Perry

Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Good Law
790 F. Supp. 2d 1119·2011 WL 2321440·2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137040
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 14, 2011NO. C 09-02292 JWCalifornia7,532 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ware, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTINTERVENORS’ MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Presently before the Court is Defendanh-Intervenors’ Motion to Vacate. The Motion is made on the ground that the presiding judge, Chief District Judge Vaughn R. Walker (retired), was disqualified from presiding over this case. The grounds and procedures for recusal or disqualification of a federal judge are codified in Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 455 , et seq. Those statutes require a federal judge to recuse if, inter alia, the judge has a substantial non-pecuniary interest in the case, or if there is some fact that brings the impartiality of the judge reasonably into question. If the judge does not recuse, a motion for disqualification may be made by a party.

Plaintiffs in this case are same-sex couples who claim that a California constitutional provision that redefined marriage in California solely to encompass a union between one man and one woman violated their rights under the federal Constitution. Defendant-Intervenors were allowed to intervene to advance an argument that the California constitutional provision did not violate the federal Constitution. After a court trial, Judge Walker entered judgment…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.