer in 03-55169 opening brief

(Informal: NO) 24 pages and five excerpts

of record in lvolumes; served on 4/15/03

[03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169}

Filed aples American Federation, et al’s

motion to extend time to file appellee’s

brief until 5/23/03; served on 5/9/03 (Work

in progress per PROMO) (mhf) [03-55169]

Filed aplts’ motion to extend time to file

reply brief until 6/13/03 [03-55166, 03-

55169] served on 5/9/03 [Work in progress

per PROMO) [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf)

[(03-55166 03-55169]

Filed order (Deputy Clerk: gss) (PROMO)

Aplts’ motion for an ext of tm to file the

* . NEe - ey x

a Se een Oe, Ry Ng Dd

’

PR OR OS ee eT TO RT ee ie

5/21/03

5/23/03

6/3/03

reply br is GRANTED. The optional reply

br is due 6/13/03. If aples wish to have an

ext of time to file their br, they must file a

motion on their behalf. in 03-55166, 03-

55169 [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Filed AMENDED order (Deputy Clerk:

gss) (PROMO) The order filed 5/20/03 is

AMENDED: The answering br is due

5/23/03. The optional reply br is due

6/13/03. All parties are reminded if a

party requests for an extension of time to

file a br, the moving party can only

request for an extension of time to file a br

for their own side & must show good cause

for the request for the extension. 9th C.R.

31-2.2 [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Filed original and 15 copies appellee ‘s 61

pages brief, & 5 copies of Supplemental

Excerpts of Record in 3 vols; served on

5/23/03 [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Filed aples motion of take judicial notice

and deputy clerk order: (Deputy Clerk:

tah) Aples’ request for judicial notice, any

related filings, & any future such requests

are referred for disposition to the panel

that considers the merits of the case.

(Motios reevd 5/23/03) [03-55166, 03-

55168 © ))7) 0383-55166 03-55169]

Bat.

“5

6/3/03

6/5/03

6/12/03

Received amicus brief of Amicus LPA, Inc

& Assoc Builders & Contractors, Inc. in

support of Aples; 15 copies of 34 pages;

deficient: (Need mtn to file); served on

5/30/03 Notified counsel. [03-55166, 03-

55169] response to brief deficiency notice

due 6/17/03 in 03-55166, in 03-55169;

(mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Received amicus Associated Builders &

Contractors, Inc’s satisfaction of (major)

brief deficiency. (by verification of the

parties consent on page 1 of the br) [03-

55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed original and 15 copies of Amicus

Curiae LPA, Inc & Assoc Builders &

Contractors br of 34 pages in support of

Aples; served on 5/30/03 [03-55166, 03-

55169] (mhf) [(03-55166 03-55169]

Received Amicus National Labor Board’s

brief in support of aples; original & 15

copies of 29 pages; deficient: (Need mtn);

served on 6/4/03 Notified counsel. [03-

55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [(03-55169]

Filed original and 15 copies NLRB brief of

29 pages; served on 6/4/03 (NOTE:

National agency- no mtn required) [03-

55166, 03-55169] (mhf) (03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed aplts’ mtns to ext the time to file the

6/17/03

6/20/03

6/23/03

reply brief until 6/20/03 & order: (Deputy

Clerk: tah) (PROMO) The mtn is

GRANTED in 03-55166, 03-55169 (Motion

recvd 6/6/03) [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf)

[03-55166 03-55169]

Calendar check performed [03-55166, 03-

55169] (mw) [03-55166 03-55169]

Received orig. 15 copies defs/aplts Bill

Lockyer et al in 03-55169, reply brief

(Informal: no) of 21 pages; served on

6/19/03 deficient no cert of comp. Notified

counsel. response to brief deficiency notice

due 7/7/03 (dg) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed aplt’s motion to take judicial notice

of; served on 6/19/03 [MERITS per promo]

[(03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed original and 15 copies aplts’

Corrected reply br of 37 pages ; served on

6/20/03 [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55169]

Filed aplts’ motion to take judicial notice

[(03-55166, 03-55169] served on 6/20/03

(MERITS per 6/3/03 order) [03-55166, 03-

55169] (mhf) [(03-55166 03-55169]

Received original and 15 copies aplts’

substitute brief of 37 pages; served on

6/20/03 (Deficient: oversized - recd with

mtn to file oversz br) (1 copy of br with

mtn to PROMO) [03-55166, 03-55169]

alle: pe elect) “i le ee te Bi th i EE ee ee ei, 1, eee ee oe

(mhf) (03-55166 03-55169]

6/23/03 Filed Appellants’ motion to file oversized

brief [03-55166, 03-55169] served on

6/20/03 [Work in progress per PROMO)

[(03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

6/25/03 Received dfdt aplts_ Bill Lockyer’s

satisfaction of (major) brief deficiency,

served on 6/24/03 (Cert of Compliance)

[03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

6/25/03 _—‘Filed original and 15 copies aplts reply

brief, (Informal: NO) 37 pages; served on

6/20/03 [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55169]

6/25/03 + Filed original and 15 copies aplts Bill

Lockyer, et al’s reply br in 03-55169

(Informal: NO) 21 pages; served on

6/19/03 [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

6/25/03 Filed Aplts AFL-CIO’s response to aples’

req for judicial r~,ice; served on 6/20/03

(MERITS) [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

6/27/03 Calendar materials being prepared. [03-

55166, 03-55169] [03-55166, 03-55169]

(aw) [03-55166 03-55169]

7/1/03 CALENDARED: PASA Sept 12 2003 900

7/9/03

7/14/03

7/28/03

8/26/03

am Courtroom 3 ** case to be heard lst on

cal ** (03-55166, 03-55169] (aw) [03-55166

03-55169]

Sent document: aplt’s mtn to file oversized

reply br (filed 6/23/03) w/copy of brief sent

to PANEL per request of PROMO [03-

55166, 03-55169] (gar) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed order (Deputy Clerk: hh)

Intervenors-apyellants’ motion for leave to

file an oversized reply brief, filed 6/23/03,

is GRANTED. [4775262-1] The clerk is

instructed to file the reply brief, recvd

6/23/03. [03-55166, 03-55169] (hh) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Filed original and 15 copies intvrs-aplts

AFL-CIO & Wholesale and CA Labor

Federation in 03-55166 reply brief,

(Informal: n) 37 pages; served on 6/20/03

(to PANEL) [03-55166, 03-55169] (hh) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Filed certificate of record on appeal RT

filed in DC : 3/21/03 [03-55169] (pg) [03-

55169]

Filed order (Deputy Clerk: hh) Plaintiffs-

Aples’ request for judicial notice filed

6/3/03 is GRANTED. Defendants-aplts’

request for judicial notice, filed 6/20/03 is

GRANTED. Intervenors-aplts’ request for

judicial notice filed 6/23/03 is GRANTED.

9/12/03

4/20/04

4/23/04

4/29/04

[03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

ARGUED AND SUBMITTED TO Robert

R. BEEZER, Raymond C. FISHER,

Morrison C. England [03-55166, 03-55169]

(rmw) [03-55166 03-55169]

FILED OPINION: AFFIRMED. Each

party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

(Terminated on the Merits after Oral

Hearing; Affirmed; Written, Signed,

Published. Robert R. BEEZER; Raymond

C. FISHER, author; Morrison C.

England.) FILED AND ENTERED

JUDGMENT. [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf)

[03-55166 03-55169]

Filed itv Appellants (AFL-CIO) motion for

a 14-day ext of tm to file the pet for rhrg &

rhrg en banc; served on 4/23/04 [PANEL]

[(03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed order (Raymond C. FISHER,):

granting intv appellant’s mtn for ext of tm

to file a pet for rhrg & rhrg enbanc. The

pet shall be filed on or bef 5/18/04.

(PHONED csl & Faxed to PANEL: 3:42)

[(03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed Appellant Bill Lockyer motion to

extend time to file petition for rehearing

until 5/18/04 [03-55166, 03-55169] served

eS ee ee ee ee ee eee ese) Feet Re Oe

ea = nt elad Silt) gt . phd) ho ee ne ee ee We aS “CoS Tae ghee eeeae Re P ome ¢ .% A Ry

on 4/28/04 [Faxed to PANEL] [03-55166,

03-55169] (mhf) [(03-55166 03-55169]

a _

;

5/3/04 Filed Aplts (Dept of Health Sves,

Vanacore & Bonta)’s mtn for ext of tm

2 until 5/18/04 to file pet for rhrg & rhrg en

banc; served on 4/30/04 (Faxed to PANEL)

3 [(03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

5/6/04 Filed order (Raymond C. FISHER,):

granting aplt Dept of Health Services,

Vanacore & Bonta’s mtn for ext of tm to

file the pet for rhrg & suggestion for rhrg

enbanc. The pet is due 5/18/04.

(PHONED/Faxed to csl/PANEL: 3:26) in

03-55166, 03-55169 [03-55166, 03-55169]

(mhf) [(03-55166 03-55169]

5/6/04 Filed order (Raymond C. FISHER,):

granting appellant's Cal Atty Gen Bill

Lockyer’s mtn for an ext of tm to file the

pet for rhg & suggestion for rhrg enbanc.

The pet is due 5/18/04. (Phoned/Faxed

csl/Panel: 3:26) in 03-55166, 03-55169 [03-

55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

5/18/04 __—‘ Filed original and 50 copies Appellant Bill

Lockyer in 03-55169 petition for panel

rehearing and petition for rehearing en

banc 9 p.pages, served on 5/17/04 (PANEL

& ALL ACTIVE JUDGES) [03-55166, 03-

55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

5/18/04

6/9/04

6/30/04

7/9104

7/9/04

Filed original and 50 copies Aplts Itvs

AFL-CIO & Wholesale, CA _ Labor

Federation in 03-55166 petition for panel

rehearing and petition for rehearing en

banc 18 p.pages, served on 6/18/04

(PANEL & ALL ACTIVE JUDGES) [03-

55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed order (Robert R. BEEZER, Raymond

C. FISHER, Morrison C. England,):

Within 21 days from the date of this

order, plfts aples are directed to file a resp

to the separate pets for rhrg en banc filed

on 5/18/04. Fifty copies of the resp shall

be filed w/the clk of crt in SF, CA & shall

not exceed 15 pgs. [03-55166, 03-55169]

(mhf) (03-55166 03-55169]

Received Appellee Chamber of Commerce

et al’s oversized response to petition for

rhearing and rehearing en banc [5065755-

1} [(5066430-1] served on 6/30/04 [03-

55166, 03-55169] PANEL AND ALL

ACTIVE JUDGES (gar) (03-55166 03-

55169]

Received Intervenors AFL-CIO &

California Labor Federation AFL-CIO’s

reply in support of petition for rehearing

and rehearing en banc of 5 pages; served

on 7/9/04 (PANEL ONLY) [03-55166, 03-

55169] (gva) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed Intervenor/Aplts AFL-CIO and CA

: : <7

‘ “

rt : = . ree bo aa is " sy sae ee

= . . , ; a < > F tna ¥ 4 SS es = en? Ute i oP ye te we ~ a i ogi er: i~

=> ; - . a 7 af. a % gS yr Be yeep eo ys hes, Py i Paes AG ae Cs pa A et aes FE ad = cate aot yr ole ," dpe mae 4 s

ee Bia 0 ark S hf ee eS ae ee Ee Fe ee ~ Spe eS ne vas Fee ers ick mts 2 Te ; e. :

ay ee PT ne ae ee, ee ee eee PEP re ee ee a, ee

10/12/04

10/22/04

3/7/05

5/13/05

Labor Federation AFL-CIO’s motion for

leave to file reply in support of petition for

rehearing and rehearing en banc; served

on 7/9/04 (PANEL) [03-55166, 03-55169]

(gva) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed aplt American Federation in 03-

55166 additional citations, served on

10/12/04 (PANEL & ALL ACTIVE

JUDGES) (03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Filed aples’ Chamber of Commerce’s mtn

to strike intervenors’ suppl authority;

served on 10/22/04 (Copies to PANEL

only) (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Received Appellants AFL-CIO’s letter

dated 3/4/05 re: the status of their mtn for

leave to file their reply br in support of the

pete for rhrg; (PANEL) [03-55166, 03-

55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed order FOR PUBLICATION (Robert

R. BEEZER, Raymond C. FISHER,

Morrison C. England,): The petition for

panel rehearing is granted, and the case

shall be resubmitted as of the date of this

order, without additional oral argument.

The panel’s opinion is withdrawn and

shall not be cited as precedent by or to

this court or any district court of the

Ninth Circuit, except to the extent

adopted by the panel upon rehearing.

(redktd to correct entry) [03-55166, 03-

5/13/05

5/26/05

9/6/05

9/13/05

9/23/05

55169] (eu) [(03-55166 03-55169]

Case resubmitted on this date to Robert

R. BEEZER, Raymond C. FISHER,

Morrison C. England. (See 5/13/05 order)

submission.) Order filed: 5/13/05. [03-

55166, 03-55169] (eu) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed Chamber of Commerce et al’s

additional citations, served on 5/26/05

PANEL [03-55166, 03-55169] (gar) [03-

55166 03-55169]

FILED OPINION: AFFIRMED

(Terminated on the Merits after Oral

Hearing; Affirmed; Written, Signed,

Published. Robert R. BEEZER, author;

Raymond C. FISHEX, dissenting;

Morrison C. England.) FILED AND

ENTERED JUDGMENT. [03-55166, 03-

55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed Appellant CA Labor Federation,

Appellant American Federation’s motion

to extend time to file petition for

rehearing until 10/20/05 [03-55166, 03-

55169] served on 9/13/05 [5560991]

PANEL [03-55166, 03-55169] (gar) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Filed Appellants CA Labor Federation &

AFL’s unopposed mtn for ext of tm to file

brs regarding whether appeal should be

reheard en banc & Declaration in support

of; served on 9/23/05 [Faxed to PANEL]

9/29/05

10/5/05

10/12/05

10/25/05

[03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed Appellants Bill Lockyer in 03-

55169’s joinder to mtn for ext of tm to file

brs regarding whether appeal should

reheard & declaration in support of;

served on 9/28/05 [PANEL] [03-55166, 03-

55169] (mhf) (03-55166 03-55169]

Filed order (Robert R. BEEZER, Raymond

C. FISHER, Morrison C. England,): Aplts’

mtn for ext of tm to file Briefs Regarding

Whether Appeal Should Be Reheard En

Banc filed on 9/23/05 is GRANTED

(Phoned/Faxed: 12:29) in 03-55166, 03-

55169 (03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Received Appellant American Federation

of Labor & Congress’s letter dated

10/10/05 re: sveral clerical errors in the

caption on the Opinion filed 9/16/05

(PANEL by FED X) [03-55166, 03-55169]

(mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed Intervenors Appellants (AFL-CIO &

CA Labor Fed)’s response to crt order of

9/13/05 re Whether this case should be

reheard en banc; served on 10/25/05

(PANEL & ALL ACTIVE JUDGES ANY

INTERESTED SENIOR JUDGE) [03-

55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed Appellees (Chamber of Commerce,

be.

a7 elle Sei le Ae

7) = a dea ao pee

et al)’s response to crt order of 9/13/05 re

Whether the case should be reheard en

banc; served on 10/25/05 (PANEL & ALL

ACTIVE JUDGES & ANY INTERESTED

SENIOR JUDGE) [03-55166, 03-55169]

(mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

10/26/05 Filed Appellants Bill Lockyer, et al’s in

response to crt’s 9/13/05 as to Whether the

appeal should be reheard en banc; served

on 10/25/05 (PANEL & ALL ACTIVE

JUDGES & ANY INTERESTED SENIOR

JUDGE) [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

11/2/05 = Filed aples’ mtn to strike intervenors’

aplts’ br in support of en banc review;

served on 11/2/05 [PANEL only) (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

12/15/05 Filed AFL-CIO, CLF additional citations,

FRAP 28(j) letter, served on 12/15/05

(PANEL & ALL ACTIVE &

INTERESTED SENIOR JUDGES) {[03-

55166, 03-55169] (ru) [(03-55166 03-55169]

1/17/06 Filed order (Mary M. SCHROEDER,):

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused

regular active judges of this crt, it is

ordered that this case be reheard by the

en banc court pursuant to Circ Rule 35-3.

The three-judge panel opinion shall not be

cited as precedent by or to this crt or any

dc of the 9th Cir, except to the extent

adopted by the en banc court. [03-55166,

1/20/06

1/25/06

1/26/06

03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed order (Mary M. SCHROEDER) The

parties shall forward to the clerk of court

thirty (30) copies of their original briefs

and excerpts of record within 7 days from

the date of this order. (phoned/faxed) [03-

55166, 03-55169}] (gva) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed order (Mary M. SCHROEDER,):

Oral argument shall be reheard en banc

in S.F., CA on Tuesday, 3/21/06 at 2:30

p.m. (PHONED/Faxed: 3:08) [03-55166,

03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed aples’ (FAXED) req for ext of time (1

day) to provide copies of brs & excs of rec

to enbanc court; [03-55166, 03-55169]

served on 1/25/06 [SCHROEDER) (mhf)

[03-55166 03-55169]

CALENDARED: SAN FRAN Mar 21 2006

230 pm Courtroom 1 [03-55166, 03-

55169] (aw) [(03-55166 03-55169]

Recd Aplt Bill Lockyer’s opn brs, Jt excs

in 2 vols & rpy brs (EN BANC PANEL)

[(03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Recd aplts’ req for judicial notice

originally filed on 6/20/06 (EN BANC

PANEL) [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

_-*

1/26/06

1/31/06

2/2/06

2/3/06

Received from intervenor appellants AFL-

CIO, California Labor Federation: 30

copies of (1) intervenor-appellant’s brief

filed 4/16/03; (2) reply brief filed 7/14/03;

(3) response to appellees’ request for

judicial notice filed 6/25/03; (4) intervenor

appellant’s request for judicial notice filed

6/23/03. (to En Banc Court) [03-55166, 03-

55169] (ru) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed notice of appearance of Angela Siera

(Withdrew as counsel: [03-55166, 03-

55169] (mhf) [(03-55166 03-55169]

Recd aple Chamber of Commerce’s

Answering br & suppl exc in 3 vols (EN

BANC PANEL) [03-55166, 03-55169]

(mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Recd addl copies of Aples’ Additional Cites

previously filed on 5/26/06 (EN BANC

PANEL) [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Recd add! copies of aples’ Req for judicial

notice previously recd on -5/23/03 (EN

BANC PANEL) [03-55166, 03-55169]

(mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Received from amicus parties 30 copies of

(1) brief of amici curiae LPA, Inc. and

Associated Builders filed on 6/3/03 and (2)

brief of amicus curiae National Labor

Relations Board (NLRB) filed on 6/5/03.

med > z

bet

7 “

fin,

»,

e as ¢

«¥

743

ess

‘.

;

“fi

;

‘4

“

2/6/06

2/9/06

2/23/06

(to En Banc Court) [03-55166, 03-55169] -

(ru) [(03-55166 03-55169]

Filed order (Mary M. SCHRODER): Aple

Chamber of Commerce’s mtn for ext of tm

is GRANTED. The Chamber of

Commerce’s br & excs are ordered filed. in

03-55166, 03-55169 [03-55166, 03-55169]

(mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed Aples Chamber of Commerce, et al’s

motion to reschedule enbanc oral

argument to either 3/22, 23 or 24, 2006;

served on 2/6/06 (FAXED to EN BANC

PANEL) [5714438] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed order (Mary M. SCHROEDER.,):

Aple’s unopposed mtn to reschedule en

banc argument is DENIED because of

previous scheduling commitments of the

crt. in 03-55166, 03-55169 [03-55166, 03-

55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed order (Mary M. SCHROEDER,):

Upon the vote of a majority of the en banc

court, the opinion & dissent filed on

9/6/05, slip op 12167, & appearing at 422

F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2005), are withdrawn.

[(03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed mtn & Declaration by Amicus South

Coast Air Quality Management Dist for

exemption from Circ Rule 46-5; [03-55166,

bars q 7 7 . : aoe “: os ed 4 tara. Dansti int Sa bie se :

ON ee a) Oe Te Es ee oe Le eM, © RR NO Sete a AS

2/28/06

3/6/06

3/9/06

03-55169] served on 2/23/06 [5737417]

(mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Received Amicus South Coast Air Qual in

03-55166, Amicus South Coast Air Qual in

03-55169’s brief in 50 copies of 16 pages;

deficient: (Mtn pending); served on

2/28/06 (ENBANC PANEL) [03-55166,

03-55169] (mhf) [03-55169]

Filed Amicus South Coast Air Quality

Management District motion to become

amicus curiae [03-55166, 03-55169] served

on 2/28/06 [EN BANC PANEL) (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Received Amicus South Coast Air Quality

Management District’s brief in 50 copies

of 16 pages; served on 2/28/06; deficient:

(Mtn to file pending) (EN BANC PANEL)

[03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed order (Mary M. SCHROEDER,):

Amicus South Coast Air Quality

Management District cs] Winter King’s

mtn for exemption from Circuit Rule 46-5

is GRANTED. in 03-55166, 03-55169 [03-

55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Filed order (Mary M. SCHROEDER,):

South Cost Air Quality Management

District’s mtn for leave to file br of amicus

curiae is GRANTED. (PHONED/FAXED:

3/9/06

3/21/06

9:46) in 03-55166, 03-55169 [03-55166,

03-55169] (mhf) (03-55166 03-55169]

Filed original and 50 copies South Coast

Air Quality’s amicus curiae br of 16 pages;

served on 2/28/06 [03-55166, 03-55169]

(mhf) (03-55166 03-55169]

Filed Los Angeles Taxi Ind’s mtn for lv to

file amicus br in support of neither party;

served on 3/20/06 [EN BANC PANEL)

[(03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Received Amicus Los Angeles Taxi

Industry in support of neither party’s brief

in 50 copies of 19 pages; served on 3/20/06;

deficient: (mtn to file pending) (Copies to

EN BANC PANEL w/mtn) Notified

counsel. [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

ARGUED AND SUBMITTED TO Mary

M. SCHROEDER, Stephen R.

REINHARDT, Robert R. BEEZER, Alex

KOZINSKI, Andrew J. KLEINFELD,

Michael D. HAWKINS, Sidney R.

THOMAS, Barry G. SILVERMAN, M. M.

McKEOWN, Kim M. WARDLAW,

Raymond C. FISHER, Richard A. PAEZ,

Johnnie B. RAWLINSON, Richard R.

CLIFTON, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN

[03-55166, 03-55169] (ca) [03-55166 03-

55169]

4/26/06

5/1/06

5/16/06

9/21/06

Filed aples Chamber of Commerce, et al’s

additional citations, served on 4/26/06 (EN

BANC PANEL by FED X) [03-55166, 03-

55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed aples Chamber of Commerce’s mtn

to take judicial notice; served on 4/26/06

[EN BANC PANEL by FED X) (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Filed Intervenor Aplts (CA Labor

Federation & American Federation)’s

response to notice of supplemental

authority & opposition to req for judicial

notice; served on 5/1/06 (EN BANC

PANEL by FED

X) [03-55166, 03-55169]

(mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed order (Mary M. SCHROEDER,):

denying appellee’s request for judicial

notice. in 03-55166, 03-55169 [03-55166,

03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-55169]

FILED OPINION: REVERSED and its

injunction is VACATED. We remand for

further proceedings consistent with this

opinion (Terminated: on the Merits after

Oral Hearing; Reversed; Written, Signed,

Published. Heard en banc; Mary M.

SCHROEDER; Stephen R. REINHARDT;

Robert R. BEEZER, dissenting; Alex

KOZINSKI; Andrew J. KLEINFELD;

Michael D. HAWKINS; Sidney R.

THOMAS; Barry G. SILVERMAN; M. M.

McKEOWN;

Kim M. WARDLAW;

10/5/06

11/20/06

Raymond C. FISHER, author; Richard A.

PAEZ; Johnnie B. RAWLINSON; Richard

R. CLIFTON; CONSUELO M.

CALLAHAN.) FILED AND ENTERED

JUDGMENT. [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf)

[(03-55166 03-55169]

Filed Aples’ motion to stay the mandate;

served on 10/5/06 (PANEL) (gva) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Filed Aples’ motion to stay issuance of

mandate; served on 10/5/06 (MMS)

5970201] (gva) [03-55166 03-55169]

Filed order (Mary M. SCHROEDER,

Stephen R. REINHARDT, Robert R.

BEEZER, Alex KOZINSKI, Andrew J.

KLEINFELD, Michael D. HAWKINS,

Sidney R. THOMAS, Barry G.

SILVERMAN, M. M. McKEOWN, Kim M.

WARDLAW, Raymond C. FISHER,

Richard A. PAEZ, Johnnie _ B.

RAWLINSON, Richard R. CLIFTON,

CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN,): Aples’ mtn

to stay the mandate filed 10/6/06 is

GRANTED. The mandate is stayed

pending the filing of a pet for writ of

certiorari in the Supreme Court. The stay

expires 90 days from the date of this order

unless aples file a pet for the writ & so

notify the clerk of court in writing within

the period of the stay. In that case, the

stay shall continue until final disposition

by the Supreme Court.

12/18/06

1/8/07

1/12/07

2/16/07

11/26/07

(PHONED/FAXED: 12:01) in 03-55169,

03-55166 [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Received letter from the Supreme Court

dated 12/12/06 re: application for an ext of

tm to file a pet for a writ of certiorari has

been extended to & including 1/5/07 [03-

55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Rec’d notice of FIRM NAME CHANGE

from Scott A. Kronland for Appellants

dated 1/5/07. Chg to: ALTSHULER

BERZON LLP. The firm’s address &

telephone & fax numbers remain the

same. [03-55166, 03-55169] (mhf) [03-

55166 03-55169]

Received notice from Supreme Court:

petition for certiorari filed Supreme Court

No. 06-939 filed on 1/5/07. [03-55166, 03-

55169] (mhf) [(03-55166 03-55169]

Filed aples’ motion for further stay until

disposition of their pet for writ of

certiorari with the Supreme Court; served

on 2/16/07 (MMS) (mhf) [03-55166 03-

55169]

Received notice from Supreme Court,

petition for certiorari GRANTED on

11/20/07 . Supreme Court No. 06-939

PANEL (gar) [03-55166 03-55169}

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE

UNITED STATES, et. ai,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

BILL LOCKYER, in his capacity as Attorney

General of the State of California, et al,

Defendants-Appellants,

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND

CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS,

et al.,

Intervenors-Appellants.

| On Appeal from the United States

| | District Court for the Central District of California,

| Southern Division

: No. CV-02-00377-GLT

The Hon. Gary L. Taylor, Judge

Date Filed | # Docket Text

04/11/2002

COMPLAINT filed; Summons(es)

not issued; referred to Discovery

Arthur Nakazato (mg) (Entered:

04/18/2002)

04/11/2002

NOTICE OF £INTERESTED

PARTIES filed by plaintiffs (mg)

(Entered: 04/18/2002)

04/11/2002

SUMMONS issued as to

defendants on cmp (mg) (Entered:

04/18/2002)

04/11/2002

NOTICE by plaintiffs of related

case(s) SA CV 00-1190 GLT (ANx)

(mg) (Entered: 04/18/2002)

04/11/2002

NOTICE of pendency of other

actions or proceedings by plaintiffs

(mg) (Entered: 04/18/2002)

04/11/2002

NOTICE OF FILING FEE DUE

On Pro Hac Vice Application

mailed to attorney Stephen A

Bokat for plaintiff Chamb of

Comm of US (mg) (Entered:

04/18/2002)

04/23/2002

APPLICATION AND ORDER of

Non-Resident Attorney to Appear

in a Specific Case filed for plaintiff

Chamb of Comm of US by Stephen

A. Bokat Designating Brent J.

North as local counsel. Approved

by Judge David 9. Carter (Fee pd)

(rmi) (Entered: 05/01/2002)

04/25/2002

ORDER RE TRANSFER

PURSUANT TO GENERAL

ORDER 224 (Related Case) filed.

[ Related Case no.: SACV 00-

1190GLT(ANx)] Case transferred

from Judge David O. Carter to

Judge Gary L. Taylor for all

further proceedings. The case

number will now reflect the

initials of the transferee Judge

{ SACV 02° 7GLT(ANx)] (cc: all

counse]) (csb) (Entered:

04/25/2002)

| 04/30/2002

EX PARTE APPLICATION filed

by defendants to extend time an

additional 30 days, or soon

thereafter as practicable, for filing

an answer or other responsive

pleading to complaint [1-1] as to

defendants (mg) (Entered:

05/06/2002)

04/30/2002

PROOF OF SERVICE by

defendants on 4/30/02 of Ex Parte

Appl & Ord Extending Time to

Plead & [Proposed Ord GR Ex

Parte Appl for Ord Extending

Time to Plead] (mg) (Entered:

05/06/2002)

05/01/2002

NOTICE OF MOTION AND

MOTION by Intervenors American

Fed of Labor & Congress of

Industrial Organizations & CA

Labor Fed for leave to intervene as

Dfts ; memo in suppt; motion

hearing set for 10:00 6/10/02;

Lodged Prop Ord (mg) (Entered:

05/06/2002)

05/01/2002

MEMO OF P/A IN OPPOSITION

by plaintiffs to Dfts' ex parte

application to extend time an

additional 30 days, or soon

thereafter as practicable, for filing

an answer or other responsive

pleading to complaint [1-1] as to

defendants [7-1] (mg) (Entered:

05/06/2002)

05/02/2002

ORDER by Judge Gary L. Taylor

GRANTING in part DENYING in

part Dfts' ex parte application to

extend time to file pleading. Dfts

shall have to & incl 5/15/02 to file

such pleading (mg) (Entered:

05/07/2002)

| 05/06/2002

SUPPLEMENTAL DECL BY

STACEY M LEYTON in suppt of

obj) to intra-district assignment

(mg) (Entered: 05/08/2002)

‘

05/08/2002

DECLARATION of Rodney

Wilkerson by plaintiff Chamb of

Comm of US, plaintiff CA

Chamber of Comm, plaintiff

Employers Group, plaintiff CA

Healthcare Assn, plaintiff CA Mfrs

& Tech Assn, plaintiff CA Assn

Health Fac, plaintiff CA Assn

Homes & Sves, plaintiff Bettec

Corporation, plaintiff Marksherm

Corp, plaintiff Zilaco Inc, plaintiff

Zilaco, plaintiff Del Rio

Healthcare, plaintiff Beverly

Health & Reh, plaintiff Internext

Group in suppt of plfs' opp to appl-

in-intervention's obj to

intradistrict assignment & req for

ruling on whether intradist

assignment is proper (rmi)

(Entered: 05/10/2002)

05/08/2002

SUPPLEMENTAL FILING by

interventors, American Fed of

Labor of Congress of Indust

Organizations & Calif Labor Fed,

AFL-CIO re applicatns-in-

intervention's obj to intradist

assignment (rmi) (Entered:

05/10/2002)

05/08/2002

OPPOSITION filed by plaintiff

Chamb of Comm of US, plaintiff

CA Chamber of Comm, plaintiff

Employers Group, plaintiff CA

Healthcare Assn, plaintiff CA Mfrs

& Tech Assn, plaintiff CA Assn

Health Fac, plaintiff CA Assn

Homes & Sves, plaintiff Bettec

Corporation, plaintiff Marksherm

Corp, plaintiff Zilaco Inc, plaintiff

Zilaco, plaintiff Del Rio

Healthcare, plaintiff Beverly

;

P 2 ia

» pee O46

Health & Reh, plaintiff Internext

Group to application's obj to

intradist assign & req for ruling oh

whether intradist assign is proper

(rmi) (Entered: 05/10/2002)

05/08/2002

DECLARATION of § Marisela

Arvayo by plaintiff Chamb of

Comm of US, plaintiff CA

Chamber of Comm, plaintiff

Employers Group, plaintiff CA

Healthcare Assn, plaintiff CA Mfrs

& Tech Assn, plaintiff CA Assn

Health Fac, plaintiff CA Assn

Homes & Sves, plaintiff Bettec

Corporation, plaintiff Marksherm

Corp, plaintiff Zilaco Inc, plaintiff

Zilaco, plaintiff Del Rio

Healthcare, plaintiff Beverly

Health & Reh, plaintiff Internext

Group in suppt of plfs' opp to

applicants-in-intervention's obj to

intradist assign & req for ruling on

whether intradist assign is proper

(rmi) (Entered: 05/10/2002)

Pe > Fl eee kee eee, be Oe!

05/09/2002

APPLICANTS-IN-

INTERVENTION'S RESPONSE to

Pifs' opposition to applicants-in-

intervention's obj to intradistrict

assignment [15-1 (mg) (Entered:

05/13/2002)

05/09/2002

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL

DECL by Stacey M Leyton in

suppt of objection to intra-district

assignment (mg) (Entered:

05/13/2002)

05/10/2002

MINUTES (in Chambers) by

Judge Gary L. Taylor: The Unions'

obj to assignment of this case to

the Central Dist's Southern Div is

OVERRULED. This case was duly

assigned by the Clerk to Judge

Carter in the Southern Div & duly

low-numbered from Judge Carter

to Judge Taylor: CR: (not present)

(mg) (Entered: 05/14/2002)

05/15/2002

NOTICE OF MOTION AND

MOTION by defendants to

dismiss ; motion hearing set for

10:00 6/17/02 (mg) (Entered:

05/16/2002)

| 05/15/2002

MEMORANDUM OF P/A_ IN

SUPPORT by defendants of

motion to dismiss [20-1] (mg)

(Entered: 05/16/2002)

| 05/15/2002

DECLARATION of Suzanne M.

Ambrose by defendants in suppt of

motion to dismiss [20-1] (mg)

(Entered: 05/16/2002)

05/15/2002

— Ee

. 23

PROOF OF SERVICE by

defendants on 5/15/02 of Mot &

mot to dism, Memo of P/A in

suppt, decl of Suzanne M. Ambrose

in suppt of mot to dism (see doc for

fur details) (mg) (Entered:

05/16/2002)

05/23/2002

APPLICANTS-IN-

INTERVENTION'S EX PARTE

APPLICATION filed to continue

hrg date on Plifs mot for summ

jgm (mg) (Entered: 05/24/2002)

05/23/2002

DECLARATION of Stacey M

Leyton in suppt of ex parte

application to continue hrg date on

Pif's mot for summ jgm [24-1] (mg)

(Entered: 05/24/2002)

05/24/2002

NOTICE OF MOTION AND

MOTION by iopilaintiffs _for

summary judgment , or in the alt

for partial summary judgment ;

motion hearing set for 10:00

6/17/02 (mg) (Entered: 05/28/2002)

05/24/2002

MEMORANDUM OF P/A_ IN

SUPPORT by plaintiffs of motion

for summary judgment [26-1], or

in the alt for partial summary

judgment (mg) (Entered:

05/28/2002)

05/24/2002

REQUEST by plaintiffs for

Judicial Notice in suppt of Pifs'

motion for summary judgment [26-

1], or in the alt for partial

summary judgment [26-2] (mg)

(Entered: 05/28/2002)

05/24/2002

NOTICE OF LODGING of non-

federal authorities & federal non-

statutory by plaintiffs (mg)

(Entered: 05/28/2002)

05/24/2002

DECLARATION of Nancy

Armentrout by plaintiffs in suppt

of Pifs' motion for summary

judgment [26-1], for partial

summary judgment [26-2] (mg)

(Entered: 05/28/2002)

05/24/2002

DECLARATION of Stephen A.

Bokat by plaintiffs in suppt of Plfs'

motion for summary judgment [26-

1], for partial summary judgment

[26-2] (mg) (Entered: 05/28/2002)

05/24/2002

DECLARATION of Ronald S.

Cohen by plaintiffs in suppt of

motion for summary judgment [26-

1], for partial summary judgment

[26-2] (mg) (Entered: 05/28/2002)

05/24/2002

DECLARATION of William

Dahlman by plaintiffs in suppt of

Plfs' motion for summary

judgment [26-1], for partial

summary judgment [26-2] (mg)

(Entered: 05/28/2002)

| 05/24/2002

DECLARATION of Steven

Highland by plaintiffs in suppt of

Plfs' motion for summary

judgment [26-1], for partial

summary judgment [26-2] (mg)

(Entered: 05/28/2002)

05/24/2002

DECLARATION of Roger Hunte

by plaintiffs in suppt of motion for

summary judgment [26-1], for

partial summary judgment [26-2]

(mg) (Entered: 05/28/2002)

05/24/2002

DECLARATION of Anne Burns

Johnson by plaintiffs in suppt of

Plfs' motion for summary

judgment [26-1], for partial

summary judgment [26-2] (mg)

(Entered: 05/28/2002)

05/24/2002

DECLARATION of Fred Main by

plaintiffs in suppt of Plfs' motion

for summary judgment [26-1], for

partial summary judgment [26-2]

(mg) (Entered: 05/28/2002)

05/24/2002

DECLARATION of Brent J North

by plaintiffs in suppt of Plfs'

motion for summary judgment [26-

1], for partial summary judgment

[26-2] (mg) (Entered: 05/28/2002)

05/24/2002

DECLARATION of Art Sponseller

by plaintiffs in suppt of Pifs'

motion for summary judgment [26-

1], for partial summary judgment

[26-2] (mg) (Entered: 05/28/2002)

05/24/2002

DECLARATION of Jack M.

Stewart by plaintiffs in suppt of

Pifs' motion for summary

‘

—_--— —- —_ 2

judgment [26-1], for partial |

summary judgment [26-2] (mg)

(Entered: 05/28/2002)

05/24/2002

DECLARATION of Mort Swales

by plaintiffs in suppt of Plfs'

motion for summary judgment [26-

1}, for partial summary judgment

[26-2] (mg) (Entered: 05/28/2002)

05/24/2002

DECLARATION of Gary Wheeler

by plaintiffs in suppt of Pifs'

motion for summary judgment [26-

1], for partial summary judgment

[26-2] (mg) (Entered: 05/28/2002)

05/24/2002

DECLARATION of Daniel Zilafro

by plaintiffs in suppt of Pifs’

motion for summary judgment [26-

1], for partial summary judgment

[26-2] (mg) (Entered: 05/28/2002)

05/24/2002

PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff

on 5/24/02 of Ntc of Mot & Mot for

Summ Jgm, or in the alt, Partial

Summ Jgm; Plfs' Memo of P/A in

Suppt of Its Mot for Summ Jgm;

[Prop} Ord GR Plfs' Mot for Summ

Jgm or, in the alt, Partial Summ

Jgm; (see doc for fur details) (mg)

(Entered: 05/28/2002)

05/24/2002

NTC OF NON-OPP by plaintiffs to

Intervenors' ntc of mot & mot for

leave to intervene as Dfts [9-1]

(mg) (Entered: 05/28/2002)

05/28/2002

EX PARTE APPLICATION filed

by defendants for order to continue

the hrg on Plfs' mot for summ jgm

&/or request to set a sched conf

purs to FRCP 16(b) (mg) (Entered:

05/29/2002)

05/28/2002

MEMO OF P/A IN OPPOSITION

by plaintiffs to ex parte application

for order to continue the hrg on

Pifs' mot for summ jgm [46-1],

&/or request to set a sched conf

purs to FRCP 16(b) [46-2]. Decl of

Brent J. North in suppt thereof

(mg) (Entered: 05/29/2002)

05/28/2002

SUPPLEMENTAL FILING IN

SUPPORT by _ applicants-in-

intervention of ex parte

application for order to continue

the hrg on Plifs’' mot for summ jgm

[46-1], request to set a sched conf

purs to FRCP 16(b) [46-2] (mg)

(Entered: 05/29/2002)

05/28/2002

DECLARATION of Catherine Z.

Ysrael by defendants in suppt of

ex parte application for order to

continue the hrg on Plfs' for summ

jgm [46-1], to request to set a

sched conf purs to FRCP 16(b) [46-

2] (mg) (Entered: 05/29/2002)

05/28/2002

DECLARATION of Suzanne M.

Ambrose by defendants in suppt of

ex parte application for order to

continue the hrg on Plifs' mot for

summ jgm [46-1], to request to set

a sched conf purs to FRCP 16(b)

[46-2] (mg) (Entered: 05/29/2002)

05/28/2002

DECLARATION of Stacey M.

Leyton by defendants in suppt of

supp] filing in suppt of ex parte

application for order to continue

the hrg on Pifs' mot for summ jgm

[46-1], to request to set a sched

conf purs to FRCP 16(b) [46-2]

(mg) (Entered: 05/29/2002)

| 05/28/2002

DECL OF SERVICE by

defendants on 5/28/02 of 1) Ex

parte appl for ord cont the hrg on

Pifs' mot for summ jgm &/or req to

set a sched conf, 2) Decl of

Suzanne M. Ambrose in suppt of

ex parte appl for ord cont the hrg

on Pif's mot for summ jgm &/or req

to set a sched conf (see doc for fur

details) (mg) (Entered: 05/29/2002)

05/28/2002

MINUTES (In Chambers): plfs'

motion for summary judgment [26-

1] & motion for partial summary

judgment [26-2] is continued to

10:00 7/15/02; if appropriate, plfs

may file supp] mot papers nit 3:00

p.m. on 6/19/02; any opp papers

are due not 3:00 p.m. on 6/26/02;

rply papers are due nit 3:00 p.m.

on 7/3/2; the motions to intervene

Oa A als PE > Be

& dism sched for hrg 6/10/02 &

6/17/02 respectively remain on cal;

any pty may file proper motions

for inj rel if appropriate; the hrg

for plfs' mot for summ jgm sched

for 6/17/02 is taken off cal; by

Judge Gary L. Taylor CR: none

present (rmi) (Entered:

05/30/2002)

05/30/2002

PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED;

[Proposed] Ord GR Ex parte appl

for ord cont the hrg on Plfs' mot for

summ jgm &/or req to set a sched

conf purs to FRCP; ldg 5/28/02

(mg) (Entered: 05/31/2002)

)

;

05/30/2002

PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED;

[Proposed] Ord GR ex parte mot to

cont hrg date on Plfs mot for

summ jgm; lIdg 65/23/02 (mg)

(Entered: 05/31/2002)

05/31/2002

NOTICE OF WAIVER of oral

argument on motion for leave to

intervene as Dfts [9-1] purs to LR

7-15 (mg) (Entered: 06/03/2002)

05/31/2002

REQUEST to enter order GR leave

to intervene by #£Proposed

Intervenors (mg) (Entered:

06/03/2002)

05/31/2002

DECLARATION of Stacey M.

Leyton in suppt of Ntc of waiver of

oral argument on mot for lv to

ee ae ee

Ver. a ee Foe

} oni CFA Gee re mm eee a

Aye ar

TP ee eee, ee

intervene as Dfts [54-1], & request

to enter order GR leave to

intervene [54-1] (mg) (Entered:

06/03/2002)

05/31/2002

PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs

on 5/24/02 of Ntc of Mot & mot for

summ jgm, or in the alt, part

summ jgm; Plfs' memo of P/A in

suppt of its mot for summ jgm or

in the alt, part summ _ jgm;

[Proposed] Ord GR Pifs' mot for

summ jgm (see doc for fur details)

(mg) (Entered: 06/03/2002)

05/31/2002

PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff

on 5/24/62 of Ntc of mot & mot for

summ jgm, or in the alt, partial

summ jgm; Plfs' memo of P/A in

suppt of its mot for summ jgm, or

in the alt, partial summ jgm;

[Proposed] Ord GR Pifs' mot for

summ jgm (see doc for fur details)

(mg) (Entered: 06/03/2002)

05/31/2002

PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs

on 5/28/02 of Memo of P/A in opp

to applicants-in-intervention's ex

parte mot to cont hrg date of Pifs'

mot for summ jgm; decl of Brent J

North in suppt thereof (mg)

(Entered: 06/03/2002)

06/04/2002

PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED;

[Proposed] Ord GR waiver of oral

argument & mot for lv to

: 1

a eC! es ee ee Se ee ee ee le —

intervene; lIdg 65/31/02 (mg)

(Entered: 06/05/2002)

06/04/2002

ORDER by Judge Gary L. Taylor

granting request to enter order

granting leave to intervene [54-1]

(mg) (Entered: 06/05/2002)

06/04/2002

ANSWER filed by intervenors to

complaint [1-1] (mg) (Entered:

06/05/2002)

06/04/2002

STIPULATION and ORDER by

Judge Gary L. Taylor cont

hearings on Dfts' motion to

dismiss [20-1] to 7/1/02; Plfs' mot

for summary judgment [26-1], or

partial summary judgment [26-2]

to 8/26/02 (mg) (Entered:

06/05/2002)

06/05/2002

PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED;

Applicants-in-intervention's

objection to intradistrict

assignment & request for ruling on

whether intradistrict assignment

is proper; red 5/3/02 (mg) (Entered:

06/06/2002)

| 06/05/2002

ORDER by Judge Gary L. Taylor’

RE: 1) Early Meeting of Ptys, 2)

Sched Conf; scheduling conf set for

9:00 10/21/02 (see doc for fur

details) (mg) (Entered: 06/07/2002)

06/13/2002

NOTICE of entry of order GR

;

AFLC-CIO & CA Labor Fed's mot

for lv to intervene by iutervenors

AFL-CIO, CA Labor Fed AFL-CIO

(mg) (Entered: 06/17/2002)

06/17/2002

MEMO OF P/A IN OPPOSITION

by plaintiffs to Dfts' motion to

dismiss [20-1] (mg) (Entered:

06/18/2002)

Be ke i et Tee a ae ee Beyee tf eae be eee ee. ore el ae eo

ee eee Oe ee

06/17/2002

DECLARATION of Brent J North

by plaintiffs in suppt of Plfs' Memo

of P/A in opp w motion to Dfts' mot

to dismiss [20-1] (mg) (Entered:

06/18/2002)

}

| 06/17/2002

REQUEST by plaintiffs for

Judicial Notice (mg) (Entered:

06/18/2002)

| 06/17/2002

NOTICE by plaintiffs of

continuance of hrg & briefing

sched on Dfts' mot to dism & Plfs'

mot for summ jgm, or, in the alt

partial summ jgm (mg) (Entered:

06/18/2002)

(06/17/2002

NOTICE by plaintiffs of lodging of

non-fed authorities & fed non-

statutory (mg) (Entered:

06/18/2002)

06/18/2002

PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs

on 6/17/02 of Pif's memo of P/A in

opp to Dfts’' mot to dism; decl of

Brent North in suppt thereof (see

doc for fur details) (mg) (Entered:

06/19/2002)

06/20/2002

JOINT RULE 26 DISCOVERY

PLAN filed; est length of trial 2

days (mg) (Entered: 06/25/2002)

06/24/2002

REPLY by defendants to Plfs' opp

to Dfts' motion to dismiss [20-1]

(filed as Plfs' reply to Dfts' Opp to

Plifs' Mot to Dism) (mg) (Entered:

06/26/2002)

06/24/2002

REQUEST by defendants for

Judicia! Notice (mg) (Entered:

06/26/2002)

06/24/2002

DECLARATION OF SERVICE by

defendant on 6/24/02 of Pif's reply

to Dfts' Opp to Plfs' Mot to Dism;

Dfts' Req for Jud Ntc (mg)

(Entered: 06/26/2002)

06/28/2002

REQUEST by plaintiff for Judicial

Notice re motion to dismiss [20-1]

(mg) (Entered: 07/01/2002)

06/28/2002

DECLARATION of Mark A

Johnson by plaintiffs in suppt of

Plfs' req for judicial ntc re motion

to dismiss [20-1] (mg) (Entered:

07/01/2002)

06/28/2002

A Te

DECLARATION of Nancy

Armentrout by plaintiffs in suppt

of Pifs' req for jud ntc re motion to

dismiss [20-1] (mg) (Entered:

07/01/2002)

06/28/2002

DECLARATION of Stephen A

Bokat by plaintiffs in suppt of Plfs'

req for jud ntc re motion to dismiss

[20-1] (mg) (Entered: 07/01/2002)

06/28/2002

DECI ARATION of Art Sponseller

by plaintiffs in suppt of Plfs' req

for jud ntc re motion to dismiss

[20-1] (mg) (Entered: 07/01/2002)

06/28/2002

DECLARATION of William

Dahlman by plaintiffs in suppt of

Plfs' req for jud ntc re motion to

dismiss [20-1] (mg) (Entered:

07/01/2002)

06/28/2002

PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiffs

on 6/28/02 of Req for Jud Ntc;

decls of William Dahlman, Art

Sponseller, Stepehen A _ Bokat,

Mark A Johnson & Nancy

Armentrout in suppt thereof (mg)

(Entered: 07/01/2002)

06/28/2002

NOTICE OF _ ERRATA by

defendants correcting reply to Pifs

opp to Dfts' mot to dism [71-1]

(mg) (Entered: 07/02/2002)

07/01/2002

MINUTES by Judge Gary L.

Taylor: Dfts' mot to dism is GR as

to the Dept of Health Services,

only. Motion to dism is denied in

all other respects. The Crt will

issue its written order in the near

future. CR: Sally Marshall (mg)

(Entered: 07/18/2002)

07/02/2002

ORDER by Judge Gary L. Taylor

denying Dfts' motion to dismiss for

lack of subject mtr jurisdiction ([20-

1}. (mg) (Entered: 07/03/2002)

07/02/2002

PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED

Stip of plas voluntary dism of dft

Dept of Health Srvs (csb) (Entered:

07/05/2002)

07/23/2002

STIPULATION and ORDER by

Discovery Arthur Nakazato

allowing leave for Dfts to exceed

by 4 the limit of 10 depos

contained in FRCP Rule 30(a) in

order to take the depos of all the

Plfs (mg) (Entered: 07/27/2002)

07/26/2002

ANSWER filed by defendants Bill

Lockyer, Frank G Vanacore, Diana

M Bonta to complaint [1-1] (mt)

(Entered: 08/01/2002)

07/26/2002

DECLARATION OF SERVICE

VIA FAX ANI) US MAIL by

defendant on 7/26/02 of dfts'

answer to complaint (mt) (Entered:

08/01/2002)

08/02/2002

NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION of

Counsel for plaintiffs by attorneys

Michael J Lotito, Bradley W

’

Kampas, Scott W Oborne of

Jackson Lewis LLP (mg) (Entered:

08/09/2002)

08/05/2002

PROOF OF SERVICE by

intervenors AFL-CIO, CA Labor

Fed AFL-CIO on _ 8/5/02 of

Intervenor's Ntc of Cross-mot;

Intervenors' Memo in Support of

Cross-mot; [Proposed] Stmt of

Uncontroverted Facts; (see doc for

further details) (tso) (Entered:

08/09/2002)

‘

“

08/05/2002

NOTICE OF MOTION AND

MOTION by Dfts Bill Lockyer,

Frank G Vanacore, Diana M Bonta

for summary judgment , or in the

alt for partial summary judgment ;

motion hearing set for 10:00

8/26/02 (mg) (Entered: 08/09/2002)

08/05/2002

NOTICE OF CROSS-MOTION &

CROSS-MOTION by intervenors

AFL-CIO, CA Labor Fed AFL-CIO

for summary judgment , or in the

alt for partial summary judgment ;

motion hearing set for 10:00

8/26/02 (mg) (Entered: 08/09/2002)

| 08/05/2002

MEMORANDUM OF P/A_ IN

SUPPORT by intervenors AFL-

CIO, CA Labor Fed AFL-CIO of

cross-motion for summary

judgment [90-1], cross-motion for

partial summary judgment [90-2]

IP Ee ne Nee

(mg) (Entered: 08/09/2002)

08/05/2002

DECLARATION of Scott A.

Kronland by intervenors AFL-CIO,

CA Labor Fed AFL-CIO in suppt

of cross-motion for summary

judgment [90-1], cross-motion for

partial summary judgment (mg)

(Entered: 08/09/2002)

08/05/2002

MEMORANDUM OF P/A_ IN

SUPPORT by defendants of Dfts'

motion for summary judgment [89-

1], or in the alt, for partial

summary judgment (mg) (Entered:

08/09/2002)

08/05/2002

DECLARATION of Suzanne M.

Ambrose by defendants in suppt of

Dfts' motion for summary

judgment [89-1], or in the alt for

partial summary judgment [89-2]

(mg) (Entered: 08/09/2002)

08/05/2002

DECLARATION of _ Barbara

Hardiman by defendants in suppt

of mot for summary judgment [89-

1], or in the alt, for partial

summary judgment [89-2] (mg)

(Entered: 08/09/2002)

08/05/2002

DECLARATION of Gene Morrow

by defendants in suppt of Dfts'

motion for summary judgment [89-

1], or in the alt, for partial

summary judgment [89-2] (mg)

(Entered: 08/09/2002)

08/05/2002

DECLARATION of Frank

Vanacore by defendants in suppt

of Dfts' motion for summary

judgment [89-1], or in the alt, for

partial summary judgment [89-2]

(mg) (Entered: 08/09/2002)

08/08/2002

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

by plaintiffs on 8/5/02 of Assoc of

Pif's Cnsl (mg) (Entered:

08/14/2002)

08/09/2002

STIPULATION and ORDER by

Judge Gary L. Taylor cont hearing

on motion for summary judgment

[26-1], partial summary judgment

[26-2], [90-1], [90-2], [89-1], [89-2]

to 10:00 9/9/02. The ptys' opp jgm

will be fld & served on or before

8/19/02; & the ptys replies to the

aforementioned Opps will be fld &

svc on or before 8/26/02 (mg)

(Entered: 08/15/2002)

08/19/2002

100

MEMO OF P&A IN OPPOSITION

by defendants to plfs' motion for

summary judgment [26-1] or, in|.

the alt, partial summary judgment

[26-2] (mt) (Entered: 08/20/2002)

08/19/2002

101

DECLARATION of Suzanne M

Ambrose by defendants in opp to

plfs' motion for summary

judgment [26-1] or, in the alt

partial summary judgment [26-2]

(mt) (Entered: 08/20/2002)

08/19/2002

102

DECLARATION of Frank

Vanacore by defendants in suppt

of dfts' opp to plfs' motion for

summary judgment [26-1] or, in

the alt for partial summary

judgment [26-2] (mt) (Entered:

08/20/2002)

08/19/2002

103

STATEMENT of genuine issues by

defendants in opp to plfs' motion

for summary judgment [26-1] or,

in the alt partial summary

judgment [26-2] (mt) (Entered:

08/20/2002)

08/19/2002

104

OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

SUBMITTED BY PLFS filed by

defendants in suppt of plfs motion

for summary judgment [26-1]; and

opp to plfs’ req for judicial ntc (mt)

(Entered: 08/20/2002)

08/19/2002

105

DECLARATION OF SERVICE by

defendants on 8/18/02 of dfts' opp

to plfs’' mot for S/J or, in the alt,

partial S/J & supporting docs (mt)

(Entered: 08/20/2002)

08/19/2002

106

MEMO IN OPPOSITION by

intervenors to plfs' motion for

summary judgment [26-1] or, in

the alt partial summary judgment

[26-2] (mt) (Entered: 08/20/2002)

08/19/2002:

107

DECLARATION of Fred Azcarate

by intervenors in opp to plfs

motion for summary judgment [26-

1} (mt) (Entered: 08/20/2002)

ee ee ee ip eee eee ae ae ~ —

08/19/2002

108

DECLARATION of Stacey M

Leyton by intervenors purs to

FRCP 56(f) in opp to plfs' motion

for summary judgment [26-1] (mt)

(Entered: 08/20/2002)

08/19/2002

109

DECLARATION of Scott A

Kronland by intervenors in opp to

plfs' motion for summary

judgment [26-1] (mt) Modified on

08/20/2002 (Entered: 08/20/2002)

08/19/2002

110

DECLARATION of Nicholas Ross

by intervenors in opp to plfs'

motion for summary judgment [26-

1} (mt) Modified on 08/20/2002

(Entered: 08/20/2002)

08/19/2002

111

DECLARATION of Scott A

Kronland by intervenors in opp to

plfs' motion for summary

judgment [26-1] (Volume II) (mt)

(Entered: 08/20/2002)

08/19/2002

112

OBJECTIONS filed by intervenors

to evidence proffered by plfs in

suppt of plfs' motion for summary

judgment [26-1] and opp to plfs'

request for judicial notice (mt)

(Entered: 08/20/2002)

ae ce eae a Ll lo hl Ln ee” ee oe

7s we a wer es wk ca ee a Or eS eee ee Te ee Se ee ee ee ry

08/19/2002

113

STATEMENT of genuine issues by

intervenors in opp to plfs’ motion

for summary judgment [26-1] (mt)

(Entered: 08/20/2002)

08/19/2002

114

PROOF OF SERVICE by

intervenor on 8/19/02 of

Intervenors' memo in opp to pifs’

mot for S/J or, in the alt, partial

S/J; (see doc for further specifics)

(mt) (Entered: 08/20/2002)

08/19/2002

115

MEMO OF P&A IN OPPOSITION

by plaintiffs to dfts & intervenors

motion for summary judgment [89-

1], motion for partial summary

judgment [89-2], motion for

summary judgment [90-1], motion

for partial summary judgment [90-

2] (mt) (Entered: 08/20/2002)

Nats ye as tl 3 -

08/19/2002

116

DECLARATION of Mark E

Reagan by plaintiffs (mt) (Entered:

08/20/2002)

08/19/2002

117

DECLARATION of Nancy

Armentrout by plaintiffs in suppt

of plfs’ opp to dfts' and intervenors'

motion for summary judgment [89-

1], motion for partial summary

judgment [89-2], motion for

summary judgment [90-1], motion

for partial summary judgment [90-

2] (mt) (Entered: 08/20/2002)

118

DECLARATION of Darryl Nixon

hws Ss mee? Se Ue Oe eee as

Pe a eS ee ae ee ee SP ae, Seem ee eee ee ee ee

—_

by plaintiffs (mt) (Entered:

08/20/2002)

08/19/2002

119

DECLARATION of Bradley W

Kampas by plaintiffs in opp to dfts

and intervenors' motion for

summary judgment [89-1], motion

for partial summary judgment [89-

2], motion for summary judgment

[90-1], motion for partial summary

judgment [90-2] (mt) (Entered:

08/20/2002)

08/19/2002

120

STATEMENT of genuine issues by

plaintiffs in opp to dfts' motion for

summary judgment [89-1], motion

for partial summary judgment [89-

2] (mt) (Entered: 08/20/2002)

08/19/2002

121

STATEMENT of genuine issues by

plaintiffs in opp to intervenors'

motion for summary judgment [90-

1], motion for partial summary

judgment [90-2] (mt) (Entered:

08/20/2002)

08/19/2002

122

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by

plaintiffs on 8/19/02 of plfs' memo

of P&A in opp to dfts' &

intervenors' motions for S/J, or in

the alt, partial summary

judgment; (see doc for further

specifics) (mt) (Entered:

08/20/2002)

08/20/2002

123

STATEMENT of genuine issues in

opp by intervenor AFL-CIO,

intervenor CA Labor Fed AFL-CIO

re motion for summary judgment

[89-1], motion for partial summary

judgment [89-2] (dmjr) (Entered:

08/22/2002)

08/21/2002

Joint STIPULATION and ORDER

re lv to file memo of PA in excess

of page limitation & ext of time for

filing & srving rply papers by

Judge Gary L. Taylor. It is ord

that plfs are permitted to file 35 pg

memo in opp to dfts & intervenors

mot for summ jgm. The ptys are

permitted to exceed pg limitations

for rply briefs by 10 pgs. The ptys

are permitted to file rply briefs on

8/30/02. (twdb) (Entered:

08/23/2002)

08/30/2002

REQUEST by intervenors AFL-

CIO, CA Labor Fed AFL-CIO for

Judicial Notice in suppt of reply in

suppt of Intv's cross-motion for

summary jgm [90-1], or in the alt,

partial summary judgment [90-2]

(mg) (Entered: 09/05/2002)

08/30/2002

REPLY MEMO by intervenors

AFL-CIO, CA Labor Fed AFL-CIO

in suppt of Intv's mot for summary

judgment [90-1], or in the alt, for

partial summary judgment [90-2]

(mg) (Entered: 09/05/2602)

_— > a

es oe oe hlUel ee

08/30/2002

127

REPLY DECLARATION of Scott A

Kronland by intervenors AFL-CIO

& CA Labor Fed AFL-CIO in suppt

of Intv's cross-mot for summary

judgment [90-1], or in the alt,

partial summary judgment (mg)

(Entered: 09/05/2002)

08/30/2002

128

OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

PROFFERED BY PLFS, filed by

intervenors AFL-CIO & CA Labor

Fed AFL-CIO in opp to Intv's

cross-motion for summary

judgment [90-1], [90-2] (mg)

(Entered: 09/05/2002)

“

;

‘

FR ene ee Oe AT OO ee ee A Oe ee ee I SE Re Se SES ee Ee ee ee ee eT eee > ee

08/30/2002

129

SUPPL DECLARATION of Darryl

Nixon by plaintiffs in suppt of Plfs'

motion for summary judgment [26-

1}, [26-2] (mg) (Entered:

09/05/2002)

| 08/30/2002

130

MEMO OF P/A IN REPLY by

defendants to Plfs' opp to Dfts'

motion for summary judgment [89-

1], or in the alt, partial summary

judgment (mg) (Entered:

09/05/2002)

' 08/30/2002

131

DECLARATION of Suzanne M

Ambrose by defendants in suppt of

Dfts' reply to Plfs' opp to Dfts'

motion for summary judgment [(89-

1}, or in the alt, partial summary

judgment [89-2] (mg) (Entered:

09/05/2002)

_ ae eT ee ee eS ee

ee SS ee ee Oe ee fe ee a ee ee eee, Eee ee ee ee ee ee 4

08/30/2002

132

OBJECTIONS by defendants to

evidence submitted by Plfs in

suppt of Plfs' opp to Dfts' motion

for summary judgment [89-1], for

partial summary judgment [89-2]

(mg) (Entered: 09/05/2002)

08/30/2002

133

DECLARATION of Matthew J

Antonek by plaintiffs (mg)

(Entered: 09/05/2002)

08/30/2002

134

DECLARATION of Arleen Doan

by plaintiffs (mg) (Entered:

09/05/2002)

08/30/2002

DECLARATION of Sam Park by

plaintiffs (mg) (Entered:

09/05/2002)

08/30/2002

REQUEST by defendants for

Judicial Notice in suppt of Dft's

reply to Plfs' opp to Dfts' motion

for summary judgment [89-1], or

in the alt, partial summary

judgment [89-2] (mg) (Entered:

09/05/2002)

08/30/2002

137

REPLY BRIEF by plaintiff Chamb

of Comm of US in suppt of its

motion for summary judgment [26-

1j, or in the alt, for partial

summary judgment [26-2] (mg)

(Entered: 09/05/2002)

08/30/2002

138

DECLARATION of Bradley W

Kampas by plaintiff Chamb of

Comm of US in reply to Dfts' &

Intv's Opp to Plfs motion for

summary judgment [26-1], or in

the alt for partial summary

judgment [26-2] (mg) (Entered:

09/05/2002)

“

08/30/2002 |139|PROOF OF SERVICE by

intervenors AFL-CIO, CA Labor

Fed AFL-CIO on 8/30/02 of Intv's

reply memo in suppt of Intvs' mot

for summ jgm, or in the alt, partial

summ jgm; reply dec of Scott A

Kronland in suppt of Intvs' cross-

mot for summ jgm (see doc for fur

details) (mg) (Entered: 09/05/2002)

08/30/2002 | 140 | DECL OF SERVICE by

4 defendants on 8/30/02 of Dfts'

memo of P/A in reply to Plfs' opp to

Dfts' mot for summ jgm, or in the

alt, partial summ jgm; Dfts' req for

: judicial ntc in suppt of Dfts' reply

| to Plfs' opp to Dfts' mot for summ

4 | jgm (see doc for fur details) (mg)

| (Entered: 09/05/2002)

| 09/05/2002 | 141|EX PARTE APPLICATION filed

| by intervenors AFL-CIO, CA

Labor Fed AFL-CIO to strike

evidence submitted by Plfs in

suppt of reply memo in suppt of

| mot for summ jgm ; Lodged Prop

| Order (mg) (Entered: 09/09/2002)

09/05/2002 |142|DECLARATION of Scott A

Kronland by intervenors AFL-CIO,

CA Labor Fed AFL-CIO in suppt

of Intv's ex parte application to

strike [141-1] & purs to FRCP

56(f) (mg) (Entered: 09/09/2002)

09/05/2002

143

PROOF OF SERVICE by

intervenors AFL-CIO, CA Labor

Fed AFL-CIO on 9/5/02 of Intv's ex

parte mot to strike evidence

submitted by Plfs in suppt of reply

memo in suppt of mot for summ

jgm; decl of Scott A Kronland (see

doc for fur details) (mg) (Entered:

09/09/2002)

09/06/2002

144

EX PARTE APPLICATION filed

by defendants for ord striking Plfs'

new evidence submitted in suppt

of Plfs' reply to Dfts' opp to Plfs'

mot for summ jgm , or in the alt to

continue hrg on Pif's mot for summ

jgm ; Lodged Prop Ord (mg)

(Entered: 09/11/2002)

09/06/2002

145

MEMORANDUM OF P/A_ IN

SUPPORT by defendants of ex

parte application for ord striking

Plfs' new evidence submitted in

suppt of Plfs' reply to Dfts' opp to

Plfs' mot for summ jgm [144-1], or

in the alt, to continue hrg on Plf's

mot for summ jgm [144-2] (mg)

(Entered: 09/11/2002)

146

DECLARATION of Suzanne M

Ambrose by defendants in suppt of

ex parte application for ord

striking Plfs' new evidence

submitted suppt of Plfs' reply to

Dfts' opp to Plfs' mot for summ

jem [144-1], or in the alt, to

continue hrg on Pif's mot for summ

jgm [144-2] (mg) (Entered:

09/11/2002)

09/06/2002

147

PROOF OF SERVICE by

defendants on 9/6/02 of Ex parte

appl for ord striking Plfs' new

evidence submitted in suppt of

Plfs' reply to Dfts' opp to Plfs' mot

for summ jgm, or in the alt, cont

hrg on Plfs' mot for summ jgm (see

doc for fur details) (mg) (Entered:

09/11/2002)

09/09/2002

148

MINUTES by Judge Gary L.

Taylor: The fol mots for summ

jgm, or in the alt, partial summ

jgm, are taken under submission:

Mot by Dfts Bill Lockyer, Frank G

Vanacore & Diana M Bonta [89-1],

[89-2]; Cross-mot by Intvs [90-1],

[90-2]; & Mot by Plfs [26-1], [26-2].

CR: Sally Marshall (mg) (Entered:

09/12/2002)

}

09/16/2002

149

ORDER by Judge Gary L. Taylor

GRANTING in part DENYING in

part Plfs' motion for summary

judgment [26-1], [26-2] (see doc for

fur details) (mg) (Entered:

09/18/2002)

09/24/2002

150

MINUTES (in chambers): by

Judge Gary L. Taylor:

inappropriate correspondence

w/Crt dated 9/20/02; any such

communication shld be by

appropriate, filed, pleading; CR:

none present (see doc for specifics)

(In) (Entered: 09/26/2002)

09/25/2002

PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED;

Intervenors' [Proposed] stmt of

uncontroverted facts & concl of law

in suppt of mot for summ jgm or,

in the alt, partial summ jgm; ldg

8/5/02 (mg) (Entered: 09/30/2002)

| 09/25/2002

PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED;

[Proposed] stmt of uncontroverted

facts & concl of law in suppt of

Plfs' mot for summ jgm or, in the

alt, partial summ jgm; ldg 5/24/02

(mg) (Entered: 09/30/2002)

09/25/2002

~—_4-—

PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED;

[Proposed] Ord GR Plfs' mot for

summ jgm or, in the alt, partial

summ jgm; lIdg 5/24/02 (mg)

(Entered: 09/30/2002)

09/26/2002

152

NOTICE OF MOTION AND

MOTION by defendants for

reconsideration of the court's order

granting plfs' motion for summary

‘

judgment in part ; motion hearing

set for 10:00 10/21/02 (mt)

(Entered: 10/03/2002)

09/26/2002

153

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN

SUPPORT by defendants of dfts'

motion for reconsideration of the

court's order granting plfs' motion

for summary judgment in part

[152-1] (mt) (Entered: 10/03/2002)

09/26/2002

154

DECLARATION of Phyllis Cheng

by defendants in suppt of dfts'

motion for reconsideration of the

court's order granting plfs' motion

for summary judgment in part

[152-1] (mt) (Entered: 10/03/2002)

155

DECLARATION OF SERVICE by

defendants on 9/26/02 of motion

for reconsideration and supporting

docs (mt) (Entered: 10/03/2002)

156

REQUEST by defendants for

Judicial Notice in suppt of dfts'

motion for reconsideration of the

court's order granting plfs' motion

for summary judgment in part

[152-1] (mt) (Entered: 10/03/2002)

157

NOTICE OF MOTION AND

MOTION by intervenors AFL-CIO,

CA Labor Fed AFL-CIO for

reconsideration ; motion hearing

set for 10:00 10/21/02 (mt)

(Entered: 10/03/2002)

09/26/2002

158

REQUEST by intervenors AFL-

CIO, CA Labor Fed AFL-CIO for

Judicial Notice in suppt of motion

for reconsideration [157-1]; decl of

Scott A Kronland,; exhibits A-C

(mt) (Entered: 10/03/2002)

09/26/2002

159

PROOF OF SERVICE by

intervenor AFL-CIO, intervenor

CA Labor Fed AFL-CIO on 9/26/02

of Intervenors' ntc of motion &

motion for reconsideration (see doc

for fur details) (mt) (Entered:

10/03/2002)

10/01/2002

151

MINUTES (in chambers): by

Judge Gary L. Taylor: cnsl has

contacted Crt, asking if further

Ord is going to be issued on the

recent mots for summ jgm; Crt is

not planning to issue further Ord;

any pty may make any addl mot

they deem appropriate; CR: none

present (see doc for specifics) (In)

(Entered: 10/02/2002)

10/03/2002

160

RECEIPT OF TRANSCRIPT of

proceedings for the following

date(s): 7/1/02; CR: Sally Marshall

(mg) (Entered: 10/10/2002)

‘

;

10/03/2002

TRANSCRIPT filed for

proceedings held on 7/1/02 (mg)

(Entered: 10/10/2002)

10/09/2002

161

STIPULATION and ORDER by

ow OS! a Ie EO le eee a eee ST a aes

Judge Gary L. Taylor cont hearing

on Dfts' & Intervenors' motions for

reconsideration [157-1], [152-1] to

10:00 11/18/02. Sched conf cont to

10:00 11/18/02 . (mg) (Entered:

10/11/2002)

10/18/2002

162

DECLARATION OF SERVICE by

defendants on 10/16/02 of Stip &

Order to cont the hrg & briefing

sched on Dfts' & Intervenors' mots

for recon & the sched conf (mg)

(Entered: 10/28/2002)

ee Me ee a LS tye EPR ee A Ne SN Oe MOREY ne Oe a

11/04/2002

163

Memorandum of points § and

authorities in OPPOSITION by

plaintiff to motion for

reconsideration [157-1], motion for

reconsideration of the court's order

granting plfs' motion for summary

judgment in part [152-1] (csb)

(Entered: 11/09/2002)

11/12/2002

164

STIPULATION and ORDER by

Judge Gary L. Taylor, continuing

the hearing on motion for

reconsideration [157-1] 10:00

1/6/03, hearing motion for

reconsideration of the court's order

granting plfs' motion for summary

judgment in part [152-1] 10:00

1/6/03, continuing the scheduling

conference to 10:00 1/6/03 (bp)

(Entered: 11/18/2002)

een

11/19/2002

165

DECLARATION OF SERVICE by

defendant on 11/15/02 of

Stipulation and Order to continue

hearing on Defendants' and

Intervenors' motions for

reconsideration and the scheduling

conference (mg) (Entered:

11/25/2002)

12/27/2002

167

STIPULATION filed re _ joint

request to reschedule 1/6/03

motions hearing & scheduling

conference if accompanying

stipulation and proposed order is

not approved (mg) (Entered:

01/06/2003)

01/03/2003

166

JUDGMENT AND ORDER by

Judge Gary L. Taylor: Judgment is

hereby entered as follows: CA Govt

Code sections 16645.2 and 16645.7

are hereby declared to be invalid

as applied to employers covered by

the National Labor Relations Act.

Court finds sections 16645.2 and

16645.7 to be preempted by the

National Labor Relations Act and

thus invalied under the

Supremacy Clause. Dfts and

Intervenors as well as_ their

agents, servants, and employees

and those persons in active concert

of participation with them who

receive actual notice of this order,

are hereby enjoined and restrained

from taking any actions to enforce

we, °

a ee $e.

i So a,

CA Govt Code sections 16645.2

and 16645.7 on behalf of the

people of the State of California

against any employer covered by

the National Labor Relations Act;

terminating case (MD JS-6) (mt)

(Entered: 01/03/2003)

01/03/2003

168

STIPULATION and ORDER by

Judge Gary L. Taylor GRANTING

IN PART Defendants' &

Intervenors' motions for

reconsideration [157-1], [152-1]

(see documents for further details)

(mg) (Entered: 01/07/2003)

01/03/2003

PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED;

[Proposed] Order granting

Defendants’ motion for

reconsideration of the Court's

order granting Plaintiffs' motion

for summary judgment in part;

lodged 9/26/02 (mg) (Entered:

01/07/2003)

01/03/2003

PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED;

[Proposed] Order granting

intervenors' motion for

reconsideration of the Court's

order granting Plaintiffs’ motion

for summary judgment in part;

lodged 9/26/02 (mg) (Entered:

01/07/2003)

01/03/2003

PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED;

Joint stipulation & [proposed]

order granting Defendants' &

Intervenors' motion for

reconsideration in part & granting

request for partial final judgment

regarding California government

code sections 16645.2 & 16645.7

(mg) (Entered: 01/07/2003)

01/07/2003

169

NOTICE OF APPEAL by

intervenors American Federation

of Labor and Congress of

Industrial Organizations and

California Labor Federation,AFL-

CIO to 9th C/A from Dist. Court

jem fid 1/3/03 [166-2] (cc:

Altshuler, Berzon,Nussbaum,Rubin

& Demain;Attorney General of the

State of California;State Attorney

General;Hopper Lundy &

Bookman, Inc.;Jackson Lewis

LLP;Stephen A. Bokat) Fee:

Billed. (ghap) (Entered:

01/09/2003)

01/07/2003

170

REPRESENTATION

STATEMENT re appeal [169-1]

(ghap) (Entered: 01/09/2003)

01/07/2003

171

PROOF OF SERVICE by

intervenors American Federation

of Labor and Congress. of

Industrial Organizations and

California Labor Federation,AFL-

CIO. (ghap) (Entered: 01/09/2003)

01/07/2003

LODGED Civil Appeals Docketing

re Pee a Pe Pe ee ee ee eee ee eee ee ee ek

Statement submitted by

intervenors American Federation

of Labor and Congress of

Industrial Organizations and

California Labor Federation,AFL-

CIO. (fwd to 9th cca) (ghap)

(Entered: 01/09/2003)

01/10/2003

172

APPLICATION FOR EX PARTE

APPLICATION filed by

intervenors for order staying

judgment pending appeal (mg)

(Entered: 01/13/2003)

01/10/2003

173

PROOF OF SERVICE by

intervenors on 1/10/03 _—s— oof

Application for ex parte order

staying judgment pending appeal

(mg) (Entered: 01/13/2003)

01/13/2003

174

NOTICE OF CHANGE Of Address

filed by attorneys Mark A Johnson

and Mark E Reagan for plaintiff

Internext Group. The new address

for Hooper, Lundy & Bookman Inc

is 180 Montgomery Street, Suite

1000, San Francisco, CA 94104.

The telephone number & fax

number remain the same (mg)

(Entered: 01/14/2003)

175

NOTICE OF APPEAL by

defendant California Attorney

General Bill Lockyer, defendant

Diana M Bonta, defendant Frank

G Vanacore to 9th C/A from Dist.

Court Judgment & Order filed on

1/3/03, [166-2] (cc: Suzanne M.

Ambrose; Hopper Lundy &

Bookman; Scott W. Oborne;

Stephen A. Bokat; Richard T.

Waldow; Altshuler, Berzon,

Nussbaum, Rubin & Demain;

O'Melveny & Myers) Fee: Billed

(weap) (Entered: 01/14/2003)

01/13/2003

176

REPRESENTATION

STATEMENT re appeal [175-1]

(weap) (Entered: 01/14/2003)

01/13/2003

LODGED Civil Appeals Docketing

Statement submitted by defendant

Bill Lockyer, defendant Diana M

Bonta, defendant Frank G

Vanacore (FWD TO CRD) (weap)

(Entered: 01/14/2003)

01/13/2003

177

PROOF OF SERVICE by

defendant Bill Lockyer, defendant

Diana M Bonta, defendant Frank

G Vanacore on 1/10/03 of Notice of

Appeal from Judgment enterd on

1/3/03; Representation Statement

for Appeal & Civil Appeals

docketing Statement. (weap)

(Entered: 01/14/2003)

01/14/2003

178

OPPOSITION by plaintiffs to

Intervenors' ex parte application

for order staying judgment

pending appeal [172-1] (mg)

(Entered: 01/15/2003)

4 Reed

01/14/2003

179

DECLARATION of Bradley W

Kampas by plaintiffs in support of

Plaintiffs’ opposition to

Intervenors' ex parte application

for order staying judgment

pending appeal [172-1] (mg)

(Entered: 01/15/2003)

01/14/2003

180

MINUTES (In Chambers) by

Judge Gary L. Taylor: denying

Intervenor's ex parte application

for order staying judgment

pending appeal [172-1]; CR: (not

present) (mg) (Entered:

01/15/2003)

' 01/14/2003

PLACED IN FILE - NOT USEL;

[Proposed] order staying judgment

pending appeal; lodged 1/10/03

(mg) (Entered: 01/16/2003)

01/16/2003

181

TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION

and ordering form for dates: 9/9/02

CR: Sally Marshall. (ghap)

(Entered: 01/16/2003)

01/24/2003

Appeal Fee Paid re [175-1] fee in

amount of $ 105.00 (Receipt #

31294) (dlu) (Entered: 01/24/2003)

wees

182

EX PARTE APPLICATION filed

by defendants for order staying

judgment pending appeal ; Lodged

Proposed Order (mg) (Entered:

01/24/2003)

01/24/2003

183

DECLARATION OF SERVICE by

defendants on 1/23/03_~—ésooff

Application for ex parte order

staying judgment pending appeal

& [proposed] order (mg) (Entered:

01/24/2003)

01/27/2003

184

MINUTES (in chambers): dft's ex

parte application for order staying

judgment pending appeal [182-1]

is DENIED; by Judge Gary L.

Taylor CR: none present (ln)

(Entered: 01/28/2003)

01/27/2003

PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED;

[Proposed] Order staying

judgment pending appeal; lodged

1/24/03 (mg) (Entered: 01/30/2003)

01/29/2003

185

OPPOSITION by plaintiffs to

Defendants’ ex parte application

for order staying judgment

pending appeal [182-1] (mg)

(Entered: 01/31/2003)

01/31/2003

186

NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court

of Appellate Docket Number

appeal [169-1] 03-55166 (pjap)

(Entered: 01/31/2003)

01/31/2003

187

NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court

of Appellate Docket Number

appeal [175-1] 03-55169 (pjap)

(Entered: 01/31/2003)

02/03/2003

189

TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION

and ordering form for dates: 9/9/02

CR: Sally Marshall (dlu) (Entered:

02/05/2003)

02/04/2003 Appeal Fee Paid re [169-1] fee in

amount of $ 105.00 (Receipt #

31827) (dlu) (Entered: 02/04/2003)

02/04/2003 | 188 |} NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR:

case number is changed from

SACV02-37 GLT(ANx) to SACV02-

377 GLT(ANx); doc was docketed

to correct case number however

was scanned to incorrect case

number; (In) (Entered: 02/04/2003)

03/17/2003

190

ORDER FROM USCA appellants’

motion to consolidated these

appeals is granted. Appeal Nos.

03-55166 and 03-55169 are

consolidated. Appellants’ motion to

stay the district court's judgment

pending appeal is denied. (03-

55166 & 03-55169) (ghap)

(Entered: 03/24/2003)

03/21/2003

191

RECEIPT for reporter's transcript

(twdb) (Entered: 03/24/2003)

03/21/2003

192

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT of

proceedings filed. on 9/9/02 (twdb)

(Entered: 03/24/2003)

07/28/2003

193

CLERK'S record on _ appeal

transmitted to Circuit [175-1],

[169-1] vols: 11, 2 brown folders of

docket no. BO066, BO111,

transcripts: 2. Missing document:

Docket no. 162 not included. (03-

55166, 03-55169) (pjap) (Entered:

07/28/2003)

07/28/2003

194

CERTIFICATE of Record

Transmitted to USCA (03-55169)

(ce: all parties) (pjap) (Entered:

07/28/2003)

07/28/2003

195

CERTIFICATE of Record

Transmitted to USCA (03-55166)

(ce: all parties) (pjap) (Entered:

07/28/2003)

01/17/2006

196

ORDER from 9th CCA filed, CCA

# 03-55166, 03-55169. Order

received in this district on 1/20/06.

Upon the vote of a majority of

nonrecused regular active judges

of this court, it is ordered that this

case be reheard by the en banc

court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-

3. The three-judge panel opinion

shall not be cited as precedent by

or to this court or any district

court of the Ninth Circuit, except

to the extent adopted by the en

banc court. (ghap, ) (Entered:

01/23/2006)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The Chamber of Commerce of the United States,

California Chamber of Commerce Employers Group,

California Healthcare Association, California

Manufacturers and Technology Association,

California Association of Health Facilities, California

Association of Homes & Services for the Aging,

Bettec Corporation, Marksherm Corporation, Zilaco,

Inc., Zilaco Del Rio Healthcare Inc., Beverly Health &

Rehabilitation Services, Inc. dba Beverly Manor —

Costa Mesa, Internext Group,

Plaintiffs,

Vv.

Bill Lockyer in his capacity as Attorney General of

the State of California, The Department of Health

Services, Frank G. Vanacore as the Chief of the Audit

Review and Analysis Section of the California

Department of Health Services, and Diana M. Bonta,

R.N., Dr., P.H. as the Director of the California

Department of Health Services and DOES 1 through

10,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND

DECLARATORY RELIEF

Plaintiffs CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF

THE UNITED STATES (“US_ Chamber’),

CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

(“California Chamber”), EMPLOYERS GROUP,

CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATION

(“CHA”), CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND

TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION (“CMTA”),

CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF HEALTH

FACILITIES (“CAHF’), CALIFORNIA

ASSOCIATION OF HOMES & SERVICES FOR THE

AGING (“CAHSA”), BETTEC CORPORATION

(“Bettec”), MARKSHERM CORPORATION

(“Marksherm”), ZILACO, INC., ZILACO, DEL RIO

HEALTH CARE, INC. (“Del Rio”), BEVERLY

HEALTH & REHABILITATION SERVICES, INC.

dba BEVERLY MANOR — COSTA MESA (“Beverly

Manor”), and THE INTERNEXT GROUP

(“Internext”), (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and

through their counsel, for their complaint against

defendants, BILL LOCKYER, Attorney General of

the State of California (“Attorney General”) the

Department of Health Services, Frank G. Vanacore

as the Chief of the Audit Review and Analysis

Section of the California Department of Health

Services, and Diana M. Bonta, R.N., Dr., P.H. as the

Director of the California Department of Health

Services and DOES 1 through 10 (collectively,

“Defendants”), upon knowledge and belief allege:

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the

subject matter of this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

Section 1331 as Plaintiffs’ claims arise under:

a. the due process and equal protection

provisions of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States

Constitution — which incorporates the

free speech provisions of the First

Amendmert.

b. Article VI of the United States

Constitution which designates the

Constitution and Laws of the United

States as the supreme Law of the Land;

and

Cc. the laws of the United States, namely,

the National Labor Relations Act, 29

U.S.C. Section 141 et seg, the Labor

Management Reporting and Disclosure

Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 401 et seg, and

the Medicare Act and Medicaid Act, 42

U.S.C. Section 1395 et seg. and 1396 et

seq.

2. This Court has supplemental

jurisdiction over this subject matter pursuant to 28

U.S.C. Section 1367(a) as Plaintiffs’ claims, arising

under the California Constitution, are so closely

related to the federal question claims that they form

part of the same case or controversy under Article III

of the United States Constitution.

3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b) as this Court is sited in

the Federal judicial district where a substantial part

of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims have

occurred, are now occurring, and will occur in the

future if not curtailed through actions of this Court.

Employer members of Plaintiffs US Chamber,

California Chamber, Employers Group, CHA, CMTA,

CAHF, and CAHSA are situated in this district and

are and will continue to be adversely affected by the

irreparable harms sought to be remedied and

prevented by this Court’s action upon this Complaint.

In addition, Plaintiffs CAHF, Bettec, Zilaco, Inc.,

Zilaco, Marksherm, Del Rio and Internext are

situated in Los Angeles County and are and will

contiaue to be affected by the harms sought to be

remedied by this Complaint. Beverly Manor is

located in Orange County and is and will continue to

be adversely affected by the harms sought to be

remedied by this Complaint.

Il. NATURE OF ACTION

4. This action seeks declaratory relief

pursuant to the Declaratory Relief Act, 28 U.S.C.

Sections 2201-2202, that California Assembly Bill

1889, contained in California Government Code

Sections 16645 through 16649 (“AB 1889”), is

unconstitutional under the Federal and California

Constitutions, is preempted under the National

Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 151 et seg.

(“NLRA”), the Labor Management Reporting and

Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 401 et seg.

(“LMRDA”), and is preempted by and violates the

provisions of the California State Medicaid Plan

established pursuant to the requirements of the

Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1395 et seg.

(“Medicare Act”) and Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. Section

1996 et seg. (“Medicaid Act”). It also seeks

preliminary and permanent injunctive relief

enjoining the enforcement of AB 1889 and other

related actions undertaken by defendants pursuant

to its provisions. (A copy of AB 1889 is attached

hereto as Exhibit A.)

és

Til. PARTIES

5. Plaintiff US Chamber is the world’s

largest business federation, representing an

underlying membership of more than three million

businesses and organizations of every size and in

every industry sector and region of the country. It

has approximately 11,000 members in the state of

California. A principle function of the US Chamber

is to represent the interests of its members on issues

of vital concern to the business community before the

Congress, the Executive Branch and the courts.

6. More than one of the US Chamber’s

member employers receive grants of state funds, have

contracts with the State of California under which

they receive payments from the State in excess of

$50,000 and receive state funds in excess of $10,000

in a calendar year on account of their participation in

state programs. Some of these employers provide

services to the state in excess of $50,000. Some of

these employers have employees who perform

services on service contracts for the state and seek

reimbursement from the state. Some of these

employers are currently experiencing organizing

activities of labor organizations, and expect to

continue to experience such labor organizing

activities because a union representation election is

scheduled in the future. Some of these employers

have their supervisors and other management

personnel inform employees who perform work on

state contracts of the potential drawbacks of

membership in a labor organization and the benefits

of maintaining a_ direct relationship with

management. Some of these employers pay legal

counsel with respect to the organizing activity to

advise them of their legal rights and responsibilities

under the National Labor Relations Act and to assist

them with union organizing drives and election

campaigns in an effort to inform employees of the

potential drawbacks of membership in a labor

organization and the benefits of maintaining a direct

relationship with management. Some of these

employers pay and retain consultants to assist them

with organizing and election campaigns in an effort

to inform employees of the potential drawbacks of

membership in a labor organization and the benefits

of maintaining a_e direct relationship with

management. Some of these employers pay their

supervisory and management employees to assist in

communicating to employees the potential drawbacks

of membership in a labor organization and the

benefits of maintaining a direct relationship with

management. Some of these employers incur

expenses related to the creation and distribution of

print and other materials for the purpose of

communicating to employees the potential drawbacks

of membership in a labor organization and the

benefits of maintaining a direct relationship with

management. Some of these employers lease

property from the State of California to hold

meetings with employees and supervisors for the

purpose of informing employees of the potential

drawbacks of membership in a labor organization and

the benefits of maintaining a direct relationship with

management. These properties are not equally

available to the general public to hold meetings free

of charge. The certification and _ reporting

requirements of AB 1889 will cost these employers

significant sums of money and resources. In order to

100

attempt to comply with the requirements of AB 1889,

these employers must expend significant sums of

money and resources. Materials, products and

services of these employers affect interstate

commerce and cross state lines.

7. Plaintiff California Chamber is an

association of 13,000 employers who employ three

million California employees. One of the purposes of

the California Chamber is to inform employees and

assist member employers’ efforts to inform employees

about labor unions. Specifically, one of the purposes

of the California Chamber is to inform its member

employers regarding how to lawfully advise their

employees of the disadvantages of unionizing. The

California Chamber further exists to ease legislative

and administrative burdens of California employers.

Protecting member employers’ free speech rights,

National Labor Relations Act rights, equal protection

rights and right to counsel is directly germane to the

purpose of the California Chamber.

8. More than one of California Chamber’s

member employers receive grants of state funds, have

contracts with the State of California under which

they receive payments from the State in excess of

$50,000 and receive state funds in excess of $10,000

in a calendar year on account of their participation in

state programs. Sume of these employers provide

services to the state in excess of $50,000. Some of

these employers have employees who perform

services on service contracts for the state and seek

reimbursement from the state. Some of these

employers are currently experiencing organizing

activities of labor organizations, and expect to

continue to experience such labor organizing

101

activities because a union representation election is

scheduled in the future. Some of these employers

have their supervisors and other management

personnel inform employees who perform work on

state contracts of the potential drawbacks of

membership in a labor organization and the benefits

of maintaining a_ direct relationship with

management. Some of these employers pay legal

counsel with respect to the organizing activity to

advise them of their legal rights and responsibilities

under the National Labor Relations Act and to assist

them with union organizing drives and election

campaigns in an effort to inform employees of the

potential drawbacks of membership in a labor

organization and the benefits of maintaining a direct

relationship with management. Some of these

employers pay and retain consultants to assist them

with organizing and election campaigns in an effort

to inform eraployees of the potential drawbacks of

membership in a labor organization and the benefits

of maintaining a _ direct relationship with

management. Some of these employers pay their

supervisory and management employees to assist in

communicating to employees the potential drawbacks

of membership in a labor organization and the

benefits of maintaining a direct relationship with

management. Some of these employers incur

expenses related to the creation and distribution of

print and other materials for the purpose of

communicating to employees the potential drawbacks

of membership in a labor organization and the

benefits of maintaining a direct relationship with

management. Some of these employers lease

property from the State of California to hold

meetings with employees and supervisors for the

a Re Se ae a Se ee eee ee ee re. oe Oe ae eee bia

> . . Cad | th),

;

102

purpose of informing employees of the potential

drawbacks of membership in a labor organization and

the benefits of maintaining a direct relationship with

management. These properties are not equally

available to the general public to hold meetings free

of charge. The certification and _ reporting

requirements of AB 1889 will cost these employers

significant sums of money and resources. In order to

attempt to comply with the requirements of AB 1889,

these employers must expend significant sums of

money and resources. Materials, products and

services of these employers affect interstate

commerce and cross state lines.

9. The Employers Group is an association

of employers whose members include 4,700

employers in California who employ over one million

California employees. One of the purposes of the

Employers Group is to assist member employers’

efforts to inform employees about labor unions.

Specifically, one of the purposes of the Employers

Group is to advise its member employers regarding

how to lawfully discuss with their employees the key

considerations of unionizing. The Employers Group

further exists to help ease legislative and

administrative burdens of California employers.

Protecting member employers’ First Amendment free

speech rights, Nationa) Labor Relations Act rights,

equal protection rights and right to counsel is directly

germane to the purpose of the Employers Group.

10. More than one of the Employers Group’s

member employers receive grants of state funds, have

contracts with the State of California under which

they receive payments from the State in excess of

$50,000 and receive state funds in excess of $10,000

-- - —--e - -- S- - — —— a ae oe Oe

103

in a calendar year on account of their participation in

state programs. Some of these employers provide

services to the state in excess of $50,000. Some of

these employers have employees who perform

services on service contracts for the state and seek

reimbursement from the state. Some of these

employers are currently experiencing organizing

activities of labor organizations, and expect to

continue to experience such labor organizing

activities because a uniow representation election is

scheduled in the future. Some of these employers

have their supervisors and other management

personnel inform employees who perform work on

state contracts of the potential drawbacks of

membership in a labor organization and the benefits

of maintaining a_ direct’ relationship with

management. Some of these employers pay legal

counsel with respect to the organizing activity to

advise them of their legal rights and responsibilities

under the National Labor Relations Act and to assist

them with union organizing drives and election

campaigns in an effort to inform employees o the

pctential drawhacks of membership in a _ labor

organization and the benefits of maintaining a direct

relationship with management. Some of these

employers pay and retain consultants to assist them

with organizing and election campaigns in an effort

to inform employees of the potential drawbacks of

membership in a labor organization and the benefits

of maintaining a_ direct relationship with

management. Some of these employers pay their

supervisory and management employees to assist in

communicating to employees the potential drawbacks

of membership in a labor organization and the

benefits of maintaining a direct relationship with

—————_-.-—— -

104

management. Some of these employers incur

expenses related to the creation and distribution of

print and other materials for the purpose of

communicating to employees the potential drawbacks

of membership in a labor organization and the

benefits of maintaining a direct relationship with

management. Some of these employers lease

property from the State of California to hold

meetings with employees and supervisors for the

purpose of informing employees of the potential

drawbacks of membership in a labor organization and

the benefits of maintaining a direct relationship with

management. These properties are not equally

available to the general public to hold meetings free

of charge. The certification and _ reporting

requirements of AB 1889 will cost these employers

significant sums of money and resources. In order to

attempt to comply with the requirements of AB 1889,

these employers must expend significant sums of

money and resources. Materials, products and

services of these employers affect interstate

commerce and cross state lines.

11. The CHA is an association of healthcare

employers whose members inclu ie approximately

432 employers in California) who employ

approximately 380,000 California employees. One of

the purposes of the CHA is to inform employees and

assist member employers’ efforts to inform employees

about labor unions. Specifically, one of the purposes

of the CHA is to inform its member employers

regarding how to lawfully advise their employees of

the advantages and disadvantages of unionizing. The

CHA further exists to ease legislative and

administrative burdens of California healthcare

employers. Protecting member employers’ free

105

speech rights, National Labor Relations Act. rights,

equal protection rights and right to counsel is directly

germane to the purpose of the CHA.

12. More than one of CHA’s member

employers receive grants of state funds, have

contracts with the State of California under which

they receive payments from the State in excess of

$50,000 and receive state funds in excess of $10,000

in a calendar year on account of their participation in

state programs. Some of these employers provide

services to the state in excess of $50,000. Some of

these employers have employees who perform

services on service contracts for the state and seek

reimbursement from the state. Some of these

employers are currently experiencing organizing

activities of labor organizations, and expect to

continue to experience such labor organizing

activities because a union representation election is

scheduled in the future. Some of these employers

have their supervisors and other management

personnel inform employees who perform work on

state contracts of the potential drawbacks of

membership in a labor organization and the benefits

of maintaining a _ direct. relationship with

management. Some of these employers pay legal

counsel with respect to the organizing activity to

advise them of their legal rights and responsibilities

under the National Labor Relations Act and to assist

them with union organizing drives and election

campaigns in an effort to inform employees of the

potential drawbacks of membership in a _ labor

organization and the benefits of maintaining a direct

relationship with management. Some of these

employers pay and retain consultants to assist them

with organizing and election campaigns in an effort

106

to inform employees of the potential drawbacks of

membership in a labor organization and the benefits

of maintaining a_ direct relationship with

management. Some of these employers pay their

supervisory and management employees to assist in

communicating to employees the potential drawbacks

of membership in a labor organization and the

benefits of maintaining a direct relationship with

management. Some of these employers incur

expenses related to the creation and distribution of

print and other materials for the purpose of

communicating to employees the potential drawbacks

of membership in a labor organization and the

benefits of maintaining a direct relationship with

management. Some of these employers lease

property from the State of California to hold

meetings with employees and supervisors for the

purpose of informing employees of the potential

drawbacks of membership in a labor organization and

the benefits of maintaining a direct relationship with

management. These properties are not equally

available to the general public to hold meetings free

of charge. Some of these employers are state

government hospitals and public employers which

receive state funds. The certification and reporting

requirements of AB 1889 will cost these employers

significant sums of money and resources. In order to

attempt to comply with the requirements of AB 1889,

these employers must expend significant sums of

money and resources. Materials, products and

services of these employers affect interstate

commerce and cross state lines.

13. The CMTA is an _ association of

employers whose members include approximately

800 employers in California who employ upwards of

107

one million California employees. The CMTA exists

to ease legislative and administrative burdens of

California employers. One of the purposes of the

CMTA is to assist member employers’ efforts to

inform employees about labor unions. Specifically,

one of the purposes of the CMTA is to inform its

member employers regarding how to advise their

employees of the disadvantages of unionizing.

Protecting member employers’ First Amendment free

speech rights, National Labor Relations Act rights,

equal protection rights and right to counsel is directly

germane to the purpose of the CMTA.

14. More than one of the CMTA’s member

employers receive grants of state funds, have

contracts with the State of California under which

they receive payments from the State in excess of

$50,000 and receive state funds in excess of $10,000

in a calendar year on account of their participation in

state programs. Some of these employers provide

services to the state in excess of $50,000. Some of

these employers have employees who perform

services on service contracts for the state and seek

reimbursement from the state. Some of these

employers are currently experiencing organizing

activities of labor organizations, and expect to

continue to experience such labor organizing

activities because a union representation election is

scheduled in the future. Some of these employers

have their supervisors and other management

personnel inform employees who perform work on

state contracts of the potential drawbacks of

membership in a labor organization and the benefits

of maintaining a_ direct’ relationship § with

management. Some of these employers pay legal

counsel with respect to the organizing activity to

att ed Pee Bo. Sal dics

TA et eh Ee Pag

108

advise them of their legal rights and responsibilities

under the National Labor Relations Act and to assist

them with union organizing drives and election

campaigns in an effort to inform employees of the

potential drawbacks of membership in a _ labor

organization and the benefits of maintaining a direct

relationship with management. Some of these

employers pay and retain consultants to assist them

with organizing and election campaigns in an effort

to inform employees of the potential drawbacks of

membership in a labor organization and the benefits

of maintaining a_ direct relationship with

management. Some of these employers pay their

supervisory and management employees to assist in

communicating to employees the potential drawbacks

of membership in a labor organization and the

benefits of maintaining a direct relationship with

management. Some of these employers incur

expenses related to the creation and distribution of

print and other materials for the purpose of

communicating to employees the potential drawbacks

of membership in a labor organization and the

benefits of maintaining a direct relationship with

management. Some of these employers lease

property from the State of California to hold

meetings with employees and supervisors for the

purpose of informing employees of the potential

drawbacks of membership in a labor organization and

the benefits of maintaining a direct relationship with

management. These properties are not equally

available to the general public to hold meetings free

of charge. The certification and _ reporting

requirements of AB 1889 will cost these employers

significant sums of money and resources. In order to

attempt to comply with the requirements of AB 1889,

109

these employers must expend significant sums of

money and resources. Materials, products and

services of these employers affect interstate

commerce and cross state lines.

15. The CAHF is_ an __ association

representing approximately 1,600 licensed skilled

nursing facilities (“SNFs”), intermediate care

facilities (“ICFs”) and intermediate care for the

developmentally disabled facilities (“ICF-DDs”) in the

State of California (collectively, “long term care

facilities”). While the CAHF represents member

organizations that are organized as both “for profit”

and “not for profit” entities, the majority of its

membership operates long term care facilities

organized as “for profit” entities. The CAHF

members employ approximately -72,000 employees.

The CAHF exists to advocate on behalf of its member

long term care facilities before all relevant

governmental bodies, including the _ executive,

legislative and judicial branches of the state and

federal governments in order to ensure that the

interests of such facilities are advanced and not

impaired in all material respects. One of the

fundamental purposes of the CAHF is to protect the

interests of its member facilities in their role as

participants in the Medicaid program (known as

Medi-Cal in California), including ensuring that

governmental action involving the Medi-Cal program

is consistent with the California State Medicaid Plan

(“State Plan”) and federal Medicaid laws and

regulations. Such governmental action includes the

application of federal and state requirements

involving the establishment of facility reimbursement

under Medi-Cal (such as cost reporting, rate setting

and auditing) as well as the quality of care to be

‘

’

}

;

}

110

‘provided by facilities in order to participate in the

Medi-Cal program. Another fundamental purpose of

the CAHF is to protect members in their roles as

employers, including ensuring that the public policy

defining the relations between member facilities and

their employees remains consistent with the rights

and privileges secured by the United States and

California Constitutions, the National Labor

Relations Act and other federal and state labor laws

and are not compromised or violated in any manner.

The specific issues raised in this Complaint and the

interests underlying the issues are entirely

consistent with the CAHF’s mission and purpose as

well as the services provided to its members.

16. Not only do the vast majority of CAHF’s

members receive funds in excess of $10,000 through

the Medi-Cal program in each calendar year (in the

form of reimbursement for services provided to

beneficiaries), they are also heavily dependent on the

revenue provided through this program. Numerous

CAHF member facilities (including SNFs, ICFs and

ICF-DDs) obtain as much as 75% to 100% of their

revenue through the Medi-Cal program. The

restrictions on the use of such funds has had and will

continue to have dramatic effects on member

facilities’ abilities to exercise their protected

Constitutional and statutory rights. For example,

some of these member facilities have experienced, are

experiencing and/or will likely experience organizing

activities of labor organizations which have led to or

may lead to an union representation election. Others

have experienced, are experiencing and/or will likely

experience activity undertaken by employees

represented by a labor organization to decertify the

union which has led to or may lead to an election.

pete ee ON Bnd, tee Be

eg Lee ae ee ee re ee a eS ee Pe ee es ey ye ee

rs Fe SF wee,

111

Facilities faced with either of the above situations

regularly pay legal counsel or other professional

consultants to advise these employers of their legal

rights under the National Labor Relations Act and to

assist them with union organizing drives and election

campaigns in an effort to inform employees of the

potential drawbacks of membership in a _ labor

organization and benefits of maintaining or regaining

a direct relationship with management. Some of

these employers pay their supervisory and

management employees to assist in communicating

to employees the potential drawbacks of membership

in a labor organization and the benefits of

maintaining or regaining a direct relationship with

management. Some of these employers incur

expenses related to the creation and distribution of

print and other materials for the purpose of

communicating to employees the potential drawbacks

of membership in a labor organization and the

benefits of maintaining a direct relationship with

management. In addition, in order to attempt to

comply with the requirements of AB 1889, these

employers must expend significant sums of money

and resources. Employers will also expend

significant sums of money and resources in order to

attempt to comply with the certification and

reporting requirements of AB 1889. The services

provided by CAHF’s members and the products and

material utilized by such members affect interstate

commerce.

17. The CAHSA is a nonprofit, charitable,

California corporation that represents the interests of

approximately 380 long term care, seniors housing

and seniors services members. The CAHSA members

operate approximately 10,200 skilled nursing beds in

112

128 SNF facilities throughout the state, each of

which is licensed and regulated by the DHS. As with

the CAHF’s members, the CAHSA’s members are

similarly dependent on the Medi-Cal program for

revenue. Unlike the CAHF, the CAHSA members

must be organized as “not for profit” organizations

that are sponsored by _ religious, fraternal,

government, neighborhood, minority or ethnic

organizations, ard each must be governed by a bona

fide volunteer board and be exempt from federal tax.

In advocating for its members, the CAHSA’s

fundamental purpose and mission is substantially

the same as the purpose and mission of CAHF.

Numerous CAHSA member facilities receive a

portion of their revenue through the Medi-Cal

program. Some of these member facilities have

experienced, are experiencing and/or will likely

experience organizing’ activities of labor

organizations which have led to or may lead to a

union representation election. The restrictions

AB 1889 places on the use of these facilities funds

has had and will continue to have dramatic effects on

member facilities’ abilities to exercise their protected

Constitutional and statutory rights. In addition, the

impact of the provisions of AB 1889 are substantially

the same as for the employer members of the CAHF.

18. PlaintiffS US Chamber, California

Chamber, Employers Group, CHA, CMTA, CAHF

and CAHSA have organizational standing as each

has at least one member employer which has

standing in its own right to present the claims

asserted herein. Further, the interests sought to be

protected are germane to the associations’ purposes,

and neither the claims asserted nor the relief

requested requires that the members participate

113

individually in the suit. |

19. Members of Plaintiffs’ US Chamber,

California Chamber, Employers Group, CHA, CMTA,

CAHF, arid CAHSA have faced, are currently facing

and/or will likely face union organizing and/or

decertification activities. As a result of AB 1889,

these members’ constitutional and statutory rights

are presently being chilled, impaired § and

impermissibly interfered with. Further, attempts at

compliance with AB 1889 will require significant

employer expenditures.

20. Bettec Corporation is the holder of a

valid license issued by the Department of Health

Services (“DHS”) to operate the 99 bed SNF known as

Sunray East Convalescent Hospital in Los Angeles,

California (“Sunray”). Sunray currently participates

in the Medi-Cal program and is heavily dependent on

its continued participation in the program. Sunray

expects that it will incur expenaitures for services

provided by legal counsel and/or professional

consultants to advise it of its legal rights under the

Nationa] Labor Relations Board involving Union

organizing activity. It will also educate and train its

supervisors and other management personnel on

such legal rights and the manner of informing

employees of the potential drawbacks of membership

in a labor organization and the benefits of

maintaining a direct relationship with management.

It expects to pay its supervisors and other

management personnel for these activities. It also

expects to create and distribute print and other

materials. Based upon its heavy reliance on the

Medi-Cal program and the prohibitions of AB 1889, it

will likely be unable to take any of these protected

pe ee ee ee se le "

Sa Ss eS ee ee

114

actions. In addition, Sunray will be required to

expend significant financial resources in order to

attempt to comply with the provisions of AB 1889. It

will also be required to spend significant monies to

attempt to comply with the certification and

reporting requirements of AB 1889.

21. Marksherm is the holder of a valid

license issued by the DHS to operate the 69 bed SNF

known as Crescent Bay Convalescent Hospital in

Santa Monica, California (“Crescent Bay”). Crescent

Bay currently participates in the Medi-Cal program

and is heavily dependent on its continued

participation in the program. Certain employees of

Crescent Bay are currently represented by a labor

organization but no collective bargaining agreement

has been reached between the labor organization and

the represented employees. Crescent Bay expects to

incur expenditures for services provided by legal

counsel as to its rights under the National Labor

Relations Act if no agreement can be reached and

how to communicate to its emplovees, through

supervisors and other management personnel, or

otherwise. Such communication will likely involve

supervisors and other management employees who

will need education and training and will need to be

paid for these activities. The creation and

distribution of print and other materials may also be

necessary. Based upon its heavy reliance on the

Medi-Cal program and the prohibitions of AB 1889, it

will likely be unable to take any of these protected

actions. In addition, Crescent Bay will be required to

expend significant financial resources to attempt to

comply with the provisions of AB 1889. It will also be

required to spend significant monies to attempt to

comply with the certification and _ reporting

. ee? we eee ee! Se ee ee ee en ke Ee ey ae ee ee ee ee ee ee, ree :

115

requirements of AB 1889.

22. Zilaco, Inc. is the holder of a valid

license issued by the DHS to operate the 46 bed SNF

known as CherryLee Lodge Sanitarium in El Monte,

California (“CherryLee”). CherryLee currently

participates in the Medi-Cal program and is heavily

dependent on the continued participation in the

program. In particular, approximately 90% of

CherryLee’s revenue is received from reimbursement

provided through the Medi-Cal program. Certain

employees are currently represented by a labor

organization. However, some of the represented

employees are seeking the decertification of the labor

organization and have circulated a petition amongst

themselves. CherryLee requires legal advice as to its

legal rights under the National Labor Relations Act

but, because of its heavy reliance on the Med-Cal

program and the prohibitions of AB 1889, cannot

obtain such advice. It likewise needs to communicate

with its employees and will need to utilize

supervisors and other management personnel to do

so. It may also need to create and distribute print or

other materials for this purpose. As with legal advice,

it may be unable to take any of these protected

activities. If CherryLee could take any of these

actions, it would also incur significant expense in

attempting to comply with the provisions of AB 1889

and its certification and reporting requirements.

23. Zilaco is the holder of a valid license

issued by the DHS to operate the 59 bed SNF known

as El Monte Care Center located in El Monte,

F California (“El Monte”). El] Monte currently

participates in the Medi-Cal program and is heavily

dependent on the continued participation in the

, =

a :

ts." Oe ae eT ee Lee eee | ees 42 5. he

Sg ee

ee TS

116

program. In particular, approximately 88% of El

Monte’s revenue is received from reimbursement

provided through the Medi-Cal program. Certain

employees are currently represented by a labor

organization. However, some of the represented

employees are seeking the decertification of the labor

organization. E] Monte requires legal advice as to its

legal rights under the National Labor Relations Act

but, because of its heavy reliance on the Medi-Cal

program and the prohibitions of A” 1889, cannot

obtain such advice. It likewise nas a need to

communicate with its employees and has a need to

utilize supervisors and other management personnel

and may need to create and distribute print or other

materials for this purpose. However, El Monte may

be unable to participate in any of these protected

activities. If it could take any of these actions, El

Monte will be required to expend significant financial

resources to attempt to comply with the provisions of

AB 1889 and its certification and _ reporting

requirements.

24. Del Rio is the holder of a valid license

issued by the DHS to operate two facilities known as

Del Rio Convalescent, a 99 bed SNF in Bell Gardens,

California and Del Rio Gardens Care Center (“Del

Rio Gardens”), and 84 bed SNF also located in Bell

Gardens. Both facilities participate in the Medi-Cal

program and are heavily dependent on their

continued participation in the program. They have

faced, are currently facing and/or will likely face

union organizing and/or decertification activities. As

a result of AB 1889, these plaintiffs’ constitutional

and statutory rights are presently being chilled,

impaired and impermissibly interfered with. Further,

a a ee ee Lae ae "

;

‘

117

attempts at compliance with AB 1889 will require

significant expenditures.

25. Beverly Health and _ Rehabilitation

Services, Inc. is the holder of a valid license issued by

the DHS to operate the 76 bed SNF known as Beverly

Manor in Costa Mesa, California (“Beverly Manor”).

It has faced, is currently facing and/or will likely face

union organizing and/or decertification activities. As

a result of AB 1889, this plaintiff's constitutional and

statutory rights are presently being chilled, impaired

and impermissibly interfered with. Further,

attempts at compliance with AB 1889 will require

significant expenditures.

26. The Internext Group (“Internext”) holds

valid licenses issued by the DHS to operate two

facilities know as Lutheran Health Facility, a 50 bed

SNF in Alhambra, California (“Lutheran”) and Villa

Gardens Health Care Unit, a 54 bed SNF in

Pasadena, California (“Villa Gardens”). Both |

facilities participate in the Medi-Cal program and are

heavily dependent on their continued participation in :

the program. Based on recent union organizing

activity over the last 15 to 18 months at both

Lutheran and Villa Gardens, both facilities expect to

make expenditures subject to the prohibitions of

AB 1889. As a result of AB 1889, these plaintiffs’

constitutional and statutory rights are presently

being chilled, impaired and impermissibly interfered

with. Further, attempts at compliance with AB 1885S

will require significant expenditures. The Attorney

General is charged under AB1889_ with

administering and enforcing its provisions.

27. The DHS is the single state agency

designated by the State of California for the purpose

118

of administering the Medi-Cal program. The Medi-

Cal program is a joint state-federal program

established by the federal government to provide

health services, including long term care services to

poor and needy individuals who qualify under certain

state and federal requirements. DHS implements the

federal certification requirements set forth in

42 U.S.C. Section 1395 et seg. and 42C. F. R.

Sections 483.1 et seg. (1991) in order to determine

whether health facilities qualify for participation in

the Medi-Cal program based upon the quality of care

provided to their residents. It also evaluates whether

facilities qualify for licensure under state quality of

care requirements. It also establishes facility

reimbursement for the purposes of the Medi-Cal

program through specifying cost reporting, rate

setting and auditing methodologies.

28. Frank G. Vanacore is the Chief of the

Audit Review and Analysis Section of the DH& and is

responsible for sending and processing certification

forms for compliance with the provisions of AB 1889

and recommending that facilities be terminated from

the Medi-Cal program based upon their failure to

comply with the certification requirement set forth in

AB 1889.

29. Diana M. Bontaé, R.N., Dr., P.H. is the

Director of the California Department of Health

Services, the responsible state official for the

activities of the DHS. Any decision to terminate a

health facility from the Medi-Cal program would be

made and carried out by and under the authority of

the Director.

30. Plaintiffs are unaware of the names or

identities of Does I through 10.

119

IV. FACTS

31. AB 1889 is the successor to remarkably

similar legislation (AB 442) which was passed by the

Legislature but vetoed by the Governor in 1999, who

cited as his reasons for vetoing AB 442:

This legislation has the potential to impose an

unreasonable burden on businesses in that

they would have to maintain minutely-

detailed records to track goods, services and

funds received from the State in order to avoid

violating the provisions contained therein. In

addition, in the absence of a verified complaint,

it would be extremely difficult, if not

impossible, to determine the accuracy and

truthfulness of any report or fund utilization

submitted by an employer.

Finally, AB 442 also has the potential to

significantly increase employers’ litigation

costs by providing countless opportunities for

disgruntled employees to file civil actions

merely in an effort to harass employers.

Governor Gray Davis September 28, 1999 veto

letter to California Assembly. (A true and

correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit B.)

32. The Governor signed AB 1889 into law

on September 28, 2000.

33. Under AB 1889, State contractors and

recipients of State funds are prohibited from

incurring costs “to assist, promote, or deter union

organizing’, unless they establish costly accounting

procedures to attempt to document the segregation of

funds so that no State funds contribute to the

eee Pe we ee ee ee ee ae ee a ee

120

prohibited activity. Cal. Govt. Code § 16645.1(a) and

(b), 16645.2(a) and (b). Moreover, State contractors

are required to provide proof of such accounting upon

request by the Attorney General. See id. Violators are

assessed treble damages—the amount allegedly

improperly expended, plus a civil penalty of double

that amount. See Cal. Govt Code §§ 16645.1(c),

16645.2(d). Furthermore, State contractors may not

assist, promote, or deter union organizing by

employees who are performing work on a service

contract for the State or State agency, regardless of

whether the employer does so with other sources.

See Cal. Gov't Code § 16645.3(a). Penalties are

assessed at $1,000 per employee per violation. An

employer who conducts business on State property

pursuant to a contract or lease may not use that

property to hold a meeting with any employees or

supervisors if the purpose is to assist, promote, or

deter union organizing. See Cal. Govt Code

§ 16645.5(a). Violators are assessed a civil penalty of

$1,000 per employee per meeting. See Cal. Gov't

Code § 16645.5(b). AB 1889 further prohibits “legal

and consulting fees and salaries of supervisors and

employees, incurred for research for, or preparation,

planning, or coordination of, or carrying out, an

activity to assist, promote, or deter union organizing.”

See Cal. Gov't Code § 16645.6(a). AB 1889 further

prohibits private employers which receive in excess of

$50,000 pursuant to state contracts and $10,000

pursuant to state programs from using state funds to

assist, promote, or deter union organizing. Cal. Gov't

Code § 16645.4 and 16645.7. Public employers which

receive state funds are also prohibited from using

state funds to assist, promote or deter unionization,

and public officials who knowingly authorize an

121

expenditure which violates that prohibition are

personally liable for the expenditures. Cal. Gov't

Code § 16646.6. However, AB 1889 does not prohibit

activities performed, or expenses incurred, in

cennection with addressing a _ grievance or

negotiating or administering a collective bargaining

agreement. Cal. Gov't Code § 16647. None of these

provisions address the quality or manner of providing

services. Rather, they restrict employers’

expenditures, and therefore any activity, to engage in

even non-coercive speech, thus, requiring employer

neutrality toward unionization and to forfeit rights

they have under Federal law.

34. In marked contrast, AB 1889 explicitly

allows an employer to allow unions access to the

employer’s facilities, including those leased from the

State; and it specifically permits an employer to

voluntarily enter into an agreement with a union

recognizing the union as the exclusive representative

of its employees. See Cal. Gov't Code § 16647.

35. Beginning March 1, 2002, the DHS

Services Audit Division began sending out a letter

requiring that SNFs and ICFs certify that they will

comply with AB 1889, specifically with California

Government Code Section 16645.7, or forfeit their

right to participate in, and receive funds from, the

Medi-Cal program. Recipients of this letter were

given only forty-five days from the letter’s date,

February 28, 2002, or until April 15, 2002, to respond.

(A true and correct copy of this letter is attached

hereto as Exhibit C.) On March 15, 2002, the DHS

subsequently sent the identical letters and

certification demands to ICF-DDs participating in the

Medi-Cal program. (A true and correct copy of the

ee ee ae ee Se ee EN ee my ieee Oe eg ee

ea ee ee oe ee ae

= ore, ~The

122

letter is attached hereto as Exhibit D.) Based upon

statements made by defendant Vanacore and other

authorized DHS representatives, plaintiffs are

informed and, therefore, believe that identical letters

and certification demands wil: be sent to acute care

hospitals participating in the Medi-Cal program.

V. CLAIM _FOR DECLARATORY __AND

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

36. AB 1889 is unconstitutional under both

the United States and California Constitutions in the

following particulars:

a. AB 1889 violates the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States

Constitution which protects the freedom

of speech guarantees found in the First

Amendment to the United States

Constitution and Article I, Section 2(a)

of the California Constitution in ways

that include, but are not limited to: (1)

engaging in content based

discrimination by allowing State funds

and State property to be used for

expression and other activities to

promote unionization (by unions and by

employers complicit in extending

recognition to unions without employee

free choice elections), while repressing

expression by employers concerning the

merits of unionization; (2) requiring

State contractors, grantees of State

funds, State program participants and

lessees of State property to relinquish

their freedom of speech rights as a

123

condition of entering into State service

contracts, receiving State monies,

participating in State programs and

leasing State land; (3) prohibiting public

employers and public officials from

exercising their constitutional rights to

engage in non-neutral speech concerning

unionization; (4) exacting a penalty for

the exercise of constitutional rights; (5)

placing economic and administrative

burdens on those who exercise

constitutional rights by requiring

expensive and onerous record keeping

requirements so as to show that

constitutionally protected activities were

not funded by State funds; (6) being so

vague as to chill the exercise of

protected free speech rights; and (7)

imposing a prior content based restraint

on constitutionally protected expressions.

. AB 1889 violates the Equal Protection

Clause guarantees of the Fourteenth

Amendment of the United States

Constitution and Article I, Section 7(a)

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.