Download - 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
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
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 12 Filed 02/05/14 Page 2 of 10
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).
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 12 Filed 02/05/14 Page 3 of 10
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).
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 12 Filed 02/05/14 Page 4 of 10
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.
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 12 Filed 02/05/14 Page 5 of 10
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.
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 12 Filed 02/05/14 Page 6 of 10
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
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 12 Filed 02/05/14 Page 7 of 10
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
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 12 Filed 02/05/14 Page 8 of 10
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
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 12 Filed 02/05/14 Page 9 of 10
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
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 12 Filed 02/05/14 Page 10 of 10
-
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
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 12-1 Filed 02/05/14 Page 2 of 3
-
8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12
13/22
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 12-1 Filed 02/05/14 Page 3 of 3
-
8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12
14/22
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 12-2 Filed 02/05/14 Page 1 of 2
-
8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12
15/22
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 12-2 Filed 02/05/14 Page 2 of 2
-
8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12
16/22
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 12-3 Filed 02/05/14 Page 1 of 4
-
8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12
17/22
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 12-3 Filed 02/05/14 Page 2 of 4
-
8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12
18/22
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 12-3 Filed 02/05/14 Page 3 of 4
-
8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12
19/22
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 12-3 Filed 02/05/14 Page 4 of 4
-
8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12
20/22
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 12-4 Filed 02/05/14 Page 1 of 3
-
8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12
21/22
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 12-4 Filed 02/05/14 Page 2 of 3
-
8/13/2019 2:14-cv-00055 #12
22/22
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 12-4 Filed 02/05/14 Page 3 of 3