3:14-cv-04155 #7

8/10/2019 3:14-cv-04155 #7

1/10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

COLUMBIA DIVISION

Julie A.A. McEldowney f/k/a )

Julie Ashmore, ) Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-4155-JMC

)

Plaintiffs, ))

v. )

) ANSWER OF DEFENDANTSSouth Carolina Department of Motor )

Vehicles, Kevin S. Shwedo, in his official )

capacity as Director of the South Carolina )

Department of Motor Vehcilse, and Nikki )Haley, in her official capacity as Governor )

of South Carolina, )

)Defendants. )

________________________________ )

Defendants answering the Complaint herein, allege the following:

FOR A FIRST DEFENSE

1. The Defendants deny each and every allegation of the Complaint not hereinafter

specifically admitted.

2. The Defendants acknowledge the decisions of the United States District Court for

the District of South Carolina declaring unconstitutional South Carolina law prohibiting same-

sex marriages (Condon v. Haley, No. CIV.A. 2:14-4010-RMG, 2014 WL 5897175 (D.S.C. Nov.

12, 2014)) and prohibiting recognition of same-sex marriages in other states (Bradacs v. Haley,

No. 3:13-CV-02351-JMC, 2014 WL 6473727(D.S.C. Nov. 18, 2014)). Each and every part of

this Answer is made with recognition of those decisions and subject to the appeals the Attorney

General has taken in those cases and reserving all defenses raised to that litigation, including but

not limited to, the defenses that the laws at issue are constitutional. The Defendants waive no

3:14-cv-04155-JMC Date Filed 12/08/14 Entry Number 7 Page 1 of 6

8/10/2019 3:14-cv-04155 #7

2/10

defense of the validity of South Carolina law prohibiting same-sex marriages or the recognition

thereof.

3. Paragraphs 1- 4 are merely statements of purpose of the litigation that Defendants

are not required to admit or deny. To the extent, arguendo, that these Paragraphs attempt to

establish liability of the Defendants, they are denied.

4. The Defendants admit paragraph 5 on information and belief.

5. The Defendants admit paragraphs 6 9.

6. The Defendants admit paragraph 10 but crave reference to the oath for a complete

statement of its contents.

7. The Defendants deny paragraphs 11 and 12.

8. As to Paragraph 13, the State craves reference to Bostic v. Schaefer,760 F.3d 352

(4th

Cir. 2014).

9. Paragraph 14 calls for legal conclusions that the Defendants are not required to

admit or deny. To the extent that this Paragraph, arguendo,attempts to impose liability on the

Defendants, they deny it and crave reference to the cited statutes and constitutional provisions.

10. As to Paragraph 15, the Defendants admit only that Plaintiff alleges claims under

the Constitution and 42 USC 1983, but they deny that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction,

deny that Plaintiffs claims have merit and deny that she is entitled to relief.

11. The Defendants admit Paragraph 16 on information and belief but deny that this

Court has subject matter jurisdiction and deny that Plaintiffs claims have merit and deny that

she is entitled to relief.

12. The Defendants deny paragraphs 17 and 18. Since November 20, 2014,

Defendant Department of Motor Vehicles has allowed name changes on drivers licenses based

2


8/10/2019 3:14-cv-04155 #7

3/10

upon same-sex marriages provided that the applicants otherwise meet the requirements of State

law. See Attachment A, Procedure DL-003 pp. 1, 2 & 14.

13. The Defendants admit paragraphs 19 24 on information and belief.

14. The Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny

the allegations of paragraphs 25 and 26, and therefore, deny those allegations. They deny that

Plaintiff is now prohibited from obtaining a name change on her drivers license based upon an

out-of-state same-sex marriage.

15. As to Paragraph 27, the Defendants admit only that DMV permits name changes

for married women in accordance with its policies and procedures and State law.

16. The Defendants deny paragraph 28.

17. The Defendants admit Paragraph 29 on information and belief.

18. Paragraphs 30 - 40 call for legal conclusions that the Defendants are not required

to admit or deny. To the extent that, arguendo,responses are required, the Defendants deny the

Paragraphs.

19. Paragraph 41 is a cumulative paragraph to which no response is necessary. To the

extent that, arguendo, a response is necessary, the Defendants incorporate by reference their

answers to the previous allegations and paragraphs of the Complaint and reassert them.



Paragraphs.




3


8/10/2019 3:14-cv-04155 #7

4/10



Paragraphs.




24. Paragraphs 50 52 call for legal conclusions that the Defendants are not required


Paragraphs.




26. Paragraphs 54-57 call for legal conclusions that the Defendants are not required to

admit or deny. To the extent that, arguendo, responses are required, the Defendants deny the

Paragraphs.

27. The Defendants deny the Prayer for Relief.

FOR A SECOND DEFENSE

28. The Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue her claims in this action . Since November

20, 2014, Defendant DMV has allowed name changes on motor vehicle licenses based upon

same-sex marriages provided that the applicants otherwise meet the requirements of State law.

4


8/10/2019 3:14-cv-04155 #7

5/10

FOR A THIRD DEFENSE

29. This case presents no case or controversy. Since November 20, 2014, Defendant

DMV has allowed name changes on motor vehicle licenses based upon same-sex marriages

provided that the applicants otherwise meet the requirements of State law.

FOR A FOURTH DEFENSE

30. This case is moot. Since November 20, 2014, Defendant DMV has allowed name

changes on motor vehicle licenses based upon same-sex marriages provided that the applicants

otherwise meet the requirements of State law.

FOR A FIFTH DEFENSE

31. Plaintiff has an adequate remedy and is not entitled to injunctive relief. Since

November 20, 2014 , Defendant DMV has allowed name changes on motor vehicle licenses

based upon same-sex marriages provided that the applicants otherwise meet the requirements of

State law.

FOR A SIXTH DEFENSE

32. Upon information and belief, as of the time of this Answer, Plaintiff has failed to

apply to change her name on her drivers license since DMV changed its policy on November

20, 2014. Her name would be changed if she otherwise meets the requirements of State law.

FOR A SEVENTH DEFENSE

33. The change in DMV policy allowing changes of names based upon same-sex

marriages was made for reasons unrelated to the instant case and was prior to any decision of the

Court in this case.

5


8/10/2019 3:14-cv-04155 #7

6/10

FOR AN EIGHTH DEFENSE

34. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States does not apply to or require

recognition of marriages entered out-of-state regardless of whether such marriages are of

opposite-sex or same-sex individuals.

FOR AN NINTH DEFENSE

35. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of this action.

FOR A TENTH DEFENSE

36. Plaintiffs are not entitled to costs and attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Plaintiffs Complaint, the Defendants pray as

follows:

1. That judgment for the Defendants be entered as to the Complaint and that the

relief sought by the Plaintiff be denied.

2. For such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

ALAN WILSON

Attorney GeneralFederal ID No.10457

ROBERT D. COOKSolicitor General

Federal ID No. 285

Email: [email protected]

/s/ J. Emory Smith, Jr.

J. EMORY SMITH, JR.Deputy Solicitor General

Federal ID No. 3908Email: [email protected]

Post Office Box 11549Columbia, South Carolina 29211

Phone: (803) 734-3680

Fax: (803) 734-3677December 8, 2014 Counsel for Defendants

6


8/10/2019 3:14-cv-04155 #7

7/10

3:14-cv-04155-JMC Date Filed 12/08/14 Entry Number 7-1 Page 1 of 4

8/10/2019 3:14-cv-04155 #7

8/10


8/10/2019 3:14-cv-04155 #7

9/10


8/10/2019 3:14-cv-04155 #7

10/10


Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	equality-case-files
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

3:14-cv-04155 #7

Documents