2:14-cv-00055 #12

8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12

1/22

JONI J. JONES (7562)KYLE J. KAISER (13924)

Assistant Utah Attorneys General

PARKER DOUGLAS (8924)Chief of Staff and Counsel General

OFFICE OF THE UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL

160 East 300 South, Sixth Floor

P.O. Box 140856Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0856

Telephone: (801) 366-0100

Facsimile: (801) 366-0101

E-mail:[email protected]@utah.gov

[email protected]

Attorneys for State Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

JONELL EVANS, STACIA IRELAND,

MARINA GOMBERG, ELLENOR

HEYBORNE, MATTHEW BARRAZA,TONY MILNER, DONALD JOHNSON,

and CARL FRITZ SHULTZ,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE OF UTAH, GOVERNOR GARY

HERBERT, in his official capacity; and

ATTORNEY GENERAL SEAN REYES,in his official capacity,

Defendants.

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

AND/OR FOR TRANSFER OF CASENO. 2:14-cv-61 AND MEMORANDUM

OF LAW IN SUPPORT

Case No. 2:14-cv-00055-DAK

Judge Dale A. Kimball

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 12 Filed 02/05/14 Page 1 of 10
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12

2/22

2

MOTION

Defendants the State of Utah, Governor Gary Herbert, and Attorney General Sean Reyes,

by and through counsel Parker Douglas, General Counsel, and Joni J. Jones, and Kyle J. Kaiser,

Assistant Utah Attorneys General, hereby move the Court to consolidateDoe v. State of Utah,

Case No. 2:14-cv-00061 into the above-captioned case pursuant to DUCivR 42-1, or in the

alternative, to accept transfer ofDoe v. State of Utahas a related case pursuant to DUCivR 83-

2(g).

MEMORANDUM

BACKGROUND

On December 20, 2013, Judge Shelby ruled that same-sex couples have a fundamental

right to marriage under the Federal Constitution and that the State was enjoined from enforcing

Article I, 29 of the Utah Constitution, and Utah Code 30-1-2 and 30-1-4.1 as

unconstitutional under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution. Kitchen v. Herbert, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2013

WL 6697874, at * 30 (D. Utah Dec. 20, 2013).

The State of Utah repeatedly requested a stay of the ruling including orally on the date of

its issue. On December 20, 2013, the State appealed Judge Shelbys ruling and requested a stay

from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Emergency Mot. for Temporary Stay,Kitchen v.

Herbert,No.13-4178 (10th Cir. filed Dec. 20, 2013). That stay was denied on December 22,

2013. See Ord.Kitchen v. Herbert,No.13-4178 (10th Cir.Dec. 22, 2013).

On December 23, 2013, Judge Shelby denied the States December 20, 2014 written

motion for a stay. SeeKitchen v. Herbert, No. 2:13-cv-217, 2013 WL 6834634, at * 4 (D. Utah

http://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=UTCNART1S29&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000512&wbtoolsId=UTCNART1S29&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=UTCNART1S29&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000512&wbtoolsId=UTCNART1S29&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=UTSTS30-1-2&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000511&wbtoolsId=UTSTS30-1-2&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=UTSTS30-1-2&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000511&wbtoolsId=UTSTS30-1-2&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032351566&fn=_top&referenceposition=30&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032351566&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032351566&fn=_top&referenceposition=30&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032351566&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032351566&fn=_top&referenceposition=30&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032351566&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032351566&fn=_top&referenceposition=30&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032351566&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032351566&fn=_top&referenceposition=30&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032351566&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032351566&fn=_top&referenceposition=30&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032351566&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032351566&fn=_top&referenceposition=30&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032351566&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032351566&fn=_top&referenceposition=30&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032351566&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=CTA10R13&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000891&wbtoolsId=CTA10R13&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=CTA10R13&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000891&wbtoolsId=CTA10R13&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=CTA10R13&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000891&wbtoolsId=CTA10R13&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032351566&fn=_top&referenceposition=30&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032351566&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032351566&fn=_top&referenceposition=30&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032351566&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032351566&fn=_top&referenceposition=30&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032351566&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=CTA10R13&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000891&wbtoolsId=CTA10R13&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=CTA10R13&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000891&wbtoolsId=CTA10R13&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=CTA10R13&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000891&wbtoolsId=CTA10R13&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032420476&fn=_top&referenceposition=4&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032420476&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032420476&fn=_top&referenceposition=4&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032420476&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032420476&fn=_top&referenceposition=4&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032420476&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032420476&fn=_top&referenceposition=4&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032420476&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=CTA10R13&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000891&wbtoolsId=CTA10R13&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032351566&fn=_top&referenceposition=30&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032351566&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=CTA10R13&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000891&wbtoolsId=CTA10R13&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032351566&fn=_top&referenceposition=30&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032351566&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032351566&fn=_top&referenceposition=30&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032351566&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032351566&fn=_top&referenceposition=30&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032351566&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032351566&fn=_top&referenceposition=30&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032351566&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=UTSTS30-1-2&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000511&wbtoolsId=UTSTS30-1-2&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=UTCNART1S29&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000512&wbtoolsId=UTCNART1S29&HistoryType=F

8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12

3/22

3

Dec. 23, 2013)(ord. on mot. to stay not selected for publication). On December 22, 2013 the

Tenth Circuit denied the States request for a staypending the United States District Courts

Ruling on the States motion before him, and on December 24, 2013, denied the States Motion

for a stay pending appeal. See Ord. Denying Emergency Mot. for Stay & Temp. Mot. for Stay,

Kitchen v. Herbert,No. 13-4178, at2 (10th Cir.Dec. 24, 2013).

Though the appeal process was continuing, and the State continued to seek stays of the

District Courts Order, in compliance with that Courts ruling, Governor Gary Herbert directed

Utahs state agencies that where no conflicting laws exist you should conduct business in

compliance with the federal judges ruling until such time that the current district court decision

is addressed by the 10th

Circuit Court. Memo of 12-24-14 from Governors officeto Cabinet,

attached as Exhibit 1.

On December 31, 2013, the State filed a request for stay with the United States Supreme

Court. See Application for Stay Pending Appeal, Herbert v. Kitchen, 13A-687 (Dec. 31, 2013)

Pursuant to Supreme Court rules, the motion for stay was filed with Judge Sotomayor, who

referred the motion to the entire Court. On January 6, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a stay,

stating:

Application for stay presented to Justice SOTOMAYOR and by her referred to

the Court granted. Permanent injunction issued by the United States District

Court for the District of Utah, case No. 2:13-cv-217, on December 20, 2013,

stayed pending final disposition of the appeal by the United States Court of

Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Application Granted by the Ct., Herbert v. Kitchen, No. 13A-687, 2014 WL 30367 (orders Jan.

6, 2013)(A copy of the Supreme Court order is attached as Exhibit 2).

http://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032420476&fn=_top&referenceposition=4&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032420476&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032420476&fn=_top&referenceposition=4&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032420476&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032420476&fn=_top&referenceposition=4&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032420476&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032420476&fn=_top&referenceposition=4&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032420476&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=CTA10R2&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000891&wbtoolsId=CTA10R2&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=CTA10R2&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000891&wbtoolsId=CTA10R2&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=CTA10R2&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000891&wbtoolsId=CTA10R2&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000999&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032473883&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2032473883&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000999&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032473883&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2032473883&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000999&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032473883&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2032473883&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000999&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032473883&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2032473883&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000999&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032473883&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2032473883&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000999&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032473883&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2032473883&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=CTA10R2&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000891&wbtoolsId=CTA10R2&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032420476&fn=_top&referenceposition=4&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032420476&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2032420476&fn=_top&referenceposition=4&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2032420476&HistoryType=F

8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12

4/22

4

Based on the plain interpretation of the Supreme Courts stay, the Governors Office sent

a memorandum to all cabinet members on January 8, 2014, noting that the Supreme Court stay

effectively puts a hold on the decision of the district court, recognizing that the original laws

governing marriage in Utah return to effect pending final resolution by the courts, and directing

state agency compliance with current laws that prohibit the state from recognizing same sex

marriages. Memo. from Derek B. Miller, Chief of Staff, to Governors Cabinet, attached as

Exhibit 3. The memo specifically recognized that actions taken during the period would not be

undone, but that no new marriage related government benefits would not be granted, as required

by the Utah Constitution and Utah Law, for example: [I]f a same-sex married couple

previously changed their names on new drivers licenses, those licenses should not be revoked. If

a same-sex couple seeks to change their names on drivers licenses now, the law does not allow

the state agency to recognize the marriage. Id.

During the time period from December 23, 2013 and January 6, 2014, it is estimated

approximately 1,340 same-sex marriages were performed. The four couples comprising the

Plaintiffs in Evans v. State of Utah, and the couple comprising the plaintiffs in Doe v. State of

Utahwere married in this period. They have filed claims for relief under42 U.S.C. 1983and

state law seeking recognition of the protections and responsibilities of the marriages that

were performed during that time. See Compl. (doc. 1)Evans v. State of Utah, at 31 A; Compl.

(doc. 1-1)Doe v. State of Utah, 2:14-cv-00061, at 107-110 & p. 10) (complaint was filed as

private in State Court and was ordered sealed in Federal Court. (SeeOrder, doc. 8, Doe v. State

of Utah, 2:14-cv-00061).

http://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=Id.&ft=Y&db=0000999&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=Id.&ft=Y&db=0000999&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=42USCAS1983&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000546&wbtoolsId=42USCAS1983&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=42USCAS1983&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000546&wbtoolsId=42USCAS1983&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=42USCAS1983&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000546&wbtoolsId=42USCAS1983&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=42USCAS1983&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000546&wbtoolsId=42USCAS1983&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=Id.&ft=Y&db=0000999&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&HistoryType=C

8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12

5/22

5

ARGUMENT

I. The Court Should Consolidate Doe v. State Into the Current Case Becausethe Cases Arise From a Single Event and Involve the Same Legal Issues andDefendants

Defendants seek consolidation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) and

Local Rule 42-1. FederalRule 42(a)provides that if actions before the court involve a common

question of law or fact, the court may consolidate the actions or issue any other orders to

avoid unnecessary cost or delay. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2), (3)The business of a court having

more than one judge shall be divided among the judges as provided by the rules and orders of the

court. 28 U.S.C. 137. The local rules require random assignment of cases, but also allow for

the consolidation of cases, or the transfer of related cases to different judges within the district.

DUCivR 42-1, 83-2(g).

A motion to consolidate is proper if one of several factors is present, including if the

cases:

(i) arise from substantially the same transaction or event;

(ii) involve substantially the same parties or property;

(iii) involve the same patent, trademark, or copyright;(iv) call for determination of substantially the same questions of law;

or

(v) for any other reason would entail substantial duplication of labor orunnecessary court costs or delay if heard by different judges.

DUCivR 42-1. Consolidation is appropriate when the factors are present, even if cases are at

disparate points in pretrial proceedings, and even if the plaintiffs bring distinct causes of action 1.

Dennis v. EG&G Defense Materials, Inc., No. 2:08-CV-482-TS, 2009 WL 250396, at *2 (D.

1Plaintiffs in theDoecase have moved to seal their entire case. (Seedoc.10.) Defendants will

file an opposition to that request. However, for the reasons stated herein, the Motion to Seal

does not impact the Courts ability to consolidate the cases.

http://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRCPR42&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000600&wbtoolsId=USFRCPR42&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRCPR42&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000600&wbtoolsId=USFRCPR42&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRCPR42&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000600&wbtoolsId=USFRCPR42&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRCPR42&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000600&wbtoolsId=USFRCPR42&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRCPR42&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000600&wbtoolsId=USFRCPR42&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRCPR42&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000600&wbtoolsId=USFRCPR42&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRCPR42&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000600&wbtoolsId=USFRCPR42&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=28USCAS137&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000546&wbtoolsId=28USCAS137&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=28USCAS137&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000546&wbtoolsId=28USCAS137&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2017998128&fn=_top&referenceposition=2&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2017998128&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2017998128&fn=_top&referenceposition=2&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2017998128&HistoryType=Fhttps://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/doc1/18302973560https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/doc1/18302973560https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/doc1/18302973560https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/doc1/18302973560http://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2017998128&fn=_top&referenceposition=2&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2017998128&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=28USCAS137&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000546&wbtoolsId=28USCAS137&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRCPR42&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000600&wbtoolsId=USFRCPR42&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRCPR42&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000600&wbtoolsId=USFRCPR42&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRCPR42&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000600&wbtoolsId=USFRCPR42&HistoryType=F

8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12

6/22

6

Utah Feb. 2, 2009) (Mem. decision & ord. granting mot. to consolidate not selected for

publication); French v. Am. Airlines, No. 2:08-cv-638-TS, 2009 WL 1578288, at * 2 (D. Utah

June 2, 2009) (Mem. decision & ord. granting American Airlines mot. to consolidate,

consolidating cases, granting American Airlines mot. to dismiss, and dismissing case, not

selected for publication). Factors (i), (iv), and (v) are met inEvansandDoe.

A. Evans andDoe Ar ise fr om the Same Event

Plaintiffs in bothDoeandEvansclaim to have a vested right to all of the legal benefits of

their marriages, the licenses for which issued after Judge Shelbys ruling in Kitchen v. Herbert,

but before the United States Supreme Court issued a stay on the ruling. Though the alleged

benefits of marriage Plaintiffs seek to enforce are different, Plaintiffs claims for relief arise out

of the same general series of events: Judge Shelbys December 20, 2013 order enjoining the

state from refusing to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples in Utah; the couples

acquisition of marriage licenses before the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the injunction; and their

request to receive some benefit after the stay has been enacted.

B. The Defendants in Evansand DoeAre the Same

Although the cases do not involve the same plaintiffs, the defendants are the same. Like

inEvans, theDoeplaintiffs have sued the State of Utah, Gary Herbert, in his official capacity as

Governor of the State of Utah, and Sean D. Reyes, as Attorney General of the State of Utah. (A

copy of the caption inDoe v. State of Utah is attached as Exhibit 4.) The parties are substantially

the same.

http://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2017998128&fn=_top&referenceposition=2&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2017998128&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2017998128&fn=_top&referenceposition=2&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2017998128&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2018991792&fn=_top&referenceposition=2&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2018991792&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2018991792&fn=_top&referenceposition=2&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2018991792&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2018991792&fn=_top&referenceposition=2&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2018991792&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2018991792&fn=_top&referenceposition=2&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2018991792&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2018991792&fn=_top&referenceposition=2&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2018991792&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2018991792&fn=_top&referenceposition=2&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2018991792&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2017998128&fn=_top&referenceposition=2&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2017998128&HistoryType=F

8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12

7/22

7

C. The Cases Call for a Determination of the Same Questions of Law

The central legal question that must be decided in cases involving same-sex marriages

performed between December 20 and January 4 is whether the state must recognize for the

purpose of granting marriage benefits to the plaintiffs, even though Judge Shelbys ruling was

stayed by the United States Supreme Court, even though that ruling is on appeal, and even

though Plaintiffs sought the requested after the stay was put in place. This is a critical legal

question and one that requires a single answer. The State cannot take inconsistent legal positions

based on different federal court rulings. Consolidation is therefore critical, and this single

factorthat the cases involve the same legal questionjustifies consolidating the cases. See

Utah v. Dept of Interior, 45 F. Supp. 2d 1279, 1281 (D. Utah 1999)(agreeing to consolidate a

case where both cases concerned the lawfulness of federal agencys procedures in approving a

lease and compliance with federal open records law).

D. DoeShould Be Consoli dated Into Evans

Under the local rules, the cases should be consolidated into Evans, which has the lower

number. See DUCivR 42-1. Alternatively, the Court should consolidateDoe intoEvans, at least

through dispositive motions. SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 42(b) (providing the court discretion to order

separate trials on different claims).

II. Alternatively, the Court Should Accept Transfer of Doeas a Related CaseIf the Court does not order consolidation, or partial consolidation, then the Court should

accept transfer of the case as a separate case with its own docket and scheduling order. The

purpose of assigning a case to the judge of a pending related case is to foster judicial economy

http://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1999102897&fn=_top&referenceposition=1281&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0004637&wbtoolsId=1999102897&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1999102897&fn=_top&referenceposition=1281&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0004637&wbtoolsId=1999102897&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1999102897&fn=_top&referenceposition=1281&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0004637&wbtoolsId=1999102897&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRCPR42&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000600&wbtoolsId=USFRCPR42&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRCPR42&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000600&wbtoolsId=USFRCPR42&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRCPR42&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000600&wbtoolsId=USFRCPR42&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRCPR42&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000600&wbtoolsId=USFRCPR42&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1999102897&fn=_top&referenceposition=1281&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0004637&wbtoolsId=1999102897&HistoryType=F

8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12

8/22

8

while not fostering judicial specialization. Bd. of Sch. Directors of City of Milwaukee v.

Wisconsin, 102 F.R.D. 5906, 5908 (E.D. Wisc. 1984).

Local Rule 83-2 provides for a transfer of a later-filed case to a judge with a lower-

numbered related case, decided by the judge with the lowest numbered assigned case, in

consultation with the other judges. DUCivR83-2(g). Each case retains its separate docket and

scheduling order. DUCivR 83-2(g) & n.11. Under the local rule, in determining whether to

accept transfer, the court may consider:

(i) Whether the cases arise from the same or a closely related transaction orevent;

(ii) Whether the cases involve substantially the same parties or property;

(iii) Whether the cases involve the same patent, trademark, or copyright;(iv) Whether the cases call for a determination of the same or substantially

related questions of law and fact;

(v) Whether the cases would entail substantial duplication of labor or

unnecessary court costs or delay if heard by different judges; and(vi) Whether there is risk of inconsistent verdicts or outcomes;

(vii) Whether the motion has been brought for an improper purpose.

DUCivR 83-2(g). The factors are similar to those listed in local rule 42-1 for consolidating a

case, but there are notable differences, indicating a more relaxed standard. In factor (i), the court

may consider whether the cases arise from the same or a closely related transaction or event. In

factor (iv), the court may consider whether the cases call for a determination of the same or

substantially related questions of law and fact. Factors (vi) and (vii), the consideration of

inconsistent verdicts and any improper purpose, are additional considerations.

In this case, though the relief the parties seek may be different, their claims all spring

from the issue of whether a marriage license purported to be issued by an executive pursuant to a

to-be-appealed judicial order creates vested rights that cannot be retroactively modified when the

judges order is stayed. If these cases were heard by separate judges, not only would judicial

http://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=102+F.R.D.+5906&ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&referenceposition=5908&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000344&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=102+F.R.D.+5906&ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&referenceposition=5908&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000344&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=102+F.R.D.+5906&ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&referenceposition=5908&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000344&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=102+F.R.D.+5906&ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&referenceposition=5908&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000344&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=102+F.R.D.+5906&ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&referenceposition=5908&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000344&HistoryType=Chttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=102+F.R.D.+5906&ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&referenceposition=5908&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000344&HistoryType=C

8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12

9/22

9

resources be wasted in the research and consideration of this cutting-edge legal issue, but there

would be a considerable risk of inconsistent verdicts on the core vested rights issue. No one can

contest that the issuance of all of the couples marriage licenses are closely related

transactions. And the State of Utah brings this motion not for an improper purpose, but to ensure

the most expeditious and consistent ruling possible. SeeBank of Am. v. Andersen, No. 2:11-CV-

400-DAK, 2011 WL 6778257, at *2 (D. Utah. Dec. 23, 2011) (refusing to dismiss a second-filed

case under the claim-splitting doctrine, but encouraging the parties to consider whether transfer

under Local Rule 83-2(g) would be appropriate). Accordingly, at a minimum, Judge Kimball

should accept transfer of the case under Local Rule 83-2(g).

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, this Court should grant Defendants Motion to Consolidate, and

consolidateDoe with theEvanscase. Alternatively, the Court should accept transfer of theDoe

case as a related case.

DATED this 5th

day of February, 2014.

OFFICE OF THE UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL

/s/ Joni Jones

JONI J. JONES

KYLE J. KAISERAssistant Utah Attorneys General

PARKER DOUGLASChief of Staff and Counsel General

Attorney for Defendants

http://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2026762585&fn=_top&referenceposition=2&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2026762585&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2026762585&fn=_top&referenceposition=2&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2026762585&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2026762585&fn=_top&referenceposition=2&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2026762585&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2026762585&fn=_top&referenceposition=2&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2026762585&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2026762585&fn=_top&referenceposition=2&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2026762585&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2026762585&fn=_top&referenceposition=2&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2026762585&HistoryType=Fhttp://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&referencepositiontype=S&rs=ap2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2026762585&fn=_top&referenceposition=2&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&db=0000999&wbtoolsId=2026762585&HistoryType=F

8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12

10/22

10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on February 5, 2014, I caused a copy of the foregoingMOTION TO

CONSOLIDATE AND/OR FOR TRANSFER OF CASE NO. 2:14-cv-61 AND

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT, to be served on the following by electronic filing

using the Courts CM/ECF system:

Erik StrindbergLauren I. Scholnick

Kathryn K. Harstad

Rachel E. OttoSTRINDBERG & SCHOLNICK, LLC

675 East 2100 South, Ste. 350

Salt Lake City, UT 84106

John M. Mejia

Leah M. Farrell

ACLU of Utah355 North 300 West

Salt Lake City, Utah 84103

I further certify that on February 5, 2014, pursuant to DUCivR 42-1, I have filed a Notice

of the above Motion inDoe v. State of Utah, Case No.2:14-cv-61, and have further provided a

courtesy copy of the Motion, via electronic mail, to

Shane A. MarxJames H. Hunnicutt

David S. Dolowitz

DOLOWITZ HUNNICUT

299 South Main Street, Suite 1300

Salt Lake City, UT [email protected]

/s/ Sharon Zeller


8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12

11/22

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 12-1 Filed 02/05/14 Page 1 of 3

8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12

12/22


8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12

13/22


8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12

14/22


8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12

15/22


8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12

16/22


8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12

17/22


8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12

18/22


8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12

19/22


8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12

20/22


8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12

21/22


8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12

22/22


2:14-cv-00055 #12

Documents