Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02484/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02484-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

DONALD WELCH, ANTHONY DUK,

AARON BITZER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor

of the State of California, In

His Official Capacity, ANNA M.

CABALLERO, Secretary of

California State and Consumer

Services Agency, In Her

Official Capacity, DENISE

BROWN, Director of Consumer

Affairs, In Her Official

Capacity, CHRISTINE

WIETLISBACH, PATRICIA

LOCK-DAWSON, SAMARA ASHLEY,

HARRY DOUGLAS, JULIA JOHNSON,

SARITA KOHLI, RENEE LONNER,

KAREN PINES, CHRISTINA WONG,

In Their Official Capacities

as Members of the California

Board of Behavioral Sciences,

SHARON LEVINE, MICHAEL BISHOP,

SILVIA DIEGO, DEV GNANADEV,

REGINALD LOW, DENISE PINES,

JANET SALOMONSON, GERRIE

SCHIPSKE, DAVID SERRANO

SEWELL, BARBARA YAROSLAYSKY,

In Their Official Capacities

as Members of the Medical

NO. CIV. 2:12-2484 WBS KJN

ORDER

1

Case 2:12-cv-02484-WBS-KJN Document 30 Filed 11/07/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Board of California,

Defendants.

 /

----oo0oo----

On November 6, 2012, the court held oral argument on 

Equality California’s motion to intervene at which counsel for

plaintiffs, defendants, and Equality California appeared and were

heard. Good cause appearing, Equality California’s motion for

intervention as a matter of right pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 24(a) and, alternatively, permissive intervention

under Rule 24(b) is hereby denied without prejudice. Equality

California is hereby granted leave to appear as amicus curiae and

file a brief, together with supporting declarations, in

opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, in

accordance the same schedule as defendants, and may be heard at

oral argument on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 7, 2012

2

Case 2:12-cv-02484-WBS-KJN Document 30 Filed 11/07/12 Page 2 of 2