Case ID: f3d_107/html/-880-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The COALITION FOR ECONOMIC EQUITY; California NAACP; Northern California NAACP; California Labor Federation; AFL-CIO; Council of Asian American Business Associations, California; Chinese American Citizens’ Alliance; Women Construction Business Owners and Executives, California Chapter; United Minority Business Entrepreneurs; Chinese for Affirmative Action; Black Advocates in State Service; Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance; La Voz Chicana; Black Chamber of Commerce of California; Michele Bennett; Nancy Burns; Floyd Chavez; Christopher Clay; Dana Cunningham; Iran Celeste Davila; Shevade Dove, nfr Melodie Dove; Jessica Lopez; Virginia Mosqueda; Salvador Ochoa; Clifford Tong, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Pete WILSON, Governor; Daniel E. Lundgren, Attorney General for the State of California; Joanne Corday Kozberg, Secretary of State and Consumer Services Agency and Cabinet Member; James Gomez, Dir Dept of Corr, Defendants-Appellants, and Californians Against Discrimination and Preferences, Inc., Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant.
    Nos. 97-15030, 97-15031.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Feb. 10, 1997.
    Paul Dobson, Deputy Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for defendants-appellants Pete Wilson, Governor, et al.
    Michael A. Carvin, Cooper & Carvin, Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenor-appellant Californians Against Discrimination and Preferences, Inc.
    Mark D. Rosenbaum, ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, for plaintiffs-appellees Coalition for Economic Equity, et al.
    Tamu K. Sudduth, Morrison & Foerster, San Franciso, California, for amici curiae A. Ruiz Construction Company and Associates, Inc., Chiang C.M. Construction, Inc., and Cresci Electric, Inc.
    Samuel R. Bagenstos, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae United States.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

Submission of the motion of Defendant-Intervenor/Appellant for stay of preliminary injunction is deferred pending further order of the court.

Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3, this panel will retain jurisdiction over the merits of these appeals, Gregorio T. v. Wilson, 54 F.3d 599, 600 (9th Cir.1995), and expedite the briefing schedule as follows: Plaintiffs/Appel-lees shall file their answering brief by February 21, 1997, and Defendants/Appellants and Defendanfc-Intervenor/Appellant shall file their respective reply briefs, unless waived, by February 28,1997, whereupon the appeals from the grant of the preliminary injunction shall be submitted on the merits.

Additional oral argument, if necessary, shall be scheduled by further order of the court.