1:13-cv-01861 #146
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
1/33
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WHITEWOOD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WOLF, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action
No. 13-1861-JEJ
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO THE
MOTION OF THERESA SANTAI-GAFFNEY TO INTERVENE
I. INTRODUCTION
Theresa Santai-Gaffney, Clerk of the Orphans Court for Schuylkill County
(Clerk Gaffney) seeks leave to intervene for the purpose of appealing this
Courts decision of May 20, 2014, declaring Pennsylvanias refusal to grant or
recognize marriages by same-sex couples to be unconstitutional and enjoining the
enforcement of Pennsylvanias ban on such marriages. Clerk Gaffney seeks
intervention as of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) or, in the
alternative, permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b). This Court should
deny both requests because Clerk Gaffney, whose responsibilities in issuing
marriage licenses are purely ministerial, has no interest in administering a specific
version of Pennsylvanias Marriage Law, and she has no authority to deviate from
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146 Filed 06/13/14 Page 1 of 13
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
2/33
2
the Department of Healths decision (as announced by the Commonwealths chief
executive, Governor Corbett) to abide by this Courts injunction against enforcing
the Marriage Laws exclusion of same-sex couples.
II. ARGUMENT
A. Clerk Gaffney May Not Intervene As of Right Because SheCannot Meet the Standard Under Rule 24(a).
Clerk Gaffneys motion to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a) should be
denied because, as a matter of law, she has no legally protected interest in the
litigation that will be affected or impaired by the outcome, much less a sufficient
one, and because any legal interest she has in the litigation is entirely represented
by the Secretary of Health.1 Clerk Gaffney argues that she has a right to intervene
because: (1) her statutory role in administering marriage licenses gives her a
1 A person seeking leave to intervene must demonstrate that: (1) theapplication for intervention is timely; (2) the applicant has a sufficient interest inthe litigation; (3) the interest may be affected or impaired, as a practical matter, by
the disposition of the action; and (4) the interest is not adequately represented byan existing party in the litigation. Kleissler v. U.S. Forest Serv., 157 F.3d 964,969 (3d Cir. 1998);Brody v. Spang, 957 F.2d 1108, 1115 (3d Cir. 1992);Harris v.Pernsley, 820 F.2d 592, 596 (3d Cir. 1987). The applicant bears the burden of
demonstrating that he has met all four prongs of this conjunctive test. United
States v. Alcan Aluminum, Inc.,25 F.3d 1174, 1181 n. 9 (3d Cir. 1994). If aperson fails on any one prong of this test, he is not entitled to intervene as of right.
Sch. Dist. of. Phila. v. Pa. Milk Mktg. Bd., 160 F.R.D. 66, 68 (E.D. Pa. 1995).Because Clerk Gaffney clearly cannot meet the second through fourth prongs,
Plaintiffs focus on these criteria. Plaintiffs do not concede that her motion to
intervene is timely. If Clerk Gaffney believed she needed to be a party to be
governed by this Courts decision, she could have and should have sought tointervene for that purpose sooner.
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146 Filed 06/13/14 Page 2 of 13
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
3/33
3
protectable interest in the outcome of this litigation; and (2) unless she is a party
defendant, her legal obligations are unclear. Both of these arguments ignore the
limited nature of Clerk Gaffneys role in administering the Marriage Law. Clerk
Gaffney must take the Marriage Law as she finds it, and her role under that law is
subject to the oversight of the Secretary of Health. She has no interest in the
requirements for issuing marriage licenses that is not represented by the Secretary
of Health.
1. Clerk Gaffneys duties under the Marriage Law do not giveher an interest in whether the Marriage Law permits same-sex
couples to marry.2
Clerk Gaffneys arguments about her role in issuing marriage licenses boil
down to the contention that she has a legally protected interest in refusing licenses
to same-sex couples.3 The law is clear, however, that neither Clerk Gaffney nor
2Clerk Gaffney erroneously states that Plaintiffs conceded the legal interest
of all Clerks of Orphans Courts and Registers of Wills by naming two of them inthe original complaint. She is confusing the law regarding proper defendants
(which looks at whether an order against the defendant can give the plaintiff relief)with the standard for intervention (which looks at whether the proposed intervenor
has an interest in the subject of the litigation). Plaintiffs and this Court have
addressed that distinction previously. SeePls. Brief in Oppn to the Mot. toDismiss of Def. Petrille at 44-46, Dkt. No. 56 (Oct. 21, 2013); Memorandum and
Order at 7-8, Dkt. No. 67 (Nov. 15, 2013) (denying Defendant Petrilles motion todismiss).
3Clerk Gaffney has not identified any way in which the Courts decision
obstructs her ability to perform her statutory duties nor, indeed, could she, as thesole effect of the Courts order is to render ineffective the statutory ban on issuing
licenses to same-sex couples. And she has admitted that she can and will issue
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146 Filed 06/13/14 Page 3 of 13
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
4/33
4
any other Clerk of Orphans Court has any legal interest in whether or not same-
sex couples are allowed to marry.
As this Court has already recognized, county clerks have no legally
protected interest relative to whether marriage licenses are issued to same-sex
couples. Memorandum and Order at 9 n.5, Dkt. No. 67 (Nov. 15, 2013). That is
because, as the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has made clear, a county
clerks authority to issue marriage licenses is purely ministerial meaning they
must perform their duties in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of
legal authority and without regard to [their] own judgment or opinion concerning
the propriety or impropriety of the act to be performed.Id.(quotingDept of
Health v. Hanes, 78 A.3d 676, 687-88 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Sept. 12, 2013); Council
of the City of Phila. v. Street, 856 A.2d 893, 896 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004)).
The cases cited by Clerk Gaffney from other jurisdictions are inapposite
because they do not address Pennsylvania law, which is clear concerning the duties
licenses in compliance with the Courts order: Santai-Gaffney said she willcontinue to follow Joness ruling unless it is overturned, although she wants tointervene in the case in order to clarify what her official duties are. Peter E.
Bortner, Santai-Gaffney Seeks to Intervene in Gay Marriage Lawsuit, The
Republican Herald (June 7, 2014), http://republicanherald.com/news /santai-
gaffney-seeks-to-intervene-in-gay-marriage-lawsuit-1.1699458, attached as ExhibitA.
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146 Filed 06/13/14 Page 4 of 13
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
5/33
5
and authority of clerks with respect to issuing marriage licenses.4 The one Third
Circuit case that she cites,Harris v. Pernsley, 820 F.2d 592 (3d Cir. 1987),
undermines her motion because it made clear that [t]he scope of [a public
officials] interest is defined by the scope of his legal duties under Pennsylvania
law. Id.at 597.5
2. Neither intervention nor an appeal is needed to clarify ClerkGaffneys present obligations under the Marriage Law.
Clerk Gaffneys second asserted interest is in clarity: she contends that
she is uncertain whether to comply with the Courts injunction because she is not a
4Incidentally,Hines v. DArtois, 531 F.2d 726, 737-38 (5th Cir. 1976),quoted by Clerk Gaffney, undermines her motion because the court made clear thatgovernment officials who have their own decisional duties with respect to the
challenged policy have a protectable interest in the litigation supportingintervention while government officials whose duties are at the direction of
others do not. AndBoard of Education of Central School District 1 v. Allen, 392
U.S. 236, 241 n.5 (1968), has no relevance here because it involved a schoolboards challenge to a law that would require it to take action that the board
believed would violate the Establishment Clause. In contrast with this case, there
was no suggestion that the school board had no role in determining school districtpolicy and that its duties were purely ministerial.
5 Clerk Gaffneys reliance onBostic v. Rainey, No. 2:13-cv-395, Dkt. No.
91 (E.D. Va. Jan 17, 2014),is also misplaced for the additional reason that the
court allowed permissive intervention of a county clerk in a marriage case onlybecause no party in that case opposed it.
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146 Filed 06/13/14 Page 5 of 13
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
6/33
6
party to the litigation and that the only way she can gain certainty is by appealing
the case to the Third Circuit. There is no uncertainty.6
This Court declared the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage
unconstitutional and enjoined the defendants including the Secretary of Health
from enforcing the law. The language of the one and one-quarter page order is
clear and unambiguous in declaring the two statutory provisions unconstitutional
and ordering that their enforcement is permanently enjoined. Order at 2, Dkt.
No. 134 (May 20, 2014). The state defendants have said that they will abide by the
Courts decision and will not appeal.7
The decision of the Department of Health the government agency charged
with ensuring compliance and uniform application of the Marriage Law to accept
this Courts decision leaves no doubt about the effect of the decision on Clerk
Gaffneys obligations. And, if there had been any doubt in that regard, the
Department of Health eliminated any such confusion in its recent instruction to
Clerks of Orphans Courts:
6Notably, Clerk Gaffney has stated publicly that she is issuing marriage
licenses to same-sex couples, so her performance of her duties is not, it appears,
impaired. Seenote 3, supra.7[A]fter review of the opinion and on the advice of my Commonwealth
legal team, I have decided not to appeal Judge Jones decision. Press Release,
Office of the Governor, Statement Regarding the Opinion of Judge Jones in the
Whitewood Case (May 21, 2014), http://www.pa.gov/Pages/NewsDetails.aspx?agency=PAGovNews&item=15643#.U5ogSPldVad, attached as Exhibit B.
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146 Filed 06/13/14 Page 6 of 13
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
7/33
7
The decision in Whitewood requires every governmentofficial who administers the Marriage Law including
every clerk of the orphans court to perform his or herduties in accordance with the courts order. That means
that a clerk of the orphans court must considerapplications for the issuance of a marriage license
without regard to the gender of the applicants.8
Even before the Department of Health issued its directive to the clerks of
orphans courts, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court acknowledged the applicability
of this Courts decision by granting the application of Bruce Hanes, the Register of
Wills for Montgomery County, to resume issuing marriage licenses to same-sex
couples, which he had been enjoined from doing last summer.9
8The Department made clear that this notice was issued pursuant to the
Departments legal authority with respect to enforcement of the Marriage Law:
The Department of Health by law is responsible to
see that the laws providing for the licensing and
registration of marriage are uniformly and thoroughlyenforced throughout the Commonwealth. See 71 P.S. 534(c). The Department also is responsible by law to
prescribe the forms that are to be used for marriagelicenses and the applications for marriage licenses, and to
collect and compile statistics relating to marriage licenses
issued and marriage certificates filed. See 23 Pa. C.S. 1103, 1106; 35 P.S. 450.601.
Pa. Dept of Health, General Notice to All Clerks of the Orphans Court (June 11,
2014), available at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/marriage_and_divorce_certificates/14126, attached as Exhibit C.
9Before this Courts decision invalidating and enjoining enforcement of the
marriage exclusion, the Commonwealth Court, upon petition by the Department ofHealth, had issued a writ of mandamus enjoining Mr. Hanes from issuing licenses
to same-sex couples in contravention of the Marriage Law. See generally Hanes,
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146 Filed 06/13/14 Page 7 of 13
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
8/33
8
In this situation, Clerk Gaffney can claim no confusion. The Department of
Health has the statutory duty and authority to ensure the uniform enforcement of
the Marriage Law. See71 P.S. 534(c);Hanes, 78 A.3d at 686 (explaining that,
because of this legislative authority, Department of Health was a proper party to
initiate mandamus proceedings to compel a clerk to discharge his duties regarding
issuance of marriage licenses). Clerks who issue marriage licenses under the
Departments authority therefore must also abide by the Courts decision.
Clerk Gaffney contends that she is sworn to follow the Marriage Law and
by that, it appears, she means that she is sworn to abid[e] by the marriage
provision challenged in this case. Br. in Supp. Motion to Intevene at 13 n.2, Dkt.
78 A.3d 676 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013). Mr. Hanes appealed, which triggered anautomatic stay of the Commonwealth Courts order against him. See Pa. R.A.P.
1736(a)(2), (b). The Department of Health then petitioned the Commonwealth
Court to vacate the automatic supersedeas, which the Commonwealth Court did.See Order Granting Application for Relief, Pa. Dept of Health v. Hanes, No. 379MD 2013 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Oct. 17, 2013) ([U]pon consideration of Petitioner's
Application to Vacate Supersedeas, it is hereby Ordered that said Application isgranted. The Order of this Court entered September 12, 2013, shall remain in fullforce and effect notwithstanding Respondents appeal thereof to the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania docketed at No. 77 MAP 2013.). On May 20, 2014, Mr.
Hanes petitioned the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to reinstate the supersedeas in
his favor. Appellants Emergency Application to Reinstate AutomaticSupersedeas, Pa. Dept of Health v. Hanes, No. 77 MAP 2013 (Pa. May 20, 2014).
On May 21, 2014, the Department of Health filed a letter stating that it did notoppose the relief sought by Mr. Hanes, see Letter from Alison Taylor, Chief
Counsel, Pa. Dept of Health, to Irene Bizzoso, Office of the Prothonotary,
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (May 21, 2014), attached as Exhibit D, and on
May 27, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an order reinstating the supersedeas, seeOrder, Pa. Dept of Health v. Hanes, No. 77 MAP 2013 (Pa. May 27, 2014).
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146 Filed 06/13/14 Page 8 of 13
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
9/33
9
No. 140 (June 6, 2014). But that is untrue. She is sworn to uphold the law as it is
passed by the Legislature, until a court holds that law is unconstitutional. See
Hanes, 78 A.3d at 690 n.29 (explaining that a clerks oath of office requires him
to follow the law until a court decides it is unconstitutional). At that point, the
law passed by the legislature is no longer the law.
There is simply no basis for Clerk Gaffneys claimed uncertainty about her
duties.
3. Clerk Gaffney can have no interest in the outcome of thislitigation contrary to that of the Department of Health, and,
therefore, her interests are adequately indeed, completely
represented in the absence of intervention.
For the reasons set forth above, Clerk Gaffney also cannot intervene as of
right because any interest that she has in whether same-sex couples are entitled to
obtain marriage licenses is fully represented by the Secretary of Health. As noted,
her duties under the law are purely ministerial. The Department of Health, not
individual clerks, determines how to enforce the law. Under this legal framework,
Clerk Gaffney can have no interest in the law independent of that represented by
the Secretary of Health. Any interest she has, therefore, is already represented in
the litigation.
There is no basis for allowing Clerk Gaffney to intervene pursuant to
Federal Rule Civil Procedure 24(a).
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146 Filed 06/13/14 Page 9 of 13
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
10/33
10
B. Clerk Gaffney Should Not Be Granted Permissive Intervention
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b).
A decision to allow or deny permissive intervention is within the discretion
of the district court and has virtually never been reversed. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
v. Treesdale, Inc., 419 F.3d 216, 227 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Catanzano ex rel.
Catanzano v. Wing, 103 F.3d 223, 234 (2d Cir. 1996)).
There is no reason to permit Clerk Gaffney to intervene in this case. As
discussed above, her role is purely ministerial, so she has no interest in who can
marry under Pennsylvania law, and she has no authority to depart from the
Department of Healths decision to abide by this Courts decision invalidating the
exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. As also discussed above, there is
no lack of clarity regarding Clerk Gaffneys marriage-related duties and, thus, no
basis for her argument that allowing her to intervene for purposes of appealing the
injunction will help avoid likely future litigation . . . concerning [her] prospective
marriage-related duties. SeeBr. in Supp. Motion to Intevene at 20, Dkt. No. 140
(June 6, 2014).
Intervention by Clerk Gaffney would, therefore, be pointless. The futility of
such a gesture is further underscored by the fact that she lacks standing to pursue
an appeal. SeeMot. to Intervene 2, Dkt. No. 139 (June 6, 2014) (Proposed
Intervenor seeks to intervene as Intervenor-Defendant to file the accompanying
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146 Filed 06/13/14 Page 10 of 13
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
11/33
11
motion for stay and thereafter file an appeal.). An intervenors right to continue
a suit in the absence of the party on whose side the intervention was permitted is
contingent upon a showing by the intervenor that he fulfills the requirements of
Article III. McLaughlin v. Pernsley, 876 F.2d 308, 313-314 (3d Cir. 1989)
(quotingDiamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 68 (1986)).
Clerk Gaffney would not have standing to appeal because, for the reasons
discussed above, she has no direct stake in the outcome of the case. Perry v.
Hollingsworth, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2662 (2013) (holding that intervenor-defendant
lacked standing to appeal). Granting her permissive intervention, therefore, would
be an empty procedural gesture. Her motion should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: June 13, 2014 HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL
PUDLIN & SCHILLER
By: /s/ Mark A. AronchickMark A. Aronchick
John S. StapletonDylan J. Steinberg
Rebecca S. Melley
One Logan Square, 27th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103(215) 568-6200
Helen E. Casale401 DeKalb Street, 4th Floor
Norristown, PA 19401(610) 313-1670
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146 Filed 06/13/14 Page 11 of 13
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
12/33
12
ACLU FOUNDATION OF
PENNSYLVANIA
By: /s/ Witold J. Walczak
Witold J. Walczak313 Atwood Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15213(412) 681-7736
Mary Catherine Roper
Molly Tack-HooperP.O. Box 40008
Philadelphia, PA 19106(215) 592-1513
Counsel for Plaintiffs
James D. Esseks
Leslie CooperAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
(212) 549-2500
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Seth F. Kreimer
3400 Chestnut St.
Philadelphia, Pa. 19104(215) 898-7447
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146 Filed 06/13/14 Page 12 of 13
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
13/33
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 13th day of June, 2014, I caused the foregoing
Plaintiffs Brief in Opposition to the Motion to Intervene of Theresa Santai-
Gaffney to be filed electronically using the Courts electronic filing system, and
that the filing is available to counsel for all parties for downloading and viewing
from the electronic filing system.
/s/ Mark A. AronchickMark A. Aronchick
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146 Filed 06/13/14 Page 13 of 13
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
14/33
EXHIBIT
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146-1 Filed 06/13/14 Page 1 of 2
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
15/33
seeks t o i n t e r v e n e i n gay marriage l a w s u i t -News Republican Herald Page 1 o
~ ~ o i ~ A l ; . NGwS Sl'O~trs (11'lI~u7N 1 ' L ' o ~ ' ~ . ~ L~LnsSutLu~~ ~~~v ~:Nu.~t: c~t~S~~Ui~1L'R51 R~~IcI.5 UDMI7 L V J ~ ' IPS i COPS Ni> C;OUKIS OBfTUAf21LS PA57 AYS STOCKSANU =1NANCE
Santai-Gaffiiey s e e k s to intervene in gay m a r r i a g e l a v v s ~ i i tRY L ~ G R G . H027NGR ST AFF W R I ' L ' E R PBORTN/iR~RCPUB/ CANHCRA/.D.COM) P v b l i s / a e d : ~ ~ n e 7 , 20/d
~ - T h e r e s a S a n t a i - G a f f n e y , c h u y l k i l l C o u n t y ' s r e g i s t e r of i l l s and l e r k of h e. . . . , . . .. v nans CuwY, a u i > a a y i ~ ~ w ~ ~ z . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . , ~ ~ 3 y ; . . . . . , . . ~ . , . . , ... e . ^ . ~2 y
t t ) N ' S I , (A] A) H] m a r r i a g e .(
, _ S a n t a i - G a f f n e y , whose f f i c e i s s u e s m a r r i a g e l i c e n s e s in t h e c o u n t y , a s k e d U.S. i s t r i c t Judge John E. o n e s I I on F r i d a y t o a l l o w h e r t o i n t e r v e n e in t hei : r U i t ~ > O r I F l L N C T V d ~ # ~ K3 ~ ~~ c a s e , w i t h a view toward a p p e a l i n g h i s May 2 0 r d e r d e c l a r i n g P e n n s y l v a n i a ' s~ ~ ~ ~ . . . . _t aC , r c > c > I < 1 ; ~ ban on day m a r r i a g e u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .
; I t . N U i ~ ~ N E WS LE TTE R J o n e s , whose chambers r e i n H a r r i s b u r g b u t who i v e s in P o t t s v i l l e , is one of_ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ . . . _ . . - - _ s e v e r a l f e d e r a l j u d g e s who have e c l a r e d state laws b a n n i n g day m a r r i a g eu n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .A n y a p p e a l of o n e s ' e c i s i o n would be h e a r d by t h e P h i l a d e l p h i a- b a s e d 3 r dU.S. i r c u i t C o u r t of p p e a l s .S a n t a i - G a f f n e y s a i d t h e i s s u e s h o u l d n o t s t o p w i t h J o n e s ' u l i n g , l t h o u g hGov. Tom o r b e t t , who h a d d e f e n d e d t h e law in c o u r t , h a s s a i d he w i l l n o ta p p e a l h a t d e c i s i o n ." A n a p p e a l i s n e c e s s a r y s o t h a t t h e j u d i c i a l p r o c e s s is n o t a b a n d o n e d , sh es a i d . "The p e o p l e of e n n s y l v a n i a d e s e r v e t o h e a r from t h e c o u r t of p p e a l s ont h i s i m p o r t a n t i s s u e b e c a u s e a s i n g l e j u d g e s h o u l d n o t be a b l e t o nullify t h ew i l l of h e m a j o r i t y w i t h o u t an a p p e a l .However, a n t a i - G a f f n e y s a i d s h e w i l l c o n t i n u e to f o l l o w J o n e s ' s r u l i n g u n l e s si t is o v e r t u r n e d , l t h o u g h she wants o i n t e r v e n e in t h e c a s e in o r d e r t o c lar ifywhat h e r f f i c i a l d u t i e s a r e ."Due o t h e u n c e r t a i n t y of h e s t a t e of h e law, w i l l c o n t i n u e i s s u i n g m a r r i a g el i c e n s e s t o a l l c o u p l e s , s h e s a i d .
T h e r e s a S a n t a i - G a f f n e y
T r e nd ing Offers a n d A r t i c l e s - - ~ ~ -.. i ~ -.
y. , ~
S u p r i s i n g e n e r ~ Plen ~mmer ~ Son '~ U s e ~`y y i ~ , . ~ s t Th e s e 7 a m o u sp l a y c a u s e s huge getaway t o women n the s ong s d o not m e a nbuying f r e n z y . . . Rochester, MN p l a n e t are the wives what you probably[ I n v e s t o r s cash n k today Find r a t e s as i r l f r i e n d s of NBA t h i n k they m e a n .
low a s 45a i g h t . s t a r s .
We elcome s e r d i s c u s s i o n on our i t e , u n d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g g u i d e l i n e s :To o mm e nt you must i r s t c r e a t e a p r o f i l e and s i g n- i n w i t h a v e r i f i e d DISQUS c c o u n t o r s o c i a l n e t w o r k ID. Sian up here.C om m e nt s n v i o l a t i o n of h e r u l e s w i l l be d e n i e d , and r e p e a t v i o l a t o r s w i l l be a n n e d . l e n s e h e l p p o l i c e t h e co mm m~ ityby l e g g i n g o f f e n s i v e com m e nt s o r onr moderators t o r e v i e w . B y p o s t i n g a comment, you a g r e e to o u r u l l t e r m s an dc o n d i t i o n s . C l i c k here t o read te r m s a n d c o n d i t i p n s .A R l ' 1 U N [ 5 7 H E V J C E i
j Y O U R O N L I N E Q G G E ~ S N O W~1.~ COMP tA RC A R S~ R a M A - z
F O R l U R M O N T H L Y P E t I A l S
CALENDARMAY JUN J l i t . o a t z s z i o c t e a
01 0 2 0 3 ~4 0 5 06 47( 3 8 D$ 10 1 1 12~4' i a i G 17 9 ~ 1 ~ 2p 2 1_ _ _ ' . _ . . . . . _ . _ ' _ _ _ _ _ '__. _ _ _ S h o w i n g ev er ts2 2 2 3 24 ~5 2~ 27 ~8 ~ ; ' , o ; ; 0 f e 'z g ~ o n ~ r ~ ~ o ~ ~ a o ~
V intage E x~ e r s s i on s of L o v e NowF r a g i l e , d eli c ate, o a u t i f u i e x p e r s s i o n s o f o v e ,v i n t a r ~ e V a l e n t i n e ' s Day 2 r d s a r e b ur stin g w i i t i
E xp r e s s i on s ThrifUGift ShopE x p r e s s i o n s s a h i f U g i f t shop un b y I ' o f l s v i l i ebased A v e n u e s , o r m e r l y U n i t e d C e r e b r a l
Seasons f Hawk MountainThe f 3 e r k s A r t A l l i a n c e p r e s e n t s a t r e e e x h i b i tof w o r k i n s p i r e A b y t h e S a n c t u 2 r y n al l
- g a f f n e y - se e k s - t o - in t e r v e ne - i n - g a y - m a rr i a g e - l a w s ui t - 1 . 1 6 9 9 4 5 8 6/13/
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146-1 Filed 06/13/14 Page 2 of 2
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
16/33
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146-2 Filed 06/13/14 Page 1 of 2
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
17/33
e t a i l s Page 1 o
NEWSDET ILS
OF THE GOVERNORi l News nd Press( http~//www p a aov/Pages/News yDate.aspx
Regarding the Opinion of Judge Jones n the Whitewood Case
or Immediate Release1, 0 1 4
Regarding the Opinion of Judge Jones n the Whitewood Caseave t h o r o u g h l y reviewed Judge Jones' p i n i o n i n the case. Given the h i g h l e g a l t h r e s h o l d s e t f o r t h by Judge Jones n t h i s case, he case
u n l i k e l y t o succeed on appeal. T h e r e f o r e , a f t e r r e v i e w o f t h e o p i n i o n and on the a dvice o f my Commonwealth l e g a l team, haven o t t o appeal Judge Jones' e c i s i o n .
s a Roman a t h o l i c , t h e t r a d i t i o n a l teaching of my a i t h has n o t wavered. c o n t i n u e t o m a i n t a i n t h e b e l i e f t h a t marriage s between one maone woman. My u t i e s as Governor r e q u i r e t h a t f o l l o w t h e laws as n t e r p r e t e d by the Courts and make a judgment as o t h e l i k e l i h o o d
a p p e a l .roughout h e debate on h i s i m p o r t a n t and meaningful i s s u e , have m a i n t a i n e d t h a t Commonwealth o f f i c i a l s and agencies would o l l o w t h
of e n n s y l v a n i a ' s marriage law unless o r u n t i l a c o u r t says t h e r w i s e . T he c o u r t has spoken, and w i l l ensure h a t myf o l l o w s t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f Judge Jones' r d e r w i t h r e s p e c t f o r a l l p a r t i e s .
i s my ope h a t as h e i m p o r t a n t i s s u e of same-sex r e l a t i o n s h i p s c o n t i n u e s t o be addressed n our o c i e t y , t h a t a l l i n v o l v e d be r e a t e d w i t h
contacts:Pagni, Governor's O f f i c e , 717-783-1116
Maus, f f i c e o f General Counsel, 717-346-4463
newsresents G o v e r n o r ' s V i c t i m Service P a t h f i n d e r A w a r d s ( ~ h t t p ~ / / w w w pa qov/Pages/NewsDetails aspx~agency=PAGovNews&item=157
o f Governor CorbetYs u s t i c e Reinvestment n i t i a t i v e Receives N a t i o n a l R e c o g n i t i o n ( h t t p : / / w w w . p a . g o v / P a g e s / N e w s D e t a i l s . a s p x ?
//www.pa.gov/Pages/NewsDetails.aspx?agency=PAGovNews&item=15643 6/13/2
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146-2 Filed 06/13/14 Page 2 of 2
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
18/33
E~ HIBIT
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146-3 Filed 06/13/14 Page 1 of 2
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
19/33
~r p e r t r ~ s y l v a n i ~~ ' ~ DEPARTMENT 3 ~ HEALTH
J u s t e 11, 014General N o t i c e t o a l l Clerks of the Orphans' Court
T h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t . f o r t h e Middle D i s t r i c t of P e n n s y l v a n i a o n May 20,2014, n Whitewood . W o l f , I V o . 1 : 1 3 - c ~ v - 1 8 6 1 : ( p e r J a n e s , , _ ) , r u l e d t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f h eP e n n s y l v a n i a M a r r i a g e Law h a t p r o h i b i t same- s e x m a r r i a g e (23 Pa. . S . 1X02, 1704} i o l a t et h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment t o t h e U.S. C o n s t i t u t i o n . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e c o u r t p e r r n a n e i ~ t l ye n j o i n e d t h e S e c r e t a r y of e a l t h and o t h e r government o f f i c i a l s from e n f o r c i n g t h o s e p r o v i s i o n so f e n n s y l v a n i a l a w .
T h e d e c i s i o n i n Whitewvad r e q u i r e s e v e r y government o f f i c i a l w h o a d m i n i s t e r s t h eMarriage Law i n c l u d z n g e v e r y c l e r k o f h e orphans' o u r t t o p e r f o x r n h i s o r h e r d u t i e s i na c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r . That means h a t a c l e r k o f h e o r p h a n s ' c o u r t must c o n s i d e ra p p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e i s s u a n c e o f a m a r r i a g e l i c e n s e w i t h o u t regard t o t h e gender o f t h ea p p l i c a n t s .
T h e Department of H e a l t h by law i s r e s p o n s i b l e t o s e e t h a t t h e laws p r o v i d i n g f o r t h el i c e n s i n g and r e g i s t r a t i o n o f m a r r i a g e a r e u n i f o r m l y and t h o r o u g h l y e n f o r c e d t h r o u g h o u t t h eC ommon w e a l th. See 71 P . S . 3 4 ( c ) . The. epartment l s o i s r e s p o n s i b l e by law t o p r e s c r i b et h e farms h a t a r e t o be u s e d f o r m a r r i a g e l i c e n s e s and h e a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r m a r r i a g e l i c e n s e s , andt o c o l l e c t and c o m p i l e s t a t i s t i c s . r e l a t i n g t o m a r r i a g e l i c e n s e s i s s u e d . and m a r r i a g e c e r t i f i c a t e sf i l e d . See 23 Pa. . S . 1103,1106; 3S . S . 5 0 . 6 0 1 .
T h e Department o f e a l t h i s i n t h e p r o c e s s of r e p a r i n g r e v i s i o n s . o t h e p r e s c r i b e d formst o conform t o t h e d e c i s i o n i n Wh cwood. I n t h e meantime, h e c l e r k s of h e o r p h a n s ' c o u r t ss h o u l d c o n t i n u e t o modify h e c o u n t y ' s m a r r i a g e f o i ~ n s a s n e c e s s a r y t o conform w i t h t h e c o u r t ' so r d e r :
T h e Department of e a l t h a p p r e c i a t e s t h e c l e r k s . p a t i e n c e a s i t d e v e l o p s n e w forms t h a tcomply w i t h t h e Marriage L a w and h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r i n l~htewo~d.
udge Jones s t a t e d e x p r e s s l y i n t h e - Whitewood c a s e t h a t . a l l C l e r k s of t h e Orphans' Courtwould be s u b j e c t t o [any] e g a l mandate n t e r e d . i n f a v o r o f h e p l a i n t i f f s . Whatewood . W o l f ,N a . 1 : 1 3 - c v - 1 8 : 6 1 , a t 8 ( M . D . Pa. N o v . 15, 2013) emphasis added) c i t i n g Dept f e a l t h v .Hanes, 8 A.~d 676, 88 P a . Commw 0 1 3 ) ) .
D i v i s i o n o f i t a l R e c o r d sR oom 401 e n t r a l B u i l d i n g , 101 o u t h M e r c e r S t r e e t , New C a s t l e , PA 16101 7 2 4 ) b 5 6 - 3 1 0 0
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146-3 Filed 06/13/14 Page 2 of 2
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
20/33
E~ HIBIT
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146-4 Filed 06/13/14 Page 1 of 6
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
21/33
Received 05/21/2014 Supreme ourt Middle D i s t r i c t
~~ F i l e d 05/21/2014 Supreme Court Middle D i s t r i c t77MAP2013r ~ `
a
C~MM~NW~AL1 I- OF ~NNSYLVANTAGCIVERN~R S OFFICE OF ENERI~L COUNSEL
May 1,2014
V I ~ 1 E~EC TRONICDELIVERYI r e n e Bizzoso, rothonotaryQ ~ i c e o ~ t h e ~ r o t h o n o t a r ySupreme Court of e n t l s y l v a n i aPennsylvania u d i c i a l Center601 Commonwealth AvenueS u i t e 4500H a r r i s b u r g ,PA] 10-2575
Re: eo~nmonwealth of ennsylvania, epartmentof ealth v .D. j ~ u c e H a n e s , n h i s c a p a c i t y a s the Clerk of he Orph a n s nu~tof o ntgomery CountyNo.77MAP2 3
Dear M s , izzoso:Based on t a e o r d e r o~ t h e U.S. D i s t r i c t Couxt f o r the Mxdd~e D i s t r i c t o
Pennsylvania rendexed i n Whitewood v . W o l f , No. 1:13-cv-1861, 2014 U.S. D i s t .LEXIS b8771 (M.D. Pa. May 20, 2014), permanently e n j o i n i n g t h e S e c r e t a r y oHealth from e n f o r c i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n s of h e Marriage Law h a t p r e c l u d e marriagebetween s a m e- s e x c o u p l e s , t h e Pennsylvania Department of Health does notoppose t h e r e l i e f r e q u e s t e d x n A p p e l l a n t s Emergency A p p l i c a t i o n t o R e i n s t a t eAutomatic Supersedeas i l e d on May 0, 2014.
OFFICE Of LEGAL COUNSEL[DEPARTMENTOF HEALTHEtoam 825 Health a n d Welfare ~ u l i d i n g pen n s ytva ni~
625 o r s t e r St Harrisburg, PA 17120-0701 ~ DEPAFlTMENT OF tEALTHPh: 717-783-2500 Fax:717-7D5-6042 www.healYh.state.pa.us
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146-4 Filed 06/13/14 Page 2 of 6
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
22/33
I r e n e BizzosoMay 1 014Page
The I 7 e p a x t m e n t o f Health ~ . n t i c i ~ a t e s t h a t , i n due c o u r s e , t h e p a z ~ t i e s t o t h eabove- r e f e r e n c e d . ~ . p p e a l w i l l be a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e t h e p r o p e r c o u r s e o f c t i o n t od i s p o s e o f h i s l i t i g a t i o n f i n a l l y and c o n s i s t e n t l y w i t h t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s d e c i s i o n i nWhitewood.
Very t r u l y y o u x s ,/ s /A l i s o n TaylorChief CounselP e n n s y l v a n i a Department o f ~ e a l t h
c c : . A l l c o u n s e l of e c o r d
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146-4 Filed 06/13/14 Page 3 of 6
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
23/33
INTHESUPREMECOURTOFPENNSYLVANIA
COMMONWE LTH )F PENNSYLVATTIADEPARTIV.[El~`~'OF ~ALTH
Appellee
D:BRUCEHANES n h i s capacity as theClerk of the O r p h a n s ' C ourt o fMo n tg om e r y Co~rnty,
Appellant
No. 77 M.AP 013
CERTITICATEOF ERVICE
I , Alison T a y l o r , Chxe~ Counsel, e r u l s y l v a n i a Department of e a l t h , O f f i c eo f Legal Counsel, hereby c e z ~ z f s t h a t on May 22, 2014, I served t w a t r u e a n dc o r r e c t c o p i e s of the foregoing l e t t e r s t a t i n g t h a t Appellee has n a o p p o s i t i o n t oA p p e l l a n t s Emergen c y A p p l i c a t i o n t o R e i n s t a t e Automatic Supersedeas bycausing same t o be d e p o s i t e d i n t h e United S t a t e s Mail, postage p r e p a i d a n d LTPSo v e r n i g h t mail t o the f o l l o w i n g :
R a y m o n d McGarry, squireP h i l l i p W. ewcomer, squire
Joshua M a r c S t e i n , EsquireE . Natasha Taylor-Smith, Esquire
Nicole R. o r z a t o , E s q u i r eMaureen ~ . erron, squire
Montgomery County S o l i c i t o r s O f f i c eOne ontgomery Plaza
S u i t e 04Norristown,PA 9404-0311P ho ne: (610)278-3033Fax: b10) 278-3240Counsel og A p p e l l a n t
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146-4 Filed 06/13/14 Page 4 of 6
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
24/33
Michael P. l a r k e s q u i r eRudolph, l a r k e LLC
8 e s h a ~ ~ ~ i n y Z n t e r p l e x S u i t e 215Trevose,PA 9053(215) 33-1890
Robert C. Heim, s q u i r eAlexander R . i l u s s q u i r eWilliam T . M cE n roe , s q u i r e
Joanna L. a r r y E s q u i r eDechert LLPC i r a C e n t r e
2929 A r c h S t r e e tP h i l a d e l p h i a PA 9104-2808
Phone: (215) 94-4000Fax: (215) 94-2222
Counsel ar Amicus CuriaeDavid S . Cohen, s q u i r e
F a r 1 e M a ck School ofLaw tDrexel U n i v e r s i t y3320 Market S t r e e tP h i l a d e l p h i a PA 9104
Phone: 2 . 5 95-2000Counsel or Amicus Curiae
James c h x ~ e l l e r4 3 0 E. a n c a s t e r A ve. E25S a i n t Davids,PA 19807Amicus Curiae P r o S e
~A l i s o n T a y l o rChief CounselPA d . No. 1873P e n n s y l v a n i a Department of e a l t h
7
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146-4 Filed 06/13/14 Page 5 of 6
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
25/33
Date: 1 V I a y 22, 014
625 o x s t e r S t r e e tH a r r i s b u r g PA 17120-0701717)7835
ounselor p p e l l e e Departmentofe a l t h
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146-4 Filed 06/13/14 Page 6 of 6
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
26/33
UNPUBLISHEDOPINIONSANDi
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146-5 Filed 06/13/14 Page 1 of 8
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
27/33
Case2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LRL Document 91 F i l e d 01/17/14 Page1f agelD 735
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICT COURTFORTHEEASTERNDISTRICT OFVTRGTNIA
NorfolkD i v i s i o n
TIMOTHY.BOSTICTONY LONDONCAROLCHALL,n d MARYTOWNLEYP l a i n t i f f s
v . CASEO . 2 : 1 3 - c v - 3 9 5
JANETM.AINEY n h e r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t ya s S t a t e R e g i s t r a r o f i t a l R e c o r d s , a n dGEORGE.SCHAEFER,I I i n h i s o f f i c i a lc a p a c i t y a s t h e C l e r k of o u r t f o r N o r f o l kC i r c u i t C o u r t ,
D e f e n d a n t s .~ ~
B e f o r e t h i s C o u r t i s a m o t i o n f r o m P r o p o s e d I n t e r v e n o r- D e f e n d a n t , M i c h e l e B.McQuigg,( P r o p o s e d I n t e r v e n o r ) , a p p e a r i n g i n h e r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y a s P r i n c e W i l l i a m CountyC l e r k o fC i r c u i t C o u r t . P r o p o s e d I n t e r v e n o r s e e k s t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h i s a c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 2 4 a ) 2 ) , o ra l t e r n a t i v e l y , Rul e24 b)of h e F e d e r a l Rulesofi v i l P r o c e d u r e .
Defendant J a n e t M.Rainey,S t a t e R e g i s t r a r of V i t a l Reco rds, hasc o n s e n t e d t o t h eMot ion, and DefendantGeorgeE. c h a e f e r , I I C l e r k ofh e Cour t f o r Norf olk C i r c u i t C o u r t , has
no o b j e c t i o n t o t h e Mo tio n . P l a i n t i f f s TimothyB. o s t i c , TonyC.London a r o l S c h a l l , andMaryTownleyo ppose h e Motion n p a r t .
I . PROCEDURALBACKGROUND
This a c t i o n was i l e d onJ u l y 18,2013.AnAmen dedComplaint was i l e d onSept ember3,2013,and p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d motionst o d i s m i s s and f o r t h e CommonwealthofV i r g i n i a t oi n t e r v e n e wer e wit hdr awn byt h e p a r t i e s asmoo t. On Sept ember 30, 2013, P l a i n t i f f s f i l e d amotionf o r summaryjudgment andamot io n f o r a r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n . Bo t h D e f e n d a n t s f i l e d
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146-5 Filed 06/13/14 Page 2 of 8
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
28/33
Case2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LRL Document91 F i l e d 01/17/14 Page2f 5 ageiD 736
m o t i o n s f o r summaryjudgmentant h a t d a t e a s w e l l . O r a l argumenton t h e s e m o t i o n s w i l l heh e a r d onJ a n u a r y 30,014.
B e f o r e t h e summaryjudgment m o t i o n s w e r e f u l l y b r i e f e d , twom o t i o n s f a r l e a v e t o f i l ea m i c i c u r i a e b r i e f s i n s u p p o r t of e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n s w e r e f i l e d . Them o t i o n s f o r l e a v e t o f i l et h e a m i c i c u r i a e b r i e f s wereg r a n t e d onDecember 3 , 2013.
Onecember 20, 013, r o p o s e d I n t e r v e n o r f i l e d h e r Motion(ECF No.2 ) . Them o t i o ni s f u l l y b r i e f e d a n d r i p e f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Fort h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s , t h e m o t i o n i s GRANTEDINPART
I I . AFPLICABLESTANDARDSOFLAWI n o r d e r t o p r e v a i l onam o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e a s of i g h t u n d e r R u l e 2 4 ( a ) of h e F e d e r a l
R u l e s of i v i l P r o c e d u r e , P r o p o s e d I n t e r v e n o r mustshowt h a t 1) h e m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e i st i m e l y ; 2} r o p o s e d I n t c r v e n o r p o s s e s s e s a d i r e c t ands u b s t a n t i a l i n t e r e s t ' i n t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e roft h e l i t i g a t i o n ; 3) e n y i n g i n t e r v e n t i o n woulds i g n i f i c a n t l y i m p a i r o r impede t h e a b i l i t y ofP r o p o s e d I n t e r v e n o r t o p r o t e c t h e r i n t e r e s t s ; a n d 4}P r o p o s e d I n t e r v e n o r ' s i n t e r e s t s a r ei n a d e q u a t e l y p r o t e c t e d byt h e e x i s t i n g p a r t i e s . I n r e Richman,10 4 F . 3 d 654, 658-59 4 t h C i r .1 9 9 7 ) ; s e e a l s o S c a r d e l l e t t i v . D e b p r r , 26 5 F . 3 d 1 9 5 , 2024 t h C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) , e v ' d ono t h e r g r o u n d ssubnom. e v l i n v . S c a r d e l l e t t i , 531 U . S . 1 ( 2 0 0 2 ) .
Ap r o p o s e d i n t e r v e n o r b e a r s t h e b u r d e n ofd e m o n s t r a t i n g t o t h e c o u r t a r i g h t t oi n t e r v e n e , a n d must p r o v e e a c h e l e m e n t i n o r d e r f o r a c o u r t t o g r a n t i n t e r v e n t i o n a s of i g h t .
Richman, 104F . 3 d a t 658; e e a l s o U n i t e d Gear.R e s i d e n t i a l I n s . Co.o f Iowa v P h i l a d e l p h i aS a y . F i e n d S o c . , 8l9 . 2 d 473,4744 t h C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) . The U n i t e d S t a t e s SupremeC a u r t c o n s t r u e dR u l e 2 4 ( a ) ( 2 } a s r e q u i r i n g t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t l y p r o t e c t a b l e i n t e r e s t bea t r i s k . D o n a l d s o n v U n i t e d S t a t e s , 400 U . S . 517, 531 ( 1 9 7 1 ) . S i m i l a r l y , t h e F o u r t h C i r c u i t l o o k s t o d e t e r m i n e
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146-5 Filed 06/13/14 Page 3 of 8
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
29/33
Case2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LRL Document 9 F i l e d 01/17/14 Page f agelD#737
w hether a p r o p o s e d i n t e r v e n o r s t a n d s t o g a i n o r l o s e by h e d i r e c t ] e ~ a l o p e r a t i o n of h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t ' s judgment n t h e a c t i o n i n t o wh ich i n t e r v e n t i o n i s s o u g h t . Teague Bakker,931 C . 2 d
259, 61 4 t h C i r . 1 9 9 1 ) .P u r s u a n t t o Rule 2 4 ( b ) , t h e c o u r t may p e r m i t anyonet o i n t e r v e n e w h o:A)s g i v e n a
c o n d i t i o n a l r i g h t t o i n t e r v e n e by a e d e r a l s t a t u t e ; o r (B } as a l a i m o r d e f e n s e t h a t s h a r e w i t ht h e main a c t i o n acommon u e s t i o n of aw o r f a c t . F e d . R.Civ. P. 4 ( b ) ( 1 ) (emphasis a d d e d ) .This e c t i o n a l s o p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e c o u r t p r a y p e r m i t a e d e r a l o r s t a t e gover nmental o f f i c e r o r
agency t o i n t e r v e n e i f a p a r t y ' s c l a i m o r d e f e n s e i s b a s e d on: {A}a s t a t u t e o r e x e c u t i v e o r d e ra d m i n i s t e r e d byt h e o f f i c e r or agency; r {B )nyr e g u l a t i o n , o r d e r , r e q u i r e m e n t , o r agreementi s s u e d o r made under h e s t a t u t e o r e x e c u t i v e o r d e r . red. R.Civ.P, 4 ( b ) { 2 ) (emp hasis d d e d ) .A o u r t t h a t i s d e t e r m i n i n g w hether e r m i s s i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n i s p r o p e r must o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e
i n t e r v e n t i o n w i l l undulyd e l a y o r p r e j u d i c e t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n of h e o r i g i n a l p a r t i e s ' r i g h t s . F e d .
R. iv. . 2 4 ( b ) ( 3 ) .I I I ANALYSIS
Wheth er Proposed I n t e r v e n o r has ar i g h t t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h i s a c t i o n i s ac l o s e q u e s t i o n .
T h e i m e l i n e s s of h e motion f i l e d a f t e r t h r e e d i s p o s i t i v e motionshave been f u l l y b r i e f e d andtw omotionst o f i l e amicic u r i a e b r i e f s havebeenc o n s i d e r e d and g r a n t e d i s q u e s t i o n a b l e .S i m i l a r l y , t h e e x i s t e n c e of d i r e c t and u b s t a n t i a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r of h e l i t i g t i o nont h e p a r t of Proposed I n t e r v e n o r i s a r g u a b l e , a s i s whether Proposed I n t e r v e n o r ' s a b i l i t y t o
p r o t e c t t h o s e p o s s i b l e i n t e r e s t s wouldbe n any w ay i g n i f i c a n t l y i m p a i r e d . F i n a l l y , t i s d i f f i c u l tt o s e e h ow any n t e r e s t s i n t h i s a c t i o n t h a t ProposedI n t e r v e n o r mayhave w i l l n o t be e p r e s e n t e df u l l y and d e q u a t e l y p r o t e c t e d by h e e x i s t i n g p a r t i e s
3
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146-5 Filed 06/13/14 Page 4 of 8
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
30/33
Case2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LR~ Document9 F i l e d 01 /17/14 Page f 5agelD 7 38
However, n l i g h t of l a i n t i f f s ' d e c i s i o n t o d e c l i n e t o o b j e c t t o ProposedI n t e r v e n o r
i n t e r v e n i n g under F e d e r a l Rule of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 2 4 ( b ) , t h i s Courtneed n o t r e s o l v e t h e
c h a l l e n g e s a s t o whetherProposed I n t e r v e n o r has met h e burdenof s t a b l i s h i n g i n t e r v e n t i o n a sof i g h t u n d e r Rule 2 4 ( a ) . As e c o g n i z e d above,underRule2 4 ( b } , t h i s Courtmayp e r m i t ane n t i t y t o i n t e r v e n e i f t h e e n t i t y has a e f e n s e t h a t s h a r e s acommonu e s t i o n ofawo r f a c t w i t h
t h e main a c t i o n . TheCourtmay l s o p e r m i t agovernmentalo f f i c e r t o i n t e r v e n e i f a e f e n s e i nt h e c a s e i s b a s e d ona t a t u t e a d m i n i s t e r e d by h e o f f i c e r , o r any e g u l a t i o n o r r e q u i r e m e n t i s s u e d
undert h e s t a t u t e .I n t h e absence ofny h a l l e n g e s t o t h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t ProposedI n t e r v e n o r has a defense
t h a t s h a r e s acommon u e s t i o n of lawo r f a c t w i t h t h e main a c t i o n h e r e , o r t h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t
Proposed I n t e r v e n o r i s agovernment f f i c e r and a e f e n s e i n t h e a c t i o n i s b a s e d up ona t a t u t e o r
r e g u l a t i o n b e i n g a d m i n i s t e r e d b yt h e o f f i c e r , t h i s Courtc o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n a s
r e q u e s t e d i s p r o p e r . TheCourt e j e c t s t h e c o n d i t i o n s on h e i n t e r v e n t i o n t h a t P l a i n t i f f s s u g g e s t .
A f t e r d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t p e r m i s s i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n i s p r o p e r , t h i s Court i s compelledt o
c o n s i d e r whethert h e i n t e r v e n t i o n w i l l unduly d e l a y o r p r e j u d i c e t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n ofh e o r i g i n a l
p a r t i e s ' r i g h t s . Fed.R. iv.P. 4 ( b ) ( 3 ) . Here,roposedI n t e r v e n o r hasa g r e e d t o t a k e no t e p s
t o d e l a y t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n of h e pendingm o t i o n s . ReplyB r . Sup p .Mot. n t e r v e n e a t 8 - 4 , F
No. 88 C l e r k McQui gg f f i r m s t h a t w h i l e b o t h of h e motionsf o r summaryudgment h a t shej o i n e d remainp e n d i n g , she w i l l not i l a d d i t i o n a l motionsor o t h e r w i s e t a k e s t e p s t o d e l a y t h e
promp t e s o l u t i o n ofh o s e m o t i o n s . ) . I n l i g h t ofh i s a s s u r a n c e , h i s Court o n c l u d e s t h a t undert h e t o t a l i t y ofh e c i r c u m s t a n c e p r e s e n t e d , t h i s i n t e r v e n t i o n , under t h e s e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , w i l l n o tunduly d e l a y or p r e j u d i c e t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n of h e o r i g i n a l p a r t i e s ' r i g h t s . TheCourt x p l i c i t l yr e s e r v e s t h e d i s c r e t i o n anda u t h o r i t y t o examine anyf u t u r e i n t e r v e n t i o n p r o p o s a l s and t o make
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146-5 Filed 06/13/14 Page 5 of 8
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
31/33
Case2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LRL Document91 F i l e d 01/17/14 Page5 f 5 agelD 739
i n d e p e n d e n t d e t e r m i n a t i o n s ast o whethersuch p r o p o s a l s a r e t i m e l y , p r o p e r and r i s k undue d e l a y
andp r e j u d i c e .Byr a n t i n g t h i s i n t e r v e n t i o n undert h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s p r e s e n t e d byProposedI n t e r v e n o r i n
t h e Re ply r i e f , t h e CourtSTRIKESh e f i l i n g s a t t a c h e d t o ProposedI n t e r v e n o r s Motion,which
i n c l u d e a p r o p o s e d motionf o r s u m m a r y ju dgmentECF o . 2 - 3 ) . That p r o p o s e d d i a p o s i t i v emotion i s p r e s e n t e d i n d i r e c t c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o t h e o f f e r t o f i l nn a d d i t i o n a l motions t o a v o i d
undue d e l a y i n t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n o f endingm o t i o n s .Moreove r, n accordancew i t h t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o p r e v e n t undued e l a y o r p r e j u d i c e , t h i s
Courtd i r e c t s t h a t i f Proposed I n t e r v e n o r wishest o p r e s e n t o r a l argument t t h e J a n u a r y 30, 2014
h e a r i n g , ProposedI n t e r v e n o r mu s t i l e a m e m o r a n d u m n o t exceedingsevenpalesd e t a i l i n g t h ea s p e c t s ofh e o r a l argum ent h a t f l l o u t s i d e t h e scopeof h e p o s i t i o n s o f h e o t h e r D e f e n d a n t sa n d . t h e r e a s o n s why h e s e a s p e c t s a r e u n l i k e l y t o bea d e q u a t e l y p r o t e c t e d byt h e o t h e r p a r t i e s .Thism e m o r a n d u m mu s t be i l e d n o a t e r t h a n c l o s e of u s i n e s s o n J a n u a r y 22,014.
T h e Courtw i l l d e t e r m i n e a f t e r t h a t timewhether Proposed I n t e r v e n o r w i l l p a r t i c i p a t e i no r a l argument and, i f s o how m u ch time w i l l be a l l o t t e d f o r suchargument P l a i n t i f f s a r eg r a n t e d l e a v e t o f i l e r e s p o n s i v e b r i e f i n g t o any o r a l argument p r e s e n t e d byProposedI n t e r v e n o r .
This b r i e f i n g s h a l l be i l e d n o a t e r t h a n F e b r u a r y 7,414.IV.CONCLUSION
Proposed I n t e r v e n o r s Motiont o I n t e r v e n e ECGo .2 s GRANTEDN PART,I T IS SOORDERED.
` ` ~J a n u a r y ~?,Q14N o r f o l k V i r g i n i a
5
Aren Wr i l l e nU n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Jude
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146-5 Filed 06/13/14 Page 6 of 8
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
32/33
O C T / 1 7 / 2 0 1 3 / T N U 0 1 : 4 1 P M C O M ~ I D N W E A L T H C O U R T F R X N o , 7 1 7 7 8 7 9 5 5 9 P . 0 0 2 / 0 0 2
~ l ~ T TAEC0 4N'~.h1LTH CUYJRT OF ENNS~'V A~SA
Commonweal~lx o f e n n s y ~ ~ a n i a ,D e p a r t ~ a n , ~ ~ ~ o f e a ~ ~ ~ ,P e ~ . t i a n e ~ r
v . No. 79 v x . ~ 7 , 20I3D. ruoe Hanes, n h i s c a p a c i t y a s t h eC ~ e ~ ~ a f ~ h e 4zpha~s' a ~ z ~ t ~Montg om e zy o ~ . n t y ,
1 Z e s p o x ~ d e z x t
~ ~ ~
AND O V V ~ , f ~ i s I 7 ` ~ day o f c ~ a t ~ ~ z ~ , 2013, u p o n c o n s ~ d e r a t ~ a ~ o f fI > e ~ r ~ o i ~ . ~ x ~ s A p p l i c a t i o n to Vacate S t i ~ p e ~ s e d e a s , i t i s h~r~by Ordered t h a t s 2 ~ x dA p p l i c a t i o n i s g r a n t e d , ~ 1 , ~ . ~ O x c i e r a f t h i s Court n t c r e c ~ S e ~ a t e m . b e x ~ 2 , X073, ha hz ~ e m a i n i n f i x l l f o r c e a r t d e f f e c t n a t w i t h s t a ~ d i n g h e s ~ o i s d e r ~ ~ ~ a p p ~ a ~ , ~ . ~ r e r ~ f t o t ~ . eSupr e m e Court o f e n n s y i v a x ~ i a docketed t No.77 v S . A P 203
~~r~~ ~ ~ . ~ , ~ , E C r ,President Judge
C o r t i f e d P r a m t h e ~ e c a r dO C T ~ , 7 0 i ~ {
F t n d o r d e r x i t506a ~
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146-5 Filed 06/13/14 Page 7 of 8
-
7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146
33/33
INTHESUPREMECOURTOFPENNSYLVANIAMIDDLEDI STRI CT
COMMONWEALTHOFPENNSYLVANIA N o.77 MAP 13DEPARTMENTOFHEALTHA p p e l l a n t s Emergency A p p l i c a t i o n t o
Appel lee :Reinstate Automa ticSupers edea s
v .
D.BRUCEHANES,N HI SCAPACITYAS THECLERKOFTHEORPHANSCOURTOFMONTGOMERYCOUNTY,
ppellant
PERCURIAM
ORDER
ANDNOW,h i s 27t hda yo f Ma y, 2014,A p p e l l a n t s EmergencyA p p l i c a t i o n t o
e i n s t a t e Automatic Supersedeas,unopposed bythe Commonwea l t h,i s GRANTED.The supersedeasimposed by o p e r a t i o n o f Pa.R.A.P.1736b) s r e i n s t a t e d .
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146-5 Filed 06/13/14 Page 8 of 8