2:14-cv-00200 #56

8/10/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #56

1/16

8/10/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #56

2/16

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF WYOMING

)

Plaintiffs, ))

Anne Marie Guzzo and Bonnie Robinson; )

Ivan Williams and Charles Killion; )Brie Barth and Shelly Montgomery; )

Carl Oleson and Rob Johnston; and )

Wyoming Equality, )

)v. ) Case No. 14-cv-00200-SWS

)

Defendants, )

)Matthew H. Mead, in his official capacity )

as the Governor of Wyoming; Dean Fausset, in his official )capacity as Director of the Wyoming Department of )

Administration and Information; Dave Urquidez, in his )

official capacity as Administrator of the State of Wyoming )

Human Resources Division; and Debra K. Lathrop, in her )official capacity as Laramie County Clerk, )

_____________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ONTHEPLEADINGS

__________________________________________________________________

Plaintiffs Anne Marie Guzzo, Bonnie Robinson, Ivan Williams, Charles Killion, Brie

Barth, Shelly Montgomery, Carl Oleson, Rob Johnston, and Wyoming Equality (collectively

Plaintiffs) hereby move this Court for an order granting them judgment on the pleadings

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c).

STANDARD

Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate only when the moving party has clearly

established that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and the party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. Sanders v. Mountain American Federal Credit Union, 689 F.3d

1138, 1141 (10th Cir. 2012) (internal quotations and citations omitted). In this case, the

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 56 Filed 11/24/14 Page 2 of 10

8/10/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #56

3/16

3

pleadings are closed, Defendants have admitted all of the material facts alleged by Plaintiffs, and

Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

ARGUMENT

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief on October 7, 2014

[Dkt. 1]. Defendant Debra Lathrop filed her answer on October 24, 2014 [Dkt. 48]. Defendants

Mead, Fausset, and Urquidez (State Defendants) filed their answer on November 7, 2014 [Dkt.

53].

In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that they are denied their right to marry, or to have

their valid marriages recognized in Wyoming on the basis of Wyoming Statute 20-1-101.

Plaintiffs further allege that the statute, and other state policy or practice that limits marriage to

opposite-sex couples, violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution and is, therefore, invalid.

In their answer to Plaintiffs Complaint, the State Defendants admit that laws, policies, pr

practices prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying, or refusing to recognize the marriages of

same-sex couples performed in other jurisdictions are unconstitutional. SeeAnswer 1, 5, 8,

1012, 1417, 37, 4142, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 5862, 63. Further, the State Defendants admit that

they are responsible for the administration of certain Wyoming statutes, regulations, and laws.

Answer 32. Having admitted that Wyomings statutes, regulations, policies, and practices that

discriminate between same gender and opposite gender couples are unconstitutional, and having

admitted that they are responsible for the enforcement of Wyomings laws, there are no material

disputes between Plaintiffs and the State Defendants about the facts of the case or that Plaintiffs

are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The State Defendants concede as much in their own

motion for judgment on the pleadings. SeeDocket No. 54.


8/10/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #56

4/16

4

The only difference between the parties at this stage in the litigation is the form of the

judgment the Court should enter to resolve this case. The State Defendants have asked the Court

to enter a judgment that would bear on the State Defendants only, and that will not address all of

the bases for declaratory and injunctive relief sought by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are concerned that

the judgment proposed by the State Defendants is not designed to, nor will it, resolve with

finality and certainty all of the issues raised in Plaintiffs Complaint. Moreover, Plaintiffs are

concerned that two separate judgments, one for the State Defendants and another for Defendant

Lahtrop, will result in inconsistent interpretations and applications.

For these reasons, Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter a judgment against all Defendants that

grants the relief laid out in Plaintiffs Complaint. Specifically, Plaintiffs ask that the Court enter

a judgment:

Declaring that the provisions of and enforcement by Defendants of Wyomingslaws excluding same-sex couples from marriage, including Wyoming Statute

Section 20-1-101, and any other sources of state law or practice that excludes

same-sex couples from marrying, violate the Plaintiffs rights under the Due

Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution and 42

U.S.C. 1983;

Declaring that the practice, by the Wyoming Defendants and their subordinates,of refusing to recognize the valid out-of-state marriages of the married Plaintiffs

and other legally married same-sex couples violates Plaintiffs rights under the

Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution and42 U.S.C. 1983;

Declaring that the Married Plaintiffs marriages are valid in the State ofWyoming, in accordance with Wyoming Section 20-1-111;

Permanently enjoining enforcement by Defendants of Wyoming Statute Section

20-1-101 and any other sources of state law, policy, or practice that exclude theUnmarried Plaintiffs from marriage or that refuse recognition of the marriages of

the Married Plaintiffs;

Requiring defendants to issue or permit issuance of marriage licenses to theUnmarried Plaintiffs, pursuant to the same restrictions and limitations applicableto opposite-sex couples and without regard to the gender or sexual orientation of


8/10/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #56

5/16

5

the applicants, and to recognize the marriages validly entered into by the married

plaintiffs.

These provisions are laid out in the attached proposed Order.

Plaintiffs have conferred with counsel for Defendant Lathrop and have been advised that

Defendant Lathrop does not object to the entry of the attached proposed judgment. See

Stipulation attached hereto as Exhibit A. Counsel for Plaintiffs attempted to negotiate the terms

of a proposed order of judgment with counsel for the State Defendants. Counsel for the State

Defendants has refused to agree to the entry of a proposed judgment similar to the one attached

hereto. Based on that, and on the fact that the State Defendants have filed their own motion for

entry of a proposed judgment, Plaintiffs assume that the State Defendants oppose the form of

relief requested by this motion.

Given that there are no disputes regarding the facts of the case or that Plaintiffs are

entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and in light of the Courts action entering a preliminary

injunction enjoining the state from discriminating between same gender and opposite gender

couples, Plaintiffs believe that entry of a final judgment is appropriate. The attached proposed

judgment reflects the relief requested by Plaintiffs in their Complaint. The State Defendants

have offered no reason why the Court should refuse to grant anything other than the relief

requested by Plaintiffs in their Complaint.

DATED: November 24, 2014.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Thomas W. Stoever, Jr.

Thomas W. Stoever, Jr.L. James Lyman

ARNOLD & PORTER LLP

370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4400Denver, Colorado 80202-1370

Telephone: (303) 863-1000


8/10/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #56

6/16

6

Facsimile: (303) 832-0428

Email: [email protected]


Tracy L. ZubrodZUBROD LAW OFFICE, PC

219 East 18th Street

Cheyenne, WY 82001Telephone: (307) 778-2557

Facsimile: (307) 778-8225


Qusair Mohamedbhai

Arash Jahanian

RATHOD MOHAMEDBHAI LLC

1518 Blake StreetDenver, CO 80202

Telephone: (303) 578-4400Facsimile: (303) 578-4401


Shannon P. MinterChristopher F. Stoll

NATIONAL CENTER FOR

LESBIAN RIGHTS870 Market Street, Suite 370

San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone: (415) 365-1335Facsimile: (415) 392-8442


Attorneys for Plaintiffs


8/10/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #56

7/16

7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of Court onthis 24th day of November, 2014 and served upon the following:

Peter K. Michael,Attorney General of Wyoming

Martin L. Hardsocg,Deputy Attorney General

James C. Kaste,

Deputy Attorney GeneralJared S. Crecelius,

Senior Assistant Attorney General

Ryan T. Schelhaas,

Senior Assistant Attorney GeneralMichael M. Robinson,

Senior Assistant Attorney General123 State Capitol BuildingCheyenne, WY 82002

Attorneys for the State Defendants

Mark Towne VossBernard P Haggerty

310 W. 19th

Street, Suite 320Cheyenne, WY 82001

Attorneys for the Laramie County Clerk

s/ Rebecca A. Golz

Rebecca A. Golz


8/10/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #56

8/16

ATTACHMENT 1


8/10/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #56

9/16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF WYOMING

)Plaintiffs, )

)

Anne Marie Guzzo and Bonnie Robinson; )Ivan Williams and Charles Killion; )

Brie Barth and Shelly Montgomery; )

Carl Oleson and Rob Johnston; and )Wyoming Equality, )

)

v. ) Case No. 14-cv-00200-SWS)

Defendants, ))

Matthew H. Mead, in his official capacity )as the Governor of Wyoming; Dean Fausset, in his official )

capacity as Director of the Wyoming Department of )

Administration and Information; Dave Urquidez, in his )official capacity as Administrator of the State of Wyoming )

Human Resources Division; and Debra K. Lathrop, in her )

official capacity as Laramie County Clerk, )_____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

__________________________________________________________________

After review of Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and for good cause

shown therein, the Court being otherwise advised in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that the Motion is GRANTED as follows:

1. The provisions of and enforcement by Defendants of Wyomings laws excluding

same-sex couples from marriage, including Wyoming Statute 20-1-101, and any other sources

of state law or practice that exclude same-sex couples from marrying, violate the Unmarried

Plaintiffs rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States

Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983;


8/10/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #56

10/16

2

2. The practice by Defendants Mead, Fausset, and Urquidez (the Wyoming

Defendants) and their subordinates, of refusing to recognize the valid out-of-state marriages of

the Married Plaintiffs and other legally married same-sex couples violates Plaintiffs rights under

the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C.

1983;

3. The Married Plaintiffs marriages are valid in the State of Wyoming, in

accordance with Wyoming Statute 20-1-111;

4. Defendants are permanently enjoined from enforcing Wyoming Statute 20-1-

101 and any other sources of state law, policy, or practice that exclude same-sex couples from

marriage or that refuse recognition of the marriages of legally married same-sex couples; and

5. Defendants are permanently required to permit issuance of marriage licenses to

same-sex couples, pursuant to the same restrictions and limitations applicable to opposite-sex

couples, and without regard to the gender or sexual-orientation of the applicants, and to

recognize marriages validly entered into by same-sex couples in other jurisdictions.

DATED this _____ day of November, 2014.

Scott W. SkavdahlUnited States District Judge


8/10/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #56

11/16

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 56-1 Filed 11/24/14 Page 1 of 6

8/10/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #56

12/16


8/10/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #56

13/16


8/10/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #56

14/16


8/10/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #56

15/16


8/10/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #56

16/16


Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	equality-case-files
View:	225 times
Download:	0 times

2:14-cv-00200 #56

Documents