AlaFile E-Notice

03-CV-2019-000531.00
Judge: GREG GRIFFIN
To: RAGSDALE BARRY ALAN
bragsdale@sirote.com

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA

ALABAMA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, ET AL V. SHEILA DEGAN GILBERT, ET AL.

03-CV-2019-000531.00

The following matter was FILED on 11/15/2019 3:51:27 PM

ZI DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE

MOTION TO INTERVENE
[Filer: MUJUMDAR ANIL ASHOK]

Notice Date: 11/15/2019 3:51:27 PM

GINA J. ISHMAN
CIRCUIT COURT CLERK
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
251 S. LAWRENCE STREET
MONTGOMERY, AL, 36104

334-832-1260
 DOCUMENT 68
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
11/15/2019 3:49 PM
STATE OF ALABAMA Revised 3/5/08 Case No. 03-CV-2019-000531.00
Unified Judicial System CIRCUIT COURT OF
03-MONTGOMERY District Court Circuit Court MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
CV201900053100
GINA J. ISHMAN, CLERK
CIVIL MOTION COVER SHEET
ALABAMA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, ET AL V. SHEILA Name of Filing Party:ZI - Democratic National Committee
DEGAN GILBERT, ET AL.

Name, Address, and Telephone No. of Attorney or Party. If Not Represented. Oral Arguments Requested
ANIL A MUJUMDAR
2332 2nd Avenue North
BIRMINGHAM, AL 35203
Attorney Bar No.: MUJ001

TYPE OF MOTION
Motions Requiring Fee Motions Not Requiring Fee
Default Judgment ($50.00) Add Party
Joinder in Other Party's Dispositive Motion Amend
(i.e.Summary Judgment, Judgment on the Pleadings, Change of Venue/Transfer
orother Dispositive Motion not pursuant to Rule 12(b))
($50.00) Compel
Judgment on the Pleadings ($50.00) Consolidation
Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative Continue
SummaryJudgment($50.00) Deposition
Renewed Dispositive Motion(Summary Designate a Mediator
Judgment,Judgment on the Pleadings, or other Judgment as a Matter of Law (during Trial)
DispositiveMotion not pursuant to Rule 12(b)) ($50.00)
Disburse Funds
Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56($50.00)
Extension of Time
Motion to Intervene ($297.00)
In Limine
Other
Joinder
pursuant to Rule ($50.00)
More Definite Statement
*Motion fees are enumerated in §12-19-71(a). Fees Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)
pursuant to Local Act are not included. Please contact the New Trial
Clerk of the Court regarding applicable local fees.
Objection of Exemptions Claimed
Local Court Costs $ 0 Pendente Lite
Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss
Preliminary Injunction
Protective Order
Quash
Release from Stay of Execution
Sanctions
Sever
Special Practice in Alabama
Stay
Strike
Supplement to Pending Motion
Vacate or Modify
Withdraw
Other
pursuant to Rule (Subject to Filing Fee)
Check here if you have filed or are filing contemoraneously Signature of Attorney or Party
with this motion an Affidavit of Substantial Hardship or if you
Date:
/s/ ANIL A MUJUMDAR
are filing on behalf of an agency or department of the State,
county, or municipal government. (Pursuant to §6-5-1 Code
11/15/2019 3:19:10 PM
of Alabama (1975), governmental entities are exempt from
prepayment of filing fees)

*This Cover Sheet must be completed and submitted to the Clerk of Court upon the filing of any motion. Each motion should contain a separate Cover Sheet.
**Motions titled 'Motion to Dismiss' that are not pursuant to Rule 12(b) and are in fact Motions for Summary Judgments are subject to filing fee.
 DOCUMENT 69
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
11/15/2019 3:49 PM
03-CV-2019-000531.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
GINA J. ISHMAN, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA

ALABAMA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, Civil Action No. CV-2019-000531.00

STATE DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE OF ALABAMA, NANCY
WORLEY, and RANDY KELLEY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SHEILA DEGAN GILBERT, JULIA

JUAREZ, BRANDY DUNCAN, NAPOLEON
BRACY JR., HENRY BREWSTER JR.,
ANTHONY DANIELS, CHRISTOPHER
JOHN ENGLAND, WILLIAM KRAUSE,
CAROLE D. MARKS, JIM SPEARMAN,
CURTIS TRAVIS, and TAMMY KNIGHT
FLEMING, individually and as representatives
of a class composed of all members of the
State Democratic Executive Committee of
Alabama (“SDEC”) who attended a purported
meeting of the SDEC on October 5, 2019, and
who plan to attend an unlawful meeting
purportedly of the SDEC on November 2,
2019, and proceed at that meeting pursuant to
bylaws purportedly adopted on October 5,
2019,

Defendants,

and

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE,

Defendant-Intervenor.

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE’S MOTION TO INTERVENE

Pursuant to Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 24, proposed Defendant-Intervenor

Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) respectfully moves to intervene in the above-

 DOCUMENT 69

captioned matter. The DNC submits herewith a memorandum in support of its motion to

intervene, as well as a proposed pleading in intervention.

Dated: November 15, 2019 By: /s/ Anil A. Mujumdar

Anil A. Mujumdar (MUJ001)
ZARZAUR
2332 2nd Avenue North
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
T: 205.983.7985
F: 888.505.0523
E: anil@zarzaur.com

Marc Erik Elias (pro hac vice-to be filed)

John M. Devaney (pro hac vice-to be filed)
Elisabeth C. Frost (pro hac vice-to be filed)
Perkins Coie, LLP
700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20005-3960
Telephone: (202) 654-6200
Facsimile: (202) 654-6211
melias@perkinscoie.com
jdevany@perkinscoie.com
efrost@perkinscoie.com

Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor

-2-
 DOCUMENT 69

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on November 15, 2019, I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court

using the AlaFile system which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record in

this case.

/s/ Anil A. Mujumdar

OF COUNSEL

-3-
 DOCUMENT 70
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
11/15/2019 3:49 PM
03-CV-2019-000531.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
GINA J. ISHMAN, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA

ALABAMA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, Civil Action No. CV-2019-000531.00

STATE DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE OF ALABAMA, NANCY
WORLEY, and RANDY KELLEY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SHEILA DEGAN GILBERT, JULIA

JUAREZ, BRANDY DUNCAN, NAPOLEON
BRACY JR., HENRY BREWSTER JR.,
ANTHONY DANIELS, CHRISTOPHER
JOHN ENGLAND, WILLIAM KRAUSE,
CAROLE D. MARKS, JIM SPEARMAN,
CURTIS TRAVIS, and TAMMY KNIGHT
FLEMING, individually and as representatives
of a class composed of all members of the
State Democratic Executive Committee of
Alabama (“SDEC”) who attended a purported
meeting of the SDEC on October 5, 2019, and
who plan to attend an unlawful meeting
purportedly of the SDEC on November 2,
2019, and proceed at that meeting pursuant to
bylaws purportedly adopted on October 5,
2019,

Defendants,

and

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE,

Defendant-Intervenor.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AS

DEFENDANT

The Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) seeks to participate as an intervening

defendant in the above-captioned lawsuit. The DNC is entitled to intervene in this case as a

matter of right under Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). In the alternative, the DNC
 DOCUMENT 70

requests permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b). In accordance with Rule 24(c), a

proposed pleading in intervention is attached as Exhibit A.1

A. BACKGROUND

The DNC seeks to intervene to protect its several interests implicated in this case.2

Namely, the proper disposition of this case affects the DNC’s ability to facilitate the selection of

a Democratic presidential candidate and to get Democratic candidates’ names on the ballot.

Intervention is also required so the DNC can ensure that the Chair and Vice Chair vacancies in

the Alabama Democratic Party (“ADP”) are filled in a manner consistent with the DNC’s

charter, bylaws, and mission. Additionally, intervention is required so that the DNC can ensure

the integrity of the state party committees with which it associates, such as the ADP, that act in

compliance with the DNC’s oversight, charter, and bylaws.

The case at bar involves a challenge by the former and illegitimate leadership of the ADP

against the current leadership of the ADP. In 2018, Nancy Worley, then-Chair of the ADP, was

narrowly re-elected as Chair in a contentious election rife with irregularities, which spawned

1
The text of Rule 24(c) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure puts proposed defendant-
intervenors in an anomalous situation. Rule 24(c) requires that a proposed defendant-intervenor
attach a proposed “pleading” to a motion to intervene. However, a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b) is not among the “pleadings” set forth in Rule 7(a). Since a named defendant may file a
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) prior to serving one of the pleadings set forth in Rule 7(a),
the DNC intuits that the same opportunity is available to a defendant-intervenor. In the event that
the Court decides that the DNC is nonetheless required to attach a proposed answer instead of a
motion to dismiss in order to comply with Rule 24(c), the DNC respectfully requests: a) that the
Court grant the DNC leave to file a proposed answer, and b) that the Proposed Motion to Dismiss
under Rule 12(b)(6) be construed and docketed as a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings under
Rule 12(c).
2
The motion to intervene filed by the DNC is a collateral matter to the order from which the
Defendants appealed. "Collateral matters are those that do not raise any question going behind
the judgment appealed from, nor do they raise any question decided by that judgment. More
broadly speaking, collateral matters do not involve the ‘rights and equities' relative to the
question on appeal.” Vesta Fire Ins. Corp. v. Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co., 893 So. 2d 395, 412 (Ala.
Civ. App. 2003) (internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted). This Court may
address intervention during the pendency of the appeal.

-2-
 DOCUMENT 70

numerous challenges both to the validity of that election and to the validity of the SDEC’s

bylaws more generally. Shortly after that election, individual members of the ADP filed

challenges with the DNC alleging that the elections of Worley and her Vice Chair, Randall

Kelley, were invalid because, among other things, members of the party did not receive proper

notice of the election, ineligible persons were permitted to vote in the election, and, perhaps most

importantly, the bylaws of the State Democratic Executive Committee of Alabama (“SDEC”)

failed to comply with the DNC’s own charter and bylaws. In the spring of 2019, after a lengthy

investigation, the DNC resolved that the elections of Worley and Kelley were invalid and the

SDEC needed to pass new bylaws to comply with the DNC’s charter and bylaws. Given the

DNC’s resolution, a majority of members of the SDEC called a meeting on October 5 and

adopted new, DNC-compliant bylaws. The SDEC then held an election on November 2 to elect a

new ADP Chair, and Chris England was properly elected.

Right before the November 2 election, on October 30, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the present

case to challenge the bylaws adopted on October 5 and to prevent the election that was planned

for—and did in fact happen on—November 2. See Dkt. 2. On October 31, the Court held a

hearing on Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order, Dkt. 4, and granted that TRO

through November 11, Dkt. 35. Defendants appealed the Court’s order granting the TRO, and the

Alabama Supreme Court promptly stayed the TRO pending that Court’s resolution of the appeal.

B. ARGUMENT

The resolution of this litigation will have a direct impact on the DNC’s ability to secure

several legally protected interests. These interests include the DNC’s ability to facilitate selection

of a presidential candidate and to put Democratic candidates on the ballot, its freedom of

association, its effectuation of its overall mission to elect Democratic candidates, and its

avoidance of future legal action with Plaintiffs. Given the interests implicated here, which are

-3-
 DOCUMENT 70

not adequately protected by any of the current defendants, and the fact that the litigation is still at

an early stage, the DNC’s motion to intervene should be granted. As set forth below, the DNC

meets the requirements for intervention as a matter of right under Alabama Rule of Civil

Procedure 24(a)(2). But even if that Rule did not apply, this Court could and should allow the

DNC to intervene under Rule 24(b), which allows for permissive intervention at the Court’s

discretion.

1. THE DNC IS ENTITLED TO INTERVENE AS A MATTER OF RIGHT

UNDER RULE 24(A)(2).

The DNC meets Alabama’s test for motions to intervene as a matter of right because it

has an interest in the subject matter of the proceeding, the disposition of the action will impair

the DNC’s ability to protect its interest, its interest is not adequately protected by the existing

parties, and its motion is timely. Ala. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2)); see also Waters v. Jolly, 582 So. 2d

1048, 1057 (Ala. 1991).

a. The DNC has an interest in the subject matter of the proceeding.

To determine whether a party moving to intervene has a sufficient interest relating to the

transaction that is the subject of the action—the first consideration in a motion to intervene—

“courts should take a flexible approach, which focuses on the circumstances of each application

for intervention.” Id. (quoting State ex rel. Wilson v. Wilson, 475 So.2d 194, 196

(Ala.Civ.App.1985)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The circumstances of this case reflect the need for intervention. The case centers around

the DNC’s overview of the ADP as a state party committee that receives DNC oversight and

funding. Two of the DNC’s main duties are facilitating the selection of presidential candidates

through state party committees and ensuring that Democratic candidates appear on the ballot in

every state. The present action implicates the DNC’s interest in the fulfillment of these duties in

-4-
 DOCUMENT 70

Alabama, which depends on the its relationship with the ADP and the ADP’s willingness to

comply with the DNC’s charter and bylaws. Another of the DNC’s interests implicated in this

case is the freedom of association, as the Chair and Vice Chair of every state party committee,

including the ADP, are automatically members of the DNC. The DNC, too, is interested in

preventing future litigation with Plaintiffs over this issue; indeed, Plaintiffs have threatened to

sue the DNC if it does not agree to the legitimacy of Plaintiffs’ actions, legitimacy which is in

dispute here. See Ex. B (Aff. of Ben Maxymuk), ¶ 6. The DNC’s imposition of the requirements

that Plaintiffs seek to circumvent serve to ensure the ADP’s integrity so that the DNC can realize

its ultimate mission: the election of Democratic candidates up and down the ticket on the state

and federal level in every state, including Alabama.

b. The disposition of the action may impair or impede the DNC’s ability
to protect its interest.

Next, the Court looks to whether, “as a practical matter,” the disposition of the action will

impair or impede the DNC’s ability to protect its interest in ensuring the integrity of state party

committees, such as the ADP, that act in compliance with its oversight, charter, and bylaws. See

Waters, 582 So. 2d at 1057; see also Randolph Cty. v. Thompson, 502 So. 2d 357, 363 (Ala.

1987) (“Again, we note that this requirement of Rule 24(a) must be measured by a ‘practical’

rather than ‘technical’ yardstick.”). The DNC is “so situated that the disposition of the action

may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest . . . .”

Ala. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2).

In the present case, Plaintiffs seek to enforce bylaws and an election that do not comply

with the ADP’s obligation to abide by the DNC’s charter and bylaws. If Plaintiffs have their

way, the DNC will be unable to perform the duties described above (and advance the interests

described above), and the DNC’s compelling interest in having state parties act consistently with

-5-
 DOCUMENT 70

the DNC’s mission and objectives will be undermined. Additionally, if this action is disposed of

in Plaintiffs’ favor, the DNC will be forced to associate with an ADP Chair and Vice Chair that

are illegitimate under the DNC’s charter and bylaws. The DNC will likely also be subject to and

have to defend against separate litigation brought by Plaintiffs involving the same dispute being

litigated here. In sum, if Plaintiffs successfully circumvent the DNC’s requirements by obtaining

a favorable judgment in this case, the DNC’s mission will be frustrated and it will have to

expend additional time and energy to prevent further frustration.

c. The DNC’s interest is not adequately represented by the existing

parties.

The Court then looks to whether the DNC’s interest is adequately represented by the

existing parties. See Waters, 582 So. 2d at 1057. Here, the burden is on the party opposing the

motion to intervene to prove that an existing party can adequately represent the interests of the

party wishing to intervene. See Randolph Cty., 502 So. 2d at 363-64.

Plaintiffs cannot prove that the DNC’s interests are adequately represented by the current

defendants in this litigation. The current defendants properly represent the ADP’s interests. But

there is a necessary tension between the ADP’s interests and the DNC’s interests, as evidenced

by the fact that the DNC imposes and enforces certain requirements on the ADP. Only the DNC

can protect its interest in ensuring that the ADP complies with the DNC’s standards despite its

own conflicting interests. Likewise, only the DNC can protect its interest in facilitating the

national selection of a presidential candidate with the participation of state party committees.

And only the DNC can defend itself against claims that could be the subject of future, separate

litigation. Therefore, the letter and spirit of Rule 24(a) are best promoted by granting the DNC’s

motion for intervention, so that it may defend against the erosion of its unique interests in this

suit.

-6-
 DOCUMENT 70

d. The DNC’s motion to intervene is timely.

Finally, the Court considers whether the motion to intervene is timely. See Waters, 582

So. 2d at 1057. Here, the DNC seeks to intervene in this action at an early stage. No substantive

motion has been fully briefed and no substantive action has yet been taken on the merits of

Plaintiffs’ claims. Indeed, the Court cancelled a hearing earlier this week, presumably because of

the appeal pending before the Alabama Supreme Court. Accordingly, no party can legitimately

claim that intervention by the DNC at this early stage would cause them any prejudicial delay.

Nor has the DNC delayed in moving for intervention. Indeed, the action itself was filed less than

a month ago. Moreover, the DNC is able to proceed without adversely impacting the current

scheduling order. Under these circumstances, the DNC respectfully submits that the Court should

this motion is timely.

2. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE COURT SHOULD GRANT THE DNC

PERMISSION TO INTERVENE UNDER RULE 24(B).

If the Court does not grant the DNC’s motion to intervene as a matter of right, the DNC

respectfully requests that the Court exercise its discretion to allow intervention under Rule 24(b).

The Court has broad discretion to grant a motion for permissive intervention when (1) the

intervenor’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common, and

(2) the intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’

rights. See Ala. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2); see also QBE Ins. Corp. v. Austin Co., 23 So. 3d 1127, 1131

(Ala. 2009) (reciting standard).

The DNC easily meets the requirements for permissive intervention. First, the DNC’s

defense has questions of law and fact in common with the original complaint: Plaintiffs seek a

judgment that will effectively circumvent the DNC’s requirements of the ADP, and the DNC’s

defense is that the relief Plaintiffs seek violates the ADP’s obligations to the DNC. Second, for

-7-
 DOCUMENT 70

the reasons set forth above, the motion is timely and, given the early stage of this litigation,

intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original

parties. Indeed, the DNC is able to proceed without adversely impacting the current scheduling

order.

Finally, the DNC’s intervention will serve to contribute to the full development of the

factual and legal issues before the Court. This case centers around whether Plaintiffs’ past

actions, and the relief they seek, comply with the ADP’s obligations to the DNC. The DNC is in

the best position to inform the Court of those obligations. Accordingly, the DNC’s intervention

will contribute to the full and just adjudication of the legal questions presented.

C. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the DNC respectfully requests that the Court grant its

motion to intervene as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2) or, in the alternative, permit it to

intervene under Rule 24(b). If granted permission to intervene under either provision, the DNC

has attached a proposed pleading in intervention for filing accordance with the Alabama Rules of

Civil Procedure.

-8-
 DOCUMENT 70

Dated: November 15, 2019 By: /s/ Anil A. Mujumdar

Anil A. Mujumdar (MUJ001)
ZARZAUR
2332 2nd Avenue North
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
T: (205) 983-7985
F: (888) 505-0523
E: anil@zarzaur.com

Marc Erik Elias (pro hac vice-to be filed)

John M. Devaney (pro hac vice-to be filed)
Elisabeth C. Frost (pro hac vice-to be filed)
Perkins Coie, LLP
700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20005-3960
Telephone: (202) 654-6200
Facsimile: (202) 654-6211
melias@perkinscoie.com
jdevany@perkinscoie.com
efrost@perkinscoie.com

Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor

-9-
 DOCUMENT 70

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on November 15, 2019, I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court

using the AlaFile system that will send notification of this filing to all counsel of record in this

case.

/s/ Anil A. Mujumdar

OF COUNSEL

- 10 -
 DOCUMENT 71
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
11/15/2019 3:49 PM
03-CV-2019-000531.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
GINA J. ISHMAN, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA

ALABAMA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, Civil Action No. CV-2019-000531.00

STATE DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE OF ALABAMA, NANCY
WORLEY, and RANDY KELLEY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SHEILA DEGAN GILBERT, JULIA

JUAREZ, BRANDY DUNCAN, NAPOLEON
BRACY JR., HENRY BREWSTER JR.,
ANTHONY DANIELS, CHRISTOPHER
JOHN ENGLAND, WILLIAM KRAUSE,
CAROLE D. MARKS, JIM SPEARMAN,
CURTIS TRAVIS, and TAMMY KNIGHT
FLEMING, individually and as representatives
of a class composed of all members of the
State Democratic Executive Committee of
Alabama (“SDEC”) who attended a purported
meeting of the SDEC on October 5, 2019, and
who plan to attend an unlawful meeting
purportedly of the SDEC on November 2,
2019, and proceed at that meeting pursuant to
bylaws purportedly adopted on October 5,
2019,

Defendants,

and

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE,

Defendant-Intervenor.

DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE’S MOTION

TO DISMISS AND NOTICE OF JOINDER IN DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Proposed Defendant-Intervenor, Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) hereby moves

for dismissal of this action. The DNC joins the motion to dismiss recently filed by Defendants

Sheila Degan Gilbert, Julia Juarez, Brandy Duncan, Napolean Bracy Jr., Henry Brewster Jr.,
 DOCUMENT 71

Anthony Daniels, Christopher John England, William Krause, Carole D. Marks, Jim Spearman,

Curtis Travis, and Tammy Knight Fleming, individually and as representatives of the defendant

class described in the complaint. Dkt. 64. The DNC adopts, as if fully set forth herein, the

arguments in the motion to dismiss, and requests that the Court dismiss all claims set forth in the

complaint filed by Plaintiffs Alabama Democratic Party, State Democratic Executive Committee

of Alabama, Nancy Worley, and Randy Kelley.

Dated: November 15, 2019 By: /s/ Anil A. Mujumdar

Anil A. Mujumdar (MUJ001)
ZARZAUR
2332 2nd Avenue North
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
T: 205.983.7985
F: 888.505.0523
E: anil@zarzaur.com

Marc Erik Elias (pro hac vice-to be filed)

John M. Devaney (pro hac vice-to be filed)
Elisabeth C. Frost (pro hac vice-to be filed)
Perkins Coie, LLP
700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20005-3960
Telephone: (202) 654-6200
Facsimile: (202) 654-6211
melias@perkinscoie.com
jdevany@perkinscoie.com
efrost@perkinscoie.com

Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor

-2-
 DOCUMENT 71

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on November 15, 2019, I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court

using the AlaFile system which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record in

this case.

/s/ Anil A. Mujumdar

OF COUNSEL

-3-
DOCUMENT 72
24
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/31/2019 3:49
11/15/2019 5:54 PM
03-CV-2019-000531.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
GINA J. ISHMAN, CLERK
DOCUMENT 72
24
DOCUMENT 72
24
DOCUMENT 72
24
DOCUMENT 72
24
DOCUMENT 72
24
 DOCUMENT 73
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
11/15/2019 3:49 PM
03-CV-2019-000531.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
GINA J. ISHMAN, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA

ALABAMA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, ET AL., )

STATE DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE
)
COMMITTEE OF ALABAMA,
WORLEY NANCY, )
KELLEY RANDY ET AL, )
Plaintiffs, )
)
V. ) Case No.: CV-2019-000531.00
)
GILBERT SHEILA DEGAN, )

R
JUAREZ JULIA, )

DE
DUNCAN BRANDY, )
BRACY NAPOLEON JR ET AL, )
Defendants. )
OR
D

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE

O SE

The Court has reviewed proposed Defendant-Intervenor Democratic National

OP

Committee’s motion to intervene and the memorandum in support of that motion and all
PR

responses thereto, as well as the relevant portions of the record, and it is, this ___ day of

____________, hereby

ORDERED that the DNC’s Motion to Intervene is GRANTED

DONE this[To be filled by the Judge].

/s/[To be filled by the Judge]

CIRCUIT JUDGE