Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 1 Filed 01/06/14 Page 1 of 24

1 SHAWN K. AIKEN 2390 East Camelback Road

2 Suite 400

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

3 Telephone: (602) 248-8203

E-Mail: ska@ashrlaw.com

4 Shawn K. Atken - 009002

5

Heather A. Macre - 026625 William H. Knight- 030514

6 ELLEN K. AIKEN

7

SACKS TIERNEY, P.A. 4250 North Drinkwater Blvd. 4th

8

Floor Scottsdale Arizona 85251-3693

9 E-Mail: Eiien.Aiken@SacksTierney.com Ellen Aiken - 028795

10

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12

13

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

14 Joseph Connolly; Terrel L. Pochert; 15 Suzanne Cummins; Holly N. Mitchell;
16 Clark Rowley; David Chaney; R. Mason Hite IV; And, Christopher L. Devine;
17 Each For Themselves And All Others
18 Similarly Situated,

Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
AND DECLAlt:ATORY JUDGMENT

19
20 V.

Plaintiffs,

21 Janice K. Brewer, In Her Official Capacity 22 As Governor Of Arizona; Thomas C.

23 Horne, In His Official Capacity As Attorney General Of Arizona; Michael K.
24 Jeanes, In His Official Capacity As Clerk

25 OfThe Superior Court Of Maricopa

County, Arizona; And, Does 1-25,

26

Defendants.

27

28

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 1 Filed 01/06/14 Page 2 of 24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

A.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 1 Filed 01/06/14 Page 3 of 24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

B.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 1 Filed 01/06/14 Page 4 of 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
4

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 1 Filed 01/06/14 Page 5 of 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
5

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 1 Filed 01/06/14 Page 6 of 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
6

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 1 Filed 01/06/14 Page 7 of 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
7

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 1 Filed 01/06/14 Page 8 of 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
8

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 1 Filed 01/06/14 Page 9 of 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
9

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 1 Filed 01/06/14 Page 10 of 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
10

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 1 Filed 01/06/14 Page 11 of 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
11

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 1 Filed 01/06/14 Page 12 of 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
12

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 1 Filed 01/06/14 Page 13 of 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
13

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 1 Filed 01/06/14 Page 14 of 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
14

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 1 Filed 01/06/14 Page 15 of 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
15

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 1 Filed 01/06/14 Page 16 of 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
16

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 1 Filed 01/06/14 Page 17 of 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
17

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 1 Filed 01/06/14 Page 18 of 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
18

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 1 Filed 01/06/14 Page 19 of 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
19

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 1 Filed 01/06/14 Page 20 of 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
20

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 1 Filed 01/06/14 Page 21 of 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
21

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 1 Filed 01/06/14 Page 22 of 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
22

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 1 Filed 01/06/14 Page 23 of 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
23

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 1 Filed 01/06/14 Page 24 of 24

1

I hereby certify that on this 6th day of January, 2014 I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing.

2

3 Is/ DeAnn M. Buchmeier

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Complaint:: Connolly et. al. :v. Brewer et al.

24

 
 Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 15 Filed 02/10/14 Page 1 of 21

1

SHAWN K. AIKEN 2390 East Camelback Road, Suite 400

2

Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Telephone: (602) 248-8203

3

E-Mail: docket@ashrlaw.com E-Mail: ska@ashrlaw.com

4

Shawn K. Aiken 009002 Heather A. Macre 026625

5

William H. Knight 030514 Stephanie McCoy Loquvam 029045

6 GRIFFEN & STEVENS LAW FIRM, PLLC

7

609 North Humphreys Street Flagstaff, Arizona 86001

8

Phone: (928) 226-0165 E-Mail: stevens@flagstaff-lawyer.com

9 Ryan J. Stevens 026378

10

MIKKEL (MIK) JORDAHL P.C. 114 North San Francisco, Suite 206

11

Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 Phone: (928) 214-0942

12

E-Mail: mikkeljordahl@yahoo.com Mikkel Steen Jordahl 012211

13 DILLON LAW OFFICE

14

PO Box 97517 Phoenix, Arizona 85060

15

Phone: (602) 224-4468 E-MAIL: dillonlaw97517@gmail.com

16

Mark Dillon 014393 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

19 Joseph Connolly and Terrel L. Pochert; Suzanne Case No. 2:14-cv-00024-JWS

Cummins and Holly N. Mitchell; Clark Rowley

20 and David Chaney; R. Mason Hite IV and

Christopher L. Devine; Meagan and Natalie

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

21 Metz; Renee Kaminski and Robin Reece; Jeffrey PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Ferst and Peter Bramley,

AND DECLARATORY

22

JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs,

23 v.

24 Chad Roche, In His Official Capacity As Clerk Of The Superior Court Of Pinal County,
25 Arizona; Michael K. Jeanes, In His Official Capacity As Clerk Of The Superior Court Of
26 Maricopa County, Arizona; and Deborah Young, In Her Official Capacity As Clerk Of The
27 Superior Court Of Coconino County, Arizona,

28

Defendants.

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 15 Filed 02/10/14 Page 2 of 21

1 I.

NATURE OF THE CASE AND BACKGROUND TO CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

2

1. Over ten years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States recognized that

3 the federal constitution protects the choice to have an intimate relationship with a same-

4

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558,

5 578 (2003).

6

2. In June 2013, the Supreme Court struck Section 3 of the Defense of

7 Marriage Act (DOMA), which barred any federal marital benefits to same-sex couples

8 who were legally married in states that permitted such marriages. United States v.

9 Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013).

10

3. Today, Plaintiffs ask this Court to follow the reasoning in Windsor and

11

-sex marriage found in Article 30, Section 1 of the Arizona

12 Constitution (and other laws of the State of Arizona).

13

4. Plaintiffs seek this C

14 Arizona from the same discriminatory conduct that the Windsor court declared

15 unconstitutional.

16

A.

-Sex Marriage.

17

5.

18 forty-second legislature banned same-sex marriage. See Arizona Revised Statutes

19

-

20

rizona legislature also prohibited recognition of same-sex

21

See A.R.S. § 25-112(A)

22

23 marriages that are void and prohibited by section 25-

24

6. Three years later, in 1999, the Arizona legislature approved amendments to

25 several statutes related to marriage, including a statutory definition of marriage as

26 between a male and a female person. See A.R.S. § 25-

27

28

Amended Complaint

Connolly et. al. v. Roche et al.

2

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 15 Filed 02/10/14 Page 3 of 21

1 license has been obtained for that purpose from the clerk of the superior court in any

2

-121(A).

3

7.

4 marriage. See Standhardt v. Superior Court, 77 P.3d 451 (App. 2003), review denied (May

5 25, 2004) (accepting special action jurisdiction over a challenge to the clerk of the court's

6 refusal to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple).

7

8. In 2006, Arizona voters rejected an amendment to the state constitution

8 banning same-sex marriage. In 2008, the Arizona legislature referred and the voters of

9 Arizona passed Proposition 102, also known as the Marriage Protection Amendment, which

10 amended the Arizona Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one

11 woman. See

nion of one man and one woman shall be

12

13

9. The Arizona Constitution now prevents gay men and women from entering

14 into marriage with their same-sex partner.

15

10. The Arizona Constitution further prohibits the State from honoring a valid,

16 same-sex marriage permitted by another jurisdiction.

17

11. As a result, same-sex couples who desire to marry cannot do so in Arizona.

18 Moreover, Arizona denies recognition of the marriages of those gay men and women who

19 have entered into valid marriages elsewhere in the United States.

20

12. And, unlike many states, including, for example, Nevada, the Arizona

21 legislature has never authorized so-

22 Arizona cities have afforded some limited benefits to same-sex local residents. Same-sex

23 couples therefore have no statewide guarantee of the rights let alone the status and

24 dignity associated with marriage in the State of Arizona.

25

B.

-Sex Marriage Violates the Equal Protection

and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

26

27

13. In 1996, the Supreme Court confirmed that the U.S. Constitution prohibits

28 discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 635 36

Amended Complaint

Connolly et. al. v. Roche et al.

3

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 15 Filed 02/10/14 Page 4 of 21

1 (1996).

2

14. Nevertheless, today, twenty-eight states have constitutional prohibitions

3 against same-sex marriage and another four states West Virginia, Wyoming,

4 Pennsylvania, and Indiana prohibit same-sex marriage under state law.

5

15. However, deep change has taken place elsewhere in the country. In 2004,

6 Massachusetts allowed gay marriage. Many states followed suit. In late 2013, Hawaii

7 became the sixteenth state to recognize same-sex marriage.

8

16. In December 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah and the

9 unanimous New Mexico Supreme Court made Utah and New Mexico the seventeenth

10 and eighteenth states to join the list of states that recognize same-sex marriage. Today,

11 same-sex marriage is allowed in states where over forty percent of Americans live.

12

17.

in Windsor confirmed

13 a profound doctrinal change in the law whose origins stretch back forty-six years to the

14 historic decision in Loving v. Virginia

15

ted)).

16

18. In Windsor, the Supreme Court held that the definition of marriage in

17

18

19 the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. More precisely, Windsor held that the

20 definition of marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman was unconstitutional

21 because it denied same-

22 wit

23

19. Three federal district courts, including one in the Ninth Circuit, have since

24 followed that rationale by applying the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

25 Amendment to the states and striking state laws that either banned same-sex marriage or

26 recognition of such marriages. Kitchen v. Herbert, 2013 WL 6697874 (D. Utah Dec. 20,

27 2013); Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 2013 WL 6726688 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 23, 2013); Bishop v.

28 United States ex rel. Holder, 2014 WL 116013 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 14, 2014).

Amended Complaint

Connolly et. al. v. Roche et al.

4

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 15 Filed 02/10/14 Page 5 of 21

1

20. In an opinion issued less than one month ago, the Ninth Circuit held that

2 peremptory juror strikes based on a person's sexual orientation are unconstitutional under

3 the Equal Protection Clause (using a "heightened scrutiny" standard to evaluate such

4 classifications). SmithKline Beecham v. Abbott Labs, 2014 WL 211807 (9th Cir. Jan. 21,

5 2014).

6

21.

7

Loving v.

8 Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967).

9

22. This Court should reach the conclusion that flows from the decisions in

10 Loving v. Virginia, Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas and United States v. Windsor, namely

11 that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violate the Constitutional requirements of equal

12 protection and due process. Plaintiffs respectfully ask that this Court enforce their rights

13 to equal protection and due process under the United States Constitution, and declare as

14 unconstitutional Article 30, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution and all similar marital

15 statutes, including A.R.S. § 25-101(C), -112(A), and -125(A)

16

17

23. Plaintiffs request that the Court permanently enjoin the enforcement of the

18 Marriage Discrimination Statutes and all other provisions of Arizona law that may deny

19 Plaintiffs equal access to the benefits of marriage in the State of Arizona, including the

20 right of same-sex couples to marry in or have their out-of-state marriages recognized by

21 the State of Arizona.

22 II. JURISDICTION, PARTIES AND VENUE

23

A. Federal Question Jurisdiction

24

24. Because Plaintiffs allege violations of rights arising under the Fourteenth

25 Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, this Court has subject matter

26 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3).

27

25. Given the far-reaching doctrinal developments in the law confirmed by the

28 decision in Windsor, Plaintiffs raise substantial federal questions despite the contrary

Amended Complaint

Connolly et. al. v. Roche et al.

5

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 15 Filed 02/10/14 Page 6 of 21

1 reasoning applied over forty years ago in Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) (summarily

2

an appeal from a Minnesota

3 Supreme Court decision upholding a statute that restricted marriage to opposite-sex

4 couples). Cf. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344

5 Supreme Court should instruct otherwise, inferior federal courts had best adhere to the

6 view that if the Court has branded a question as unsubstantial, it remains so except when

7

any

8 intervening decisions from the Supreme Court in this area of the law, including Romer,

9 Lawrence, and Windsor

10

11

B. The Plaintiffs

12

26. Today, over 650,000 same-sex couples live in the United States. The U.S.

13 Census Bureau estimates that the percentage of cohabiting same-sex couples living in

14 Arizona equals the percentage living in, for example, the state of New York, the fourth

15 most populous state in the nation. In 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that

16 roughly 21,000 same-sex couples live in Arizona.

17

27. Plaintiffs live across Arizona, including the three most populous counties

18 Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal where 81 percent of all Arizonans reside.

19

Joe and Terry

20

28.

21 Pinal County, Arizona.

22

29.

23 moved to Arizona in 1997 where they continue to live together in a committed

24 relationship.

25

30. For several years, Joe and Terry have lived together in Pinal County,

26 Arizona. They own a home, have a joint bank account, and otherwise live as many other

27 married couples do. They have been long-time, active members of a Lutheran church

28 congregation in Maricopa County, Arizona. And, like many other Arizona couples and

Amended Complaint

Connolly et. al. v. Roche et al.

6

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 15 Filed 02/10/14 Page 7 of 21

1 families, they hoped to marry in their state of residence and enjoy the benefits that flow

2 from recognition of their marriage.

3

31. Unfortunately, they lived in Arizona where the law prohibited their

4 marriage.

5

32. On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court struck down the California

6 statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. See In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384,

7

reted to

8 guarantee this basic civil right to [marry to] all individuals and couples, without regard to

9

10

33. As a result, in mid-June 2008, county officials across California began

11 issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

12

34. On July 4, 2008, following this change in California law, Joe and Terry

13 married in that state. A retired pastor of the Lutheran Church in America performed their

14 wedding ceremony under the laws and procedures of the State of California. Later, the

15 County of Riverside, California recorded and issued them a License and Certificate of

16 Marriage.

17

35. A few months later, though, the voters of California approved Proposition

18

19 between a m

20

36. The passage of Proposition 8 ended the issuance of marriage licenses to

21 same-sex couples in California, but not before over 15,000 same-sex marriage licenses had

22 been issued, including one to Joe and Terry.

23

37. Although the California Supreme Court later upheld Proposition 8, Strauss

24 v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009), the court also held that Proposition 8 had no effect on

25 the already-issued licenses, which remained valid under California law.

26

38. Because Joe and Terry were married in California before the passage of

27 Proposition 8, they are in a valid California marriage. See Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48,

28 119 (Cal. 2009) (

Amended Complaint

Connolly et. al. v. Roche et al.

7

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 15 Filed 02/10/14 Page 8 of 21

1 of same-

2

39. Nevertheless, the laws of Arizona prohibit the State from recognizing Joe

3

4 to this day.

5

40. On January 31, 2014, Joe and Terry went to the Office of the Clerk of the

6 Superior Court of Pinal County Pinal

, 971 Jason Lopez Circle,

7 Florence, Arizona, to apply for an Arizona marriage license.

8

41. The assistant clerk indicated that she was unsure about giving Joe and Terry

9 an application. She placed a call to her superiors.

10

42. When she finished her call, the clerk informed Joe and Terry that she could

11 not take their application.

12

43. The clerk then told Joe and Terry that she personally wished she could

13 issue them a marriage license, but they would have to contact Odette Apodaca, the Case

14 Management Director for the Pinal County Clerk, to inquire about why she could not.

15

44. Joe and Terry e-mailed Odette Apodaca to further inquire why they were

16 not even permitted to fill out an application.

17

45. Odette Apodaca replied by referring Joe and Terry to A.R.S. § 25-101.

18

46. Under the Marriage Discrimination Statutes, Arizona denies to Joe and

19 Terry the rights, protections, benefits, and obligations associated with marriage.

20

Suzanne and Holly

21

47. Plaintiffs Suzanne Cummins and Holly Mitchell reside in Maricopa County,

22 Arizona.

23

48. Holly and Suzanne have been in a committed relationship since 2007. For

24 years, they have lived together in the same household, sharing their finances,

25 responsibilities, and otherwise living together as many other married couples do.

26

49. Holly and Suzanne actively volunteer their time to various community

27 childcare endeavors. Suzanne, for example, is a troop leader in the Purple Sage Council, a

28 local chapter of the Girl Scouts of America, and both Holly and Suzanne serve as foster

Amended Complaint

Connolly et. al. v. Roche et al.

8

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 15 Filed 02/10/14 Page 9 of 21

1 care mentors.

2

50. Like many other Arizona couples and families, they hoped to marry in their

3 state of residence and enjoy the benefits that flow from recognition of their marriage.

4

51. Unfortunately, they live in Arizona where the law prohibits their marriage.

5

52. Because the law of Arizona prohibits them from becoming married and

6 affirmatively denies the validity of any marriage into which they might legally enter in

7 another state, Holly and Suzanne cannot validate their union as a legal marriage in their

8 home state.

9

53. Despite having been denied the dignity and benefits that the State of

10 Arizona affords others solely because they are a same-sex couple, Holly and Suzanne

11 continue to live as a married couple.

12

54. In 2008, Holly and Suzanne began planning for the future of their family.

13 They decided to foster and ultimately adopt children into their family.

14

55. In September 2009, Holly and Suzanne began attending the Partnering for

15 Safety and Permanence-Model Approach to Partnership in Parenting ("PS-MAPP")

16 classes required to become licensed foster parents in Arizona.

17

56. Holly and Suzanne became certified foster parents in late 2009.

18

57. Holly and Suzanne wished to grow their family by becoming permanent

19 adoptive parents.

20

58. In November 2009, they received their first foster care children.

21

59. Both children were quickly approved for adoption. Holly and Suzanne

22 adopted the younger child in November 2010 and the older child in July 2011.

23

60. Suzanne is the legal adoptive parent of both children.

24

61. Holly and Suzanne continue to serve as foster parents; they are currently

25 the foster parents of an 18-month-old child in addition to their two adopted children.

26

62. Under the Marriage Discrimination Statutes, Arizona denies to Holly and

27 Suzanne the rights, protections, benefits, and obligations associated with marriage.

28

Amended Complaint

Connolly et. al. v. Roche et al.

9

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 15 Filed 02/10/14 Page 10 of 21

1

Clark and David

2

63. Plaintiffs Clark Rowley and David Chaney are longtime residents of

3 Maricopa County, Arizona.

4

64. Clark and David met in Arizona and have been in a committed relationship

5 for over five years.

6

65. They live together as life partners as many other married couples do, and

7 share household duties and responsibilities.

8

66. For years, they have wanted to confirm their love and lifelong commitment

9 to each other, but they live in Arizona where same-sex marriage is prohibited and where

10 out-of-state, legal same-sex marriages are not recognized as valid.

11

67. In 2010, Clark and David decided that they wanted to marry; they discussed

12 becoming legally married in a state that allowed same-sex marriage.

13

68. Realizing that their out-of-state marriage would not be honored in Arizona

14 and that they truly wished to marry in their home state, Clark and David instead decided

15 to have a commitment ceremony because Arizona offered them no alternative to validate

16 their union.

17

69. On October 9, 2010, Clark and David held a commitment ceremony before

18 the fountains at the Scottsdale Civic Center in testimony to their love and commitment to

19 one another in front of over 300 of their closest friends and family.

20

70. Thereafter, Clark and David opened a joint bank account; they have shared

21 their finances ever since.

22

71. Clark and David wish to be legally married in their home state of Arizona,

23 but they have not and cannot be legally married in Arizona.

24

72. Under the Marriage Discrimination Statutes, Arizona denies to Clark and

25 David the rights, protections, benefits, and obligations associated with marriage.

26

Mason and Chris

27

73. Plaintiffs Mason Hite and Christopher Devine reside in Maricopa County,

28 Arizona.

Amended Complaint

Connolly et. al. v. Roche et al.

10

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 15 Filed 02/10/14 Page 11 of 21

1

74. Mason and Chris met in Phoenix in 2001 and have lived together in a

2 committed relationship since 2002. They own a home together, have a joint bank

3 account, and otherwise live as many other married couples do.

4

75. For years, Mason and Chris sought the responsibilities, privileges and

5 benefits of marriage. The laws of Arizona, however, prevented their marriage to one

6 another. So, like Joe and Terry, Mason and Chris married in California in 2008. Still

7 today, however, their marriage remains invalid under Arizona law. See A.R.S. §25-112(A).

8

76. In 2011, Mason and Chris became foster parents licensed by the State of

9 Arizona. They have cared for several foster children since then and are still licensed foster

10 parents.

11

77. On February 5, 2014, Mason and Chris went to the Office of the Clerk of

12 the Superior Court of Maricopa County

, 601 W. Jefferson

13 Street, Phoenix, Arizona, to apply for an Arizona marriage license.

14

78. In the office of the Maricopa County Clerk, they truthfully completed an

15 application provided by an assistant clerk.

16

79. When Mason and Chris were called to the counter, they both presented

17 state-

a, the clerk on duty.

18

80.

19 handed the application back and told them that she could not accept it or issue them a

20 marriage license.

21

81. Ramona told Mason and Chris that it would not be legal for her to issue

22 them a marriage license in Arizona, so they left.

23

82. Under the Marriage Discrimination Statutes, Arizona denies to Mason and

24 Chris the rights, protections, benefits, and obligations associated with marriage.

25

Meagan and Natalie

26

83. Meagan (nee Pugh) Metz and Natalie Metz live in Flagstaff (Coconino

27 County), Arizona.

28

84. They are a same-sex couple who have lived in a committed, monogamous

Amended Complaint

Connolly et. al. v. Roche et al.

11

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 15 Filed 02/10/14 Page 12 of 21

1 relationship for the past seven years.

2

85. Meagan and Natalie were lawfully married in the State of Washington on

3 May 29, 2013. They now seek to have their marriage recognized by the State of Arizona or

4 obtain a marriage license in Coconino County, Arizona.

5

86. After their marriage in the State of Washington, where Meagan grew up,

6 the couple returned to Arizona and hosted a wedding reception in Flagstaff. Their

7 families, friends, and colleagues attended the Flagstaff wedding reception in order to

8 celebrate their marriage.

9 present their union as a marriage.

10

87. Meagan and Natalie love one another, own a home jointly in Flagstaff, share

11 a joint bank account, own a vehicle jointly, and raise two dogs (Lucy and Eldon) together.

12 After their marriage in the State of Washington, Meagan changed her surname from Pugh

13 to Metz, in furtherance of their union.

14

88. Meagan and Natalie wish to enjoy the same privileges, status, dignity and

15 contractual rights that are conferred by the State of Arizona on individuals in opposite-sex

16 marriages.

17

89. Meagan works part-time in the healthcare industry while she pursues

18 further education at Northern Arizona University. Natalie is a well-respected registered

19 nurse, who works in the chemotherapy group of Arizona Oncology. Her patients regularly

20 praise her dedicated care. Recently, one cancer p

21

22

90. Meagan and Natalie desire to have a child in 2014. They intend to engage in

23 the process of artificial insemination of Natalie, who will be the biological mother of the

24 child. Meagan and Natalie want the assurance of knowing that their marriage will be

25 respected by state officials and third parties, and that they will be treated under the law in

26 the same way as opposition sex couples would be treated.

27

91. On February 6, 2014, Meagan and Natalie went to the office of the Clerk of

28 the Coconino County Superior Court and applied for a marriage license. Meagan and

Amended Complaint

Connolly et. al. v. Roche et al.

12

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 15 Filed 02/10/14 Page 13 of 21

1 Natalie were received by Deborah Young, the duly elected Clerk of the Coconino County

2 Superior Court, who informed Meagan and Natalie that their marriage license application

3 was denied because Arizona law prohibits the marriage of a same-sex couple.

4

92. Under the Marriage Discrimination Statutes, Arizona denies to Meagan and

5 Natalie the rights, protections, benefits, and obligations associated with marriage.

6

Jeff and Peter

7

93. Plaintiffs Jeffrey Ferst and Peter Bramley live in Pima County, Arizona.

8

94. Peter, a native Tucsonan, and Jeff (born in New York) moved to Scottsdale

9 from Canada in early 2012. They decided to marry last year.

10

95. Although they could not marry in their home state of Arizona, they

11 formalized their commitment to one another and were married in Riverside County,

12 California on October 11, 2013.

13

96. They live together in Tucson where they share a home, bank account, and

14 otherwise live as many married couples do.

15

97. Peter owns a public relations company. He has been in business for over 25

16 years. Jeff is a well-known artist.

17

98.

18 marriage, or permit them to marry in Arizona, harms them by denying them the rights,

19 protections, benefits, and obligations associated with marriage.

20

Renee and Robin

21

99. Plaintiffs Renee Kaminski and Robin Reece are long-term residents of

22 Coconino County, Arizona.

23

100. Renee and Robin, a same-sex couple, have been in a committed,

24 monogamous relationship for nearly seven years. They hope to be legally married in the

25 State of Arizona. They wish to enjoy the same privileges, responsibilities and rights that

26 are conferred by the State of Arizona on those in opposite-sex marriages.

27

101. Renee and Robin live together in Flagstaff as committed life partners,

28 sharing a household; co-parenting; running a business together; and, sharing in other

Amended Complaint

Connolly et. al. v. Roche et al.

13

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 15 Filed 02/10/14 Page 14 of 21

1 responsibilities as any married couple would.

2

102. Renee and Robin operate a wedding photography business. Renee is also a

3 registered nurse.

4

103. Using a

5 pregnant, resulting in the birth of their now three-year-old son.

6

104. Robin and Renee raise their son as equal and full co-parents.

7

105. On January 24, 2014, Renee and Robin went to the office of the Clerk of the

8 Coconino County Superior Court and applied for a marriage license.

9

106. Renee and Robin were received by Deborah Young, the duly elected Clerk

10 of the Coconino County Superior Court, who informed Renee and Robin that their

11 marriage license application was denied because Arizona law prohibits a marriage between

12 same-sex couples.

13

107. Because they cannot legally marry in Arizona, Renee and Robin would incur

14 significant expenses arranging for, and traveling to, another state to marry.

15

108. Arizona's refusal to permit Renee and Robin to marry harms them by

16 denying them the rights, protections, benefits, and obligations associated with marriage.

17

C. The Defendants

18

109. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants because they are

19 domiciled in the State of Arizona.

20

110. Defendant Michael K. Jeanes, the Clerk of the Court of Maricopa County,

21 Arizona, conducts official business from his office located in this District (in Phoenix,

22 Arizona). In every county of Arizona, the superior court clerk serves as an officer of the

23 judicial branch of state government. Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 23. The duties of the superior

24 court clerk, described generally in A.R.S. § 12-283, include operation of a marriage license

25 office, where Defendant Jeanes receives applications for and issues marriage licenses.

26

111. Defendant Deborah Young, the Clerk of the Court of Coconino County,

27 Arizona, conducts official business from her office located in Flagstaff, Arizona. Like

28 Defendant Jeanes, her duties include operation of a marriage license office, where

Amended Complaint

Connolly et. al. v. Roche et al.

14

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 15 Filed 02/10/14 Page 15 of 21

1 Defendant Young receives applications for, and issues, marriage licenses.

2

112. Defendant Chad Roche, the Clerk of the Court of Pinal County, Arizona,

3 conducts official business from his office located in Florence, Arizona. Like Defendants

4 Jeanes and Young, his duties include operation of a marriage license office, where

5 Defendant Roche receives applications for, and issues, marriage licenses.

6

113. Defendants, and those under their supervision, interpret and enforce state

7 laws related to marriage in Arizona, especially those constitutional and statutory

8 provisions that deny same-sex couples the right to marry in the State of Arizona.

9

114. Plaintiffs s

10 employees, and agents, and against all persons acting in cooperation with Defendants, or

11 under their supervision, at their direction, or under their control.

12

115. The Defendants are entitled to neither judicial nor quasi-judicial immunity

13

See Guiden v. Morrow, 92 F.Appx. 663, 665 (10th

14 Cir. 2004) (court clerk enjoyed quasi-judicial immunity from suits for money damages but

15

16

D. Venue

17

116. Venue lies in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because every

18 Defendant resides in this District and events giving rise to the claims for relief occurred in

19 the District.

20 III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

21

FIRST CLAIM

22

Violation of Equal Protection Clause of the

23

Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983

24

117. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-116 as though fully set forth.

25

118. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires

26

27

Loving, 388 U.S. at 10. A state law that singles out

28 homosexuals for disfavored treatment and imposes inequality on them violates the

Amended Complaint

Connolly et. al. v. Roche et al.

15

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 15 Filed 02/10/14 Page 16 of 21

1 principle of equal protection under the law. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2694 96.

2

119. The Marriage Discrimination Statutes do exactly that. For example, A.R.S.

3 Sections 25-101(C), -112(A), and -125(A), together with article 30, section 1 of the state

4 constitution, restrict access to marriage to opposite-sex couples, thereby denying

5 homosexuals the right to marry their chosen partner.

6

120. These laws treat similarly situated persons differently by conferring the

7 benefits and protections of marriage on heterosexual but not homosexual couples. Stated

8 differently, these Arizona laws single out homosexuals for disfavored treatment.

9

121. For these reasons, the Marriage Discrimination Statutes violate the Equal

10 Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

11

122. Defendants, under color of state law, have deprived and, absent relief from

12 this Court, will continue to deprive Plaintiffs of their fundamental right to marry and

13 thereby enjoy, in the words of the Supreme Court in Windsor

14

15 Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which in turn violates 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

16

123. The Marriage Discrimination Statutes classify the Plaintiffs based on sexual

17 orientation. In the Ninth Circuit, when considering Equal Protection claims, the district

18 court reviews classifications based on sexual orientation using heightened scrutiny, not

19 rational basis. See SmithKline Beecham v. Abbott Labs, 2014 WL 211807 at *6 (9th Cir.)

20 (Jan. 21, 2014) ("Windsor requires that heightened scrutiny be applied to equal protection

21 claims involving sexual orientation.").

22

124. Plaintiffs accordingly pray for the relief described in paragraphs 139-145

23 below.

24

SECOND CLAIM

25

Violation of Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

26

and 42 U.S.C. § 1983

27

125. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-124 as though fully set forth.

28

126. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.

Amended Complaint

Connolly et. al. v. Roche et al.

16

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 15 Filed 02/10/14 Page 17 of 21

1

2

3

127.

4 existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom . . . is surely to deprive all the

5

Loving, 388 U.S. at 12 (citation

6 omitted).

7

128. The Marriage Discrimination Statutes deprive Plaintiffs of the due process

8 of law under the federal constitution because the State of Arizona deprives gay citizens

9 the opportunity to marry the person of their choosing and, in other cases, fails to

10 recognize as valid their out-of-state marriages.

11

129. Because the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects

12

-of-

13 state marriages, even the voters of Arizona may not infringe this constitutional right.

14

130. The Marriage Discrimination Statutes classify the Plaintiffs based on sexual

15 orientation. In the Ninth Circuit, when considering substantive Due Process claims, the

16 district court reviews classifications based on sexual orientation using heightened

17 scrutiny. Witt v. Department of the Air Force, 527 F.3d 806 (9th Cir.2008).

18

131. Defendants, under color of state law, have deprived and, absent relief from

19 this Court, will continue to deprive Plaintiffs of their fundamental right to marry and

20 thereby enjoy, in the words of the Supreme Court in Windsor

21

22 Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which in turn violates 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

23

132. Plaintiffs accordingly pray for the relief described in paragraphs 139-145

24 below.

25

APPLICATION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

26

133. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-132 as though fully set forth.

27

134. Although opposite-sex couples enjoy the benefits of marriage in Arizona,

28

-of-state marriages

Amended Complaint

Connolly et. al. v. Roche et al.

17

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 15 Filed 02/10/14 Page 18 of 21

1 recognized as valid in Arizona, has resulted and will result in concrete, irreparable harm 2 to Plaintiffs by denying them the rights, protections, benefits, and obligations associated 3 with marriage, including by way of example only:

4

a. Community property rights and exemptions. A.R.S. §§ 33-

5

431, 33-452, 33-453, 33-457, 33-1102, 33-1103, 33-1121.01, 331126, 33-1131, 33-1151.

6

b. Spousal pension benefits. A.R.S. §§ 23-775, 23-1046, 38-807,

7

38-846.

8

c. Continued coverage of disability insurance. A.R.S. § 20-1377.

9

d. Probate and intestate succession rights and responsibilities. A.R.S. §§ 14-2102, 14-2301, 14-2402, 14-2404, 14-3203, 14-

10

3971 14-5301, 14-6212, 36-831; A.A.C. R4-12-602.

11

e. Rights and interests related to trusts. A.R.S. §§ 14-7418, 147422 14-10505, 14-10602.

12

f. Enforcement of the Family Medical Leave Act. A.A.C. R2-

13

5A-D601.

14

g. Other spousal survivorship rights. A.R.S. §§ 12-259.03, 12612, 12-613.

15

h. The right to bring claims and seek damages in civil lawsuits.

16

A.R.S. §§ 12-612, 12-613, 20-259.03.

17

i. The privilege not to testify against one another. A.R.S. §§ 122231, 12-2232, 13-4062.

18

j. The ability to file a joint tax return. A.R.S. § 43-309.

19

k. Other tax exemptions and benefits. A.R.S. §§ 28-5802, 28-

20

5811, 43-1111, 43-1022.

21

l. C

. A.R.S. §§ 13-601, 13-

701, 13-703, 13-713, 13-752, 13-3610, 13-3611, 13-4401, 13-

22

4403; AZ A.D.C. R10-4-108.

23

m. Statutory privacy rights. A.R.S. §§ 12-761, 39-123, 39-124.

24

n. The ability to make medical decisions without first obtaining a healthcare power of attorney or durable power of attorney.

25

A.R.S. § 36-3231.

26

135. Plaintiffs have suffered and will suffer permanent and personal harm absent

27 an order from this Court permanently enjoining Defendants from enforcing the Marriage

28 Discrimination Statutes restricting the right of same-sex couples to marry or be married in

Amended Complaint

Connolly et. al. v. Roche et al.

18

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 15 Filed 02/10/14 Page 19 of 21

1 Arizona.

2

136. Plaintiffs accordingly seek an order permanently enjoining the enforcement

3 of the Marriage Discrimination Statutes.

4

137.

5 law banning same-sex marriage will prevent continued harm to Plaintiffs.

6

138. Plaintiffs request no relief compelling any person, church, or organization to

7 solemnize same-sex marriages. Rather, Plaintiffs request relief against the Defendants to,

8 for example, issue and, following the marriage ceremony or other solemnization, record

9 the marriage licenses returned by Plaintiffs.

10 IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

11

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment on Claims One and Two as follows:

12

139. Plaintiffs respectfully request a declaratory judgment and order for

13 permanent injunctive relief under (a) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 57 and 65, (b) 28

14

15 2202.

16

140. Plaintiffs request that the Court construe art. 30, §1 of the Arizona

17 Constitution, and the other Marriage Discrimination Statutes, and enter a declaratory

18 judgment that these and all other laws of the State of Arizona banning, refusing to

19 recognize, or otherwise restricting same-sex marriage, violate the United States

20 Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

21

141. Based on these declarations, Plaintiffs respectfully seek entry of a

22 permanent injunction (a) enjoining the Defendants, acting in their official capacities, and

23 all others under their supervision and control, and those acting in concert with them,

24 under color of the law of the State of Arizona, from enforcing art. 30, § 1 of the Arizona

25 Constitution and any Arizona statute that excludes gay men and women from access to

26 marriage in the State of Arizona; and, (b) compelling Defendants to accept the

27 application of, issue marriage licenses to, and record the returned marriage licenses from

28 the unmarried plaintiffs (e.g., Suzanne Cummins and Holly Mitchell, and Clark Rowley

Amended Complaint

Connolly et. al. v. Roche et al.

19

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 15 Filed 02/10/14 Page 20 of 21

1 and David Chaney).

2

142.

3

court may order a speedy hearing of a declaratory-

4

5 and no disputed material questions of fact, the Court would be justified in scheduling the

6 case for early hearing on motion for summary judgment.

7

143. Plaintiffs request an award of the costs and expenses of this action,

8

9

see

10 Rhodes v. Stewart, 488 U.S. 1, 4 (1988) (per curiam) (injunction or declaratory usually

11

Lefemine v. Wideman, 133 S.Ct.

12 9, 11 (2012) (per curiam) (same); Higher Taste, Inc. v. City of Tacoma, 717 F.3d 712 (9th

13 Cir. 2013).

14

144. Plaintiffs request entry of an award of nominal damages in an amount not to

15 exceed $1. See Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978) (claim for violation of constitutional

16 rights entitles plaintiff to award of nominal damages); Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 921

17 (9th Cir. 1986) (nominal damages recoverable for deprivation of constitutionally-based

18 right); Floyd v. Laws, 929 F.2d 1390, 1402 (9th Cir. 1991) (upon proof of Section 1983

19 claim, award of nominal damages mandatory, even if plaintiff proved no actual damages).

20

145. Plaintiffs request any further relief that the Court determines may be just or

21 equitable.

22

23

DATED: February 10, 2014.

By s/ Shawn K. Aiken 009002 Shawn K. Aiken

24

Heather A. Macre William H. Knight

25

Stephanie McCoy Loquvam 2390 East Camelback Road

26

Suite 400 Phoenix, Arizona 85016

27

28

Amended Complaint

Connolly et. al. v. Roche et al.

20

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 15 Filed 02/10/14 Page 21 of 21

By s/ Ryan J. Stevens 026378

1

Ryan J. Stevens

GRIFFEN & STEVENS LAW FIRM, PLLC

2

609 North Humphreys Street

Flagstaff, Arizona 86001

3

4

5

By s/ Mikkel Steen Jordahl -- 012211

Mikkel Steen Jordahl

6

MIKKEL (MIK) JORDAHL PC

114 North San Francisco, Suite 206

7

Flagstaff, Arizona 86001

8

9

By s/ Mark Dillon -- 014393

10

Mark Dillon

DILLON LAW OFFICE

11

PO Box 97517

Phoenix, Arizona 85060

12

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13

14

15 I hereby certify that on this 10th day of February, 2014 I electronically transmitted the 16 attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and a copy
was electronically transmitted to the following: 17

18 Kathleen P. Sweeney Todd M. Allison
19 Assistant Attorneys General

20 1275 West Washington

21

Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997 kathleen.sweeney@azag.gov

22 todd.allison@azag.gov

23

Attorneys for Defendant Michael K. Jeanes, In His Official Capacity As Clerk Of The Superior Court Of Maricopa County, Arizona

24

25 s/ DeAnn M. Buchmeier S:\Connolly - Pochert\21401001\Pleadings\Complaint-1Am 140210.docx
26

27

28

Amended Complaint

Connolly et. al. v. Roche et al.

21

 
 Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 88 Filed 10/17/14 Page 1 of 4

1

2

3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8

9

10 Joseph Connolly, et al.,

)

)

11

Plaintiffs,

)

2:14-cv-00024 JWS

12 vs.

)

)

ORDER AND OPINION

13

)

Michael K. Jeanes, et al., 14

)

[Re: Motions at dockets 47 and 58]

)

15

Defendants.

)

)

16

I. MOTIONS PRESENTED 17

18

At docket 47 plaintiffs move for summary judgment. Defendants respond at

19 docket 59. Plaintiffs’ reply is at docket 70. Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief is at docket 86.

20 Defendants move for summary judgment at docket 58. Plaintiffs’ respond at docket 70.

21 Defendants’ reply is at docket 80. Defendants’ supplemental brief is at docket 87. Oral
22 argument has not been requested by either side and, particularly in light of recent
23
developments in the law of the Ninth Circuit, would not be of assistance to the court. 24

25

II. BACKGROUND

26

Plaintiffs are same-sex couples who either were married in another jurisdiction

27 and seek to have Arizona recognize their marriages or are same-sex couples who wish 28

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 88 Filed 10/17/14 Page 2 of 4

1 to wed in Arizona. Certain provisions of Arizona law make it impossible for either group
2 of plaintiffs to achieve their goal. They are Article 30, Section 1, of the Arizona
3 Constitution which states that only a marriage between one man and one woman is
4 valid and recognizable in Arizona; A.R.S. § 25-101(C) which provides that same-sex
5
6 marriage is prohibited in Arizona; and A.R.S. § 25-125(A) which defines marriage as

7 between a male and female person (collectively “the challenged laws”). Plaintiffs ask

8 the court to declare that the challenged laws deny them equal protection of the law and

9 therefore are invalid under the United States Constitution. They also ask the court to
10 permanently enjoin the enforcement of the challenged laws. Defendants deny that the
11
laws violate the United States Constitution. 12

13

III. DISCUSSION

14

When the pending motions were filed, their resolution would have required this

15 court to produce a lengthy and detailed opinion. However, in the interim, the Court of
16 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently ruled that substantially identical provisions of
17 Nevada and Idaho law that prohibit same-sex marriages are invalid because they deny
18
19 same-sex couples equal protection of the law, the right to which is guaranteed by the
20 Constitution of the United States.1 This court is bound by the precedent set by the

21 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.2 For that reason, the plaintiffs are entitled to a

22

23

24

1Latta v. Otter, F.3d , Nos. 14-35420, 14-35421, and 12-17668, 2014 WL 4977682

(9th Cir. Oct. 7, 2014).

25
2See Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1171 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Circuit law . . . binds all
26 courts within a particular circuit, including the court of appeals itself. Thus, the first panel to
consider an issue sets the law not only for all the inferior courts in the circuit, but also future
27 panels of the court of appeals.”) (citation omitted).

28

-2-

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 88 Filed 10/17/14 Page 3 of 4

1 declaration that the challenged laws are unconstitutional and a permanent injunction
2 prohibiting their enforcement.
3 The court has considered whether to stay this decision to allow defendants to
4 appeal. It is clear, however, that an appeal to the Ninth Circuit would be futile. It is also
5
6 clear—based on the Supreme Court’s denial of petitions for writs of certiorari filed in

7 connection with several circuit court decisions which held that same-sex marriage must

8 be recognized in Indiana,3 Oklahoma,4 Utah,5 Virginia,6 and Wisconsin7—that the High
9 Court will turn a deaf ear on any request for relief from the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
10 IV. CONCLUSION
11 For the reasons given in the preceding section of this order, plaintiffs’ motion for
12
13 summary judgment at docket 47 is granted as follows: this court hereby declares

14 Article 30, Section 1, of the Arizona Constitution; A.R.S § 25-101© and A.R.S. § 25-

15 125(A) unconstitutional by virtue of the fact that they deny same-sex couples the equal
16 protection of the law. It is further ordered that defendants are hereby ordered to
17

18

19

20

21

3Bogan v. Baskin, No. 14-277, 2014 WL 4425162 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014).
22

23

4Smith v. Bishop, No. 14-136, 2014 WL 3854318 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014).

24

5Herbert v. Kitchen, No. 14-124, 2014 WL 3841263 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014).

25

6McQuigg v. Bostic, No. 14-251, 2014 WL 4354536 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014); Rainey v.

Bostic, No. 14-153, 2014 WL 3924685 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014); Schaefer v. Bostic, No. 14-225,

26 2014 WL 4230092 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014).

27

7Walker v. Wolf, No. 14-278, 2014 WL 4425163 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014).

28

-3-

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 88 Filed 10/17/14 Page 4 of 4

1 permanently cease enforcement of those provisions of Arizona law declared
2 unconstitutional by this order. Finally, this court declines to stay the effect of this order.
3 Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
4 DATED this 16th day of October 2014.
5

6

7

/S/ JOHN W. SEDWICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-4-

 
 Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 82 Filed 07/30/14 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph Connolly, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Chad Roche in his official capacity as Clerk of the Superior Court of Pinal County, Arizona, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

2:14-cv-00024 JWS

)

) ORDER AND OPINION

)

) [Re: Motion at docket 48]

)

)

)

)

)

I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 48, defendants Chad Roche, Michael K. Jeanes, and Deborah Y oung

(hereinafter collectively “the Clerks”) move pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) to dismiss

the claim for nominal damages pled by plaintiffs Joseph Connolly, et al. (“Plaintiffs”).

Plaintiffs’ response is at docket 61. Clerks’ reply is at docket 76. Oral argument was not

requested and would not be of assistance to the court.

II. BACKGROUND

The gay and lesbian couples who are Plaintiffs in this case sued the Clerks

seeking a declaration that two Arizona statutes, A.R.S. §§ 25-101(C) and 25-125(A),

together with Article 30, § 1 of the Arizona Constitution (collectively “the Challenged

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 82 Filed 07/30/14 Page 2 of 7
Laws”) are void. Plaintiffs contend that by denying gay and lesbian couples the opportunity to marry the Challenged laws violate the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Clerks are named as defendants because they refused to issue marriage licenses to Plaintiffs. Each of the Clerks is sued in his or her official capacity as a Clerk of the Superior Court for the State of Arizona in their respective counties.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW “After the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings.”1 Because “Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(c) are substantially identical,”2 a motion for judgment on the pleadings is assessed under the standard applicable to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Rule 12(b)(6).3 Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff’s claims. In reviewing such a motion, “[a]ll allegations of material fact in the complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”4 To be assumed true, the allegations, “may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action, but must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively.”5 Dismissal for failure to state a claim can be based on
1Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). 2Strigliabotti v. Franklin Resources, Inc., 398 F. Supp. 2d 1094, 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2005). 3See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980). 4Vignolo v. Miller, 120 F.3d 1075, 1077 (9th Cir. 1997). 5Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011).
-2-

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 82 Filed 07/30/14 Page 3 of 7
either “the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.”6 “Conclusory allegations of law . . . are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.”7
IV. DISCUSSION In addition to their request for a declaration of rights and a permanent injunction against enforcement of the Challenged Laws, Plaintiffs ask this court to award them nominal damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.8 The Clerks argue that they are entitled to immunity from the nominal damages claim by virtue of the Eleventh Amendment. As the Ninth Circuit has explained: “The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages in federal court against a state, its agencies, and state officials acting in their official capacities.”9 Plaintiffs raise a number of arguments in opposition to the motion. First, they contend that the counties, not the state of Arizona, are the real parties in interest. This argument is not tenable. At the heart of the lawsuit lies Plaintiffs’ contention that state statutes and a provision in the state constitution are void. There is no attack on any county action or standard that does not flow from the proposition that the Clerks are following state law. Plaintiffs next assert that because any judgment awarding nominal damages would be paid by the counties rather than the state the Clerks are county rather than
6Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 7Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001). 8Doc. 15 at 20 ¶ 144. 9Aholelei v. Dept. of Public Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007).
-3-

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 82 Filed 07/30/14 Page 4 of 7
state officials. The Clerks concede that point, but argue correctly that under Ninth Circuit law, who would pay a judgment is not the only consideration bearing on their status. Although that factor is predominant,10 additional factors to consider are whether the Clerks perform a state government function, whether the Clerks may sue or be sued, whether the Clerks have the power to take property in their own names or only in the state’s name, and the Clerks’ corporate status.11
The Clerks are engaged in the operation of the Arizona trial courts in their respective counties. In that capacity they are officials in what is clearly a statewide system of civil and criminal justice. As the Clerks’ briefing points out, Arizona’s judicial power is vested by its constitution in an integrated judicial system that includes the Arizona Supreme Court and other courts, including the Arizona Superior Courts, as provided by state law.12 Further evidencing the statewide nature of the system is the fact that the Arizona Supreme Court is given administrative supervision of all other state courts.13 It is also noteworthy that the state constitution establishes a superior court in each county with a number of judges to be set by law,14 and expressly states that the superior courts “constitute a single court.”15 Thus, the various superior courts are neither separate courts nor are they established by the counties.
10Beentjes v. Placer Cnty. Air Pollution Control Dist., 397 F.3d 775, 778 (9th Cir. 2005). 11Savage v. Glendale Union High School, 343 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2003). 12Ariz. Const. Art VI, § 1. 13Id., Art. VI, § 3. 14Id., Art. VI, § 10. 15Id. Art. VI, § 13.
-4-

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 82 Filed 07/30/14 Page 5 of 7
The state constitution also addresses the supervision of the superior court by providing for presiding judges16 and clerks of court.17 As recounted in the Clerk’s briefing, the Arizona Supreme Court held in Royalston v. Pima County18 that despite statutes listing court clerks as county officers, superior court clerks are under the supervision of the Arizona Supreme Court. The Arizona legislature thereafter revised the statutory scheme to remove references to the court clerks from the title covering counties, Title 11, and placed statues relating to court clerks in the judiciary title, Title 12.19 Given the discussion in this and the preceding paragraph, it is clear that when acting in their official capacities the Clerks are engaged in a state function.
The third factor relating to the capacity to sue or be sued is somewhat difficult to apply within the Arizona statutory framework. However, the court agrees with the discussion in the Clerk’s motion papers demonstrating that the Clerks do have the capacity to sue or be sued.20 It may be added that Plaintiffs must agree that the Clerks have the capacity to be sued, because Plaintiffs sued the Clerks. The third factor weighs in favor of treating the Clerks as state officials.
The fourth factor concerns whether the Clerks may take property in their own names. This factor also supports the conclusion that the Clerks are state of ficials, for
16Id., Art. VI, § 11 17Id., Art. VI, § 23. 18475 P.2d 233, 234 (Ariz. 1970). 191982 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 168. See Title 12, Chapter 2, Article 8 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. 20Doc. 48 at 6-7.
-5-

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 82 Filed 07/30/14 Page 6 of 7
they are not authorized to take or accept property other than for the courts themselves. The final factor is the Clerk’s status as entities separate from the state. As
explained in the discussion above, the Clerks’ only official status is their role in the statewide court system. Therefore, this factor also supports the proposition that the Clerks are state officials.
The conclusion to which the relevant constitutional provisions, the statutory provisions in Title 12, and the other factors discussed above ineluctably point is that in their official capacities the Clerks perform a state function. However, Plaintiffs raise additional objections to dismissal of their nominal damages claim.
Plaintiffs contend that the claim for nominal damages is properly entertained even if the Clerks are state officials under the doctrine of Ex Parte Young.21 In this Plaintiffs err. The doctrine of Ex Parte Young permits claims against state officials in federal courts for prospective relief such as a declaratory judgment or an injunction. It does not apply to retroactive relief such as a claim for damages.22
Plaintiffs also contend that nominal damages should be treated differently than compensatory damages for purpose of the Eleventh Amendment on the theory that nominal damages are the functional equivalent of declaratory relief. Plaintiffs cite no authority for that proposition, and the court is not aware of any. Moreover, nominal damages are a form of relief utilized when a plaintiff cannot prove actual damages. They do not function as a stand-in for declaratory relief, but rather as a substitute for
21209 U.S. 123 (1908). 22E.g., Brown v. Oregon Dept. of Corrections, 751 F.3d 983, 989 (9th Cir. 2014).
-6-

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 82 Filed 07/30/14 Page 7 of 7
compensatory damages. In sum, Plaintiffs attempt to avoid the application of the Eleventh Amendment to their nominal damages claim using Ex Parte Young and related considerations fails.
There is another reason why Plaintiffs cannot pursue a § 1983 claim against them for the recovery of nominal damages. The Supreme Court succinctly stated that reason in its holding in Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police: “We hold that neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.”23
V. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, the motion at docket 48 to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim for nominal damages is GRANTED. DATED this 29th day of July 2014.
/S/ JOHN W. SEDWICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).
-7-

 
 Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 108 Filed 09/30/15 Page 1 of 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8 Joseph Connolly and Terrel L. Pochert;

9

Suzanne Cummins and Holly N. Mitchell; Clark Rowley and David

10

Chaney; R. Mason Hite IV and Christopher L. Devine; Meagan and

11

Natalie Metz; Renee Kaminski and Robin Reece; Jeffrey Ferst and Peter

12 Bramley,

13

Plaintiffs,

14 v.

15

Chad Roche, in His Official Capacity as Clerk of the Superior Court of Pinal

16

County, Arizona; Michael K. Jeanes, in His Official Capacity as Clerk of the

17

Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona; and Valerie Wyant, in Her

18

Official Capacity as Clerk of the Superior Court of Coconino County,

19 Arizona,

20

Defendants.

Case No: 2:14-cv-00024-JWS
JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND RELATED NONTAXABLE EXPENSES

21

22

Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Stipulation for Entry of Judgment

23 for Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ Fees and Related Nontaxable Expenses incurred in litigating

24 this case in this Court. (Dkt. 107.) Having reviewed the parties’ Joint Stipulation and

25 for good cause shown,

26

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Stipulation for Entry of Judgment for

27 Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ Fees and Related Nontaxable Expenses is approved.

28

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 108 Filed 09/30/15 Page 2 of 2

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against

2 Defendants is entered in the amount of $200,000 and that postjudgment interest on the

3 $200,000 amount shall accrue at the current statutory rate beginning thirty days after this 4 Court enters its Judgment for that amount if the amount has not been paid in full by that 5 date.

6

7

DATED this 29th day of September, 2015

8 /s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 
 Case: 2:14-cv-24 As of: 10/18/2015 11:50 AM MST 1 of 22
U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Phoenix Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:14−cv−00024−JWS

CLOSED,STD

Connolly et al v. Brewer et al Assigned to: Judge John W Sedwick Case in other court: Ninth Circuit, 14−17274 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
Joseph Connolly Each for Themselves and all Others Simililarly Situated

Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Date Terminated: 10/17/2014 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Ellen Kristine Aiken Sacks Tierney PA 4250 N Drinkwater Blvd., 4th Fl. Scottsdale, AZ 85251−3647 480−425−2618 Email: Ellen.Aiken@SacksTierney.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather Ann Macre Aiken Schenk Hawkins & Ricciardi PC 2390 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 400 Phoenix, AZ 85016 602−248−8203 Fax: 602−248−8840 Email: ham@ashrlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Herbert L Ely Ely Bettini Ulman & Rosenblatt 3200 N Central Ave Ste 1930 Phoenix, AZ 85012 602−230−2144 Fax: 602−264−9337 Email: eburlaw@eburlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mikkel Steen Jordahl Mikkel (Mik) Jordahl PC 114 N San Francisco, Ste. 207 Flagstaff, AZ 86001 928−214−0942 Fax: 928−779−0243 Email: mikkeljordahl@yahoo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan J Stevens Griffen & Stevens Law Firm PLLC 609 N Humphreys St. Flagstaff, AZ 86001 928−226−0165 Fax: 928−752−8111 Email: stevens@flagstaff−lawyer.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Keith Aiken

Case: 2:14-cv-24 As of: 10/18/2015 11:50 AM MST 2 of 22

Aiken Schenk Hawkins & Ricciardi PC 2390 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 400 Phoenix, AZ 85016 602−248−8203 Fax: 602−248−8840 Email: ska@ashrlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie McCoy Loquvam Aiken Schenk Hawkins & Ricciardi PC 2390 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 400 Phoenix, AZ 85016 602−248−8203 Fax: 602−248−8840 Email: sml@ashrlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Henry Knight Aiken Schenk Hawkins & Ricciardi PC 2390 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 400 Phoenix, AZ 85016 602−248−8203 Fax: 602−248−8840 Email: KnightW@ballardspahr.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Terrel L Pochert Each for Themselves and all Others Simililarly Situated

represented by Ellen Kristine Aiken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heather Ann Macre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Herbert L Ely (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mikkel Steen Jordahl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan J Stevens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shawn Keith Aiken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie McCoy Loquvam (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-24 As of: 10/18/2015 11:50 AM MST 3 of 22

Plaintiff Suzanne Cummins Each for Themselves and all Others Simililarly Situated
Plaintiff Holly N Mitchell Each for Themselves and all Others Simililarly Situated

William Henry Knight (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ellen Kristine Aiken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather Ann Macre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Herbert L Ely (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mikkel Steen Jordahl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan J Stevens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Keith Aiken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie McCoy Loquvam (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Henry Knight (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ellen Kristine Aiken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather Ann Macre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Herbert L Ely (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mikkel Steen Jordahl

Case: 2:14-cv-24 As of: 10/18/2015 11:50 AM MST 4 of 22

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan J Stevens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shawn Keith Aiken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie McCoy Loquvam (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Henry Knight (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Clark Rowley Each for Themselves and all Others Simililarly Situated

represented by Ellen Kristine Aiken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heather Ann Macre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Herbert L Ely (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mikkel Steen Jordahl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan J Stevens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shawn Keith Aiken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie McCoy Loquvam (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Henry Knight (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-24 As of: 10/18/2015 11:50 AM MST 5 of 22

Plaintiff David Chaney Each for Themselves and all Others Simililarly Situated
Plaintiff R Mason Hite, IV Each for Themselves and all Others Simililarly Situated

represented by Ellen Kristine Aiken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather Ann Macre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Herbert L Ely (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mikkel Steen Jordahl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan J Stevens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Keith Aiken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Henry Knight (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ellen Kristine Aiken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather Ann Macre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Herbert L Ely (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mikkel Steen Jordahl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan J Stevens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Keith Aiken

Case: 2:14-cv-24 As of: 10/18/2015 11:50 AM MST 6 of 22

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie McCoy Loquvam (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Henry Knight (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Christopher L Devine Each for Themselves and all Others Simililarly Situated

represented by Ellen Kristine Aiken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heather Ann Macre (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Herbert L Ely (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mikkel Steen Jordahl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan J Stevens (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shawn Keith Aiken (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie McCoy Loquvam (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Henry Knight (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Robin Reece

represented by Herbert L Ely (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie McCoy Loquvam (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:14-cv-24 As of: 10/18/2015 11:50 AM MST 7 of 22

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Douglas Dillon Dillon Law Office P.O. Box 97517 Phoenix, AZ 85060 602−=224−4468 Email: dillonlaw97517@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mikkel Steen Jordahl (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan J Stevens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shawn Keith Aiken (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jeffrey Ferst

represented by Herbert L Ely (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie McCoy Loquvam (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Douglas Dillon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mikkel Steen Jordahl (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan J Stevens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shawn Keith Aiken (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Peter Bramley

represented by Herbert L Ely (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Douglas Dillon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mikkel Steen Jordahl (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan J Stevens

Case: 2:14-cv-24 As of: 10/18/2015 11:50 AM MST 8 of 22

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shawn Keith Aiken (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Renee Kaminski

represented by Herbert L Ely (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie McCoy Loquvam (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Douglas Dillon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mikkel Steen Jordahl (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan J Stevens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shawn Keith Aiken (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Meagan Metz

represented by Herbert L Ely (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie McCoy Loquvam (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Douglas Dillon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mikkel Steen Jordahl (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan J Stevens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shawn Keith Aiken (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Natalie Metz

represented by

Case: 2:14-cv-24 As of: 10/18/2015 11:50 AM MST 9 of 22
Herbert L Ely (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie McCoy Loquvam (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Douglas Dillon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mikkel Steen Jordahl (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan J Stevens (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shawn Keith Aiken (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Janice K Brewer In Her Official Capacity as Governor of Arizona TERMINATED: 02/10/2014

represented by Byron Jeffords Babione Alliance Defending Freedom − Scottsdale, AZ 15100 N 90th St. Scottsdale, AZ 85260−0001 480−444−0020 Fax: 480−444−0028 Email: bbabione@alliancedefendingfreedom.org TERMINATED: 10/20/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jonathan Caleb Dalton Alliance Defending Freedom 15100 N. 90th Street Scottsdale, AZ 85260 480−444−0020 Fax: 480−444−0028 Email: cdalton@alliancedefendingfreedom.org TERMINATED: 10/20/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY
Kathleen Patricia Sweeney Office of the Attorney General Solicitor Generals Section 1275 W Washington St. Phoenix, AZ 85007−2926 602−542−8625 Fax: 602−542−8308 Email: Kathleen.Sweeney@azag.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lawrence Ellman Office of the Attorney General − Phoenix 1275 W Washington St.

Case: 2:14-cv-24 As of: 10/18/2015 11:50 AM MST 10 of 22

Phoenix, AZ 85007−2997 602−542−8696 Fax: 602−542−8308 Email: robert.ellman@azag.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Mitchell Allison − Inactive Office of the Attorney General − Phoenix 1275 W Washington St. Phoenix, AZ 85007−2997 602−542−8137 Email: tallison@fclaw.com TERMINATED: 08/01/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Thomas C Horne In His Official Capacity as Attorney General of Arizona TERMINATED: 02/10/2014

represented by Byron Jeffords Babione (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/20/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Jonathan Caleb Dalton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/20/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Kathleen Patricia Sweeney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Lawrence Ellman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Mitchell Allison − Inactive (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/01/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Michael K Jeanes In His Official Capacity as Clerk of the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona

represented by Byron Jeffords Babione (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/20/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

James Andrew Campbell Alliance Defending Freedom − Scottsdale, AZ 15100 N 90th St. Scottsdale, AZ 85260−0001 480−444−0020 Fax: 480−444−0020 Email: jcampbell@alliancedefendingfreedom.org TERMINATED: 10/20/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Jonathan Caleb Dalton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/20/2014

Case: 2:14-cv-24 As of: 10/18/2015 11:50 AM MST 11 of 22

LEAD ATTORNEY

Kathleen Patricia Sweeney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth John Connelly Alliance Defending Freedom − Scottsdale, AZ 15100 N 90th St. Scottsdale, AZ 85260−0001 480−444−0020 Fax: 480−444−0028 Email: kconnelly@alliancedefendingfreedom.org TERMINATED: 10/20/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Robert Lawrence Ellman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Mitchell Allison − Inactive (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/01/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Unknown Parties named as: Does 1−25

represented by Byron Jeffords Babione (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/20/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Jonathan Caleb Dalton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/20/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
Chad Roche Chad Roche, In His Official Capacity As Clerk of the Superior Court of Pinal County, Arizona

represented by Byron Jeffords Babione (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/20/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

James Andrew Campbell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/20/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Jonathan Caleb Dalton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/20/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Kathleen Patricia Sweeney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth John Connelly (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/20/2014

Case: 2:14-cv-24 As of: 10/18/2015 11:50 AM MST 12 of 22

LEAD ATTORNEY

Robert Lawrence Ellman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Mitchell Allison − Inactive (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/01/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Deborah Young Deborah Young, In Her Official Capacity As Clerk of the Superior Court of Coconino County, Arizona

represented by Byron Jeffords Babione (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/20/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

James Andrew Campbell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/20/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Jonathan Caleb Dalton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/20/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Kathleen Patricia Sweeney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth John Connelly (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/20/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Robert Lawrence Ellman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Todd Mitchell Allison − Inactive (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/01/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/06/2014
01/06/2014
01/06/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $400.00, receipt number PHX 0970−9988402 filed by Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Clark Rowley, Holly N Mitchell, David Chaney, Terrel L Pochert, R Mason Hite, IV, Joseph Connolly. (submitted by Shawn Aiken) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(REK) (Entered: 01/06/2014)
2 SUMMONS Submitted by David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, R Mason Hite, IV, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Clark Rowley. (submitted by Shawn Aiken) (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons)(REK) (Entered: 01/06/2014)
3 Filing fee paid, receipt number PHX 0970−9988402. This case has been assigned to the Honorable John W. Sedwick. All future pleadings or documents should bear the

Case: 2:14-cv-24 As of: 10/18/2015 11:50 AM MST 13 of 22

01/06/2014 01/06/2014
01/07/2014 01/07/2014
01/07/2014
01/08/2014 01/27/2014 01/27/2014 01/28/2014 02/10/2014 02/10/2014 02/10/2014 02/10/2014
02/19/2014

correct case number: CV−14−00024−PHX−JWS. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (REK) (Entered: 01/06/2014)
4 Summons Issued as to Janice K Brewer, Thomas C Horne, Michael K Jeanes. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons)(REK). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document. (Entered: 01/06/2014)
5 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 1 Complaint filed by David Chaney, R Mason Hite, IV, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Clark Rowley, Christopher L Devine. Description of deficiency: Document not in compliance with Local Rule 7.1(c): Document should be in PDF format and text searchable. (REK) (Entered: 01/06/2014)
6 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, R Mason Hite, IV, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Clark Rowley: Proof of Service re Complaint, Summons, Civil Cover Sheet upon Janice K. Brewer on 1−7−14. (Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 01/07/2014)
7 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, R Mason Hite, IV, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Clark Rowley: Proof of Service re Complaint, Summons, Civil Cover Sheet upon Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General of Arizona on 1−7−14. (Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 01/07/2014)
8 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, R Mason Hite, IV, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Clark Rowley: Proof of Service re Complaint, Summons, Civil Cover Sheet upon Michael K. Jeanes, Maricopa County Superior Court Clerk on 1−7−14. (Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 01/07/2014)
NOTICE of request for e−notices by J. Christian. (Christian, Jeremy) (Entered: 01/08/2014)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by Kathleen Patricia Sweeney on behalf of Janice K Brewer, Thomas C Horne, Michael K Jeanes. (Sweeney, Kathleen) (Entered: 01/27/2014)
10 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT . (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Sweeney, Kathleen) (Entered: 01/27/2014)
11 ORDER pursuant to 10 Stipulation For Extension of Time To Answer Complaint: All Defendants' answers due by 2/11/14. Plaintiffs' amended complaint due 2/10/14. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 1/28/14. (JWS) (Entered: 01/28/2014)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Ryan J Stevens on behalf of David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, R Mason Hite, IV, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Clark Rowley. (Stevens, Ryan) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
13 NOTICE of Appearance by Mikkel Steen Jordahl on behalf of David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, R Mason Hite, IV, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Clark Rowley. (Jordahl, Mikkel) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
14 NOTICE of Filing Amended Pleading pursuant to LRCiv 15.1(b) by David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, R Mason Hite, IV, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Clark Rowley Plaintiffs' Notice of Filing Amended Complaint. (Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
15 AMENDED COMPLAINT for Permanent Injunction and Declaratory Relief against Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young filed by Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Clark Rowley, R Mason Hite, IV, David Chaney, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Joseph Connolly, Robin Reece, Jeffrey Ferst, Peter Bramley, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz.(Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
16 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin

Case: 2:14-cv-24 As of: 10/18/2015 11:50 AM MST 14 of 22

02/24/2014 03/04/2014
03/11/2014 03/17/2014 03/17/2014 03/24/2014
03/31/2014 03/31/2014 03/31/2014 03/31/2014
04/02/2014

Reece, Clark Rowley: Rule 4 Waiver of Service of Summons. Waiver sent on 2/19/14 to Defendants Chad Roche and Deborah Young . (Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 02/19/2014)
17 Defendants' ANSWER to 15 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand by Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young.(Sweeney, Kathleen) (Entered: 02/24/2014)
18 INITIAL CASE STATUS REPORT / CASE SCHEDULING & PLANNING ORDER. Counsel for all parties must meet within 21 days from service of this order for purposes of jointly completing a scheduling and planning report. Within 28 days from service of this order, counsel for plaintiff shall serve and file the parties' report with the court. In the event the parties to this case are already actively engaged in settlement negotiations, counsel for plaintiff shall so advise the court within seven (7) days following the entry of this order, and shall specify the date by which the parties expect to conclude their settlement negotiations. (JWS) (Entered: 03/04/2014)
19 *NOTICE of Appearance by Shawn Keith Aiken on behalf of Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Aiken, Shawn) *Modified to add attorney Herbert Ely for plaintiffs on 3/12/2014 (ALS). (Entered: 03/11/2014)
20 AMENDED ANSWER to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint by Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young. (Sweeney, Kathleen) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
21 NOTICE of Filing Amended Pleading pursuant to LRCiv 15.1(b) by Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redlined Amended Answer)(Sweeney, Kathleen) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
22 * First MOTION to Consolidate Cases with Connelly et al. v. Roche, No. 2:14−CV−0024 by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, David Larance, Nelda Majors, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Associated Cases: CV−14−00518−PHX−NVW, CV−14−0024−PHX−JWS) (Barr, Daniel) * Modified to correct numbers of associated cases on 3/25/2014 (LAD). (Entered: 03/24/2014)
23 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan Caleb Dalton on behalf of Janice K Brewer, Thomas C Horne, Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Unknown Parties, Deborah Young. (Dalton, Jonathan) (Entered: 03/31/2014)
24 NOTICE of Appearance by Byron Jeffords Babione on behalf of Janice K Brewer, Thomas C Horne, Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Unknown Parties, Deborah Young. (Babione, Byron) (Entered: 03/31/2014)
25 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 03/31/2014)
26 RESPONSE to Motion re: (22 in 2:14−cv−00024−JWS, 22 in 2:14−cv−00024−JWS) First MOTION to Consolidate Cases with Connelly et al. v. Roche, No. 2:14−CV−0024 filed by Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Associated Cases: 2:14−cv−00024−JWS, 2:14−cv−00518−NVW) (Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 03/31/2014)
27 VACATED by (Doc. 31 )− ORDER re: 25 Report − Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. The motion at docket 25 to set a briefing schedule is granted as follows: Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment ("PMSJ") shall be filed by April 21, 2014. Defendants' response to the PMSJ and cross−motion for summary judgment ("DMSJ") shall be filed by May 12, 2014. Plaintiffs' combined reply in support of the PMSJ and response to the DMSJ shall be filed by June 2, 2014. Defendants' reply in support of the DMSJ shall be filed by June 23, 2014.(JWS) Modified on 4/15/2014 (ALS). (Entered: 04/02/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-24 As of: 10/18/2015 11:50 AM MST 15 of 22

04/07/2014 04/09/2014 04/15/2014
04/15/2014 04/21/2014 04/21/2014
04/21/2014
04/21/2014
04/21/2014
04/21/2014

28 NOTICE re: Non−Opposition to Motion to Consolidate by Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young . (Sweeney, Kathleen) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
29 MOTION Modify Briefing Schedule Order re: 27 Order dated April 2, 2014 by Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Motion to Modify)(Sweeney, Kathleen) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
30 ORDER denying (22) Motion to Consolidate Case 2:14−cv−00024−JWS with case 2:14−cv−00518−NVW. However, the court finds that the cases should be before the same judge. Given that the earlier filed case is on the docket of Judge Sedwick, the Clerk will please transfer the CV−14−00518 case from the docket of Judge Wake to the docket of Judge Sedwick. Henceforth, the CV−14−00518 case shall be identified as Case No. 2:14−cv−00518−JWS. (Associated Cases: 2:14−cv−00024−JWS, 2:14−cv−00518−NVW) (LSP) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
31 ORDER granting 29 Motion the Defendants' motion and vacating the Court's April 2, 2014 briefing schedule (Doc. 27 ). The Court hereby adopts the briefing schedule for the parties' cross−motions for summary judgment as set forth in the attached Order. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 4/15/2014. (See attached Order for details)(ALS) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
32 STATEMENT of Facts in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
33 *Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 32 Statement of Facts in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1−7)(Aiken, Shawn) *Main document is duplicate to the entry at (Doc. 32 ); attorney notified on 4/22/2014 (ALS). (Entered: 04/21/2014)
34 *Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 32 Statement of Facts in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 8−15, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 16)(Aiken, Shawn) *Main document is duplicate to the entry at (Doc. 32 ); attorney notified on 4/22/2014 (ALS). (Entered: 04/21/2014)
35 *Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 32 Statement of Facts in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 17−18)(Aiken, Shawn) *Main document is duplicate to the entry at (Doc. 32 ); attorney notified on 4/22/2014 (ALS). (Entered: 04/21/2014)
36 *Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 32 Statement of Facts in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 19−21)(Aiken, Shawn) *Main document is duplicate to the entry at (Doc. 32 ); attorney notified on 4/22/2014 (ALS). (Entered: 04/21/2014)
37 *Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 32 Statement of Facts in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 22)(Aiken, Shawn) *Main document is duplicate to the entry at (Doc. 32 ); attorney notified on 4/22/2014 (ALS). (Entered: 04/21/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-24 As of: 10/18/2015 11:50 AM MST 16 of 22

04/21/2014 04/21/2014 04/21/2014 04/21/2014 04/21/2014 04/21/2014 04/21/2014 04/22/2014 04/29/2014

38 *Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 32 Statement of Facts in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 23−25, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits 26−35, # 3 Exhibit Exhibits 36−42)(Aiken, Shawn) *Main document is duplicate to the entry at (Doc. 32 ); attorney notified on 4/22/2014 (ALS). (Entered: 04/21/2014)
39 *Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 32 Statement of Facts in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 43)(Aiken, Shawn) *Main document is duplicate to the entry at (Doc. 32 ); attorney notified on 4/22/2014 (ALS). (Entered: 04/21/2014)
40 *Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 32 Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 44)(Aiken, Shawn) *Main document is duplicate to the entry at (Doc. 32 ); attorney notified on 4/22/2014 (ALS). (Entered: 04/21/2014)
41 *Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 32 Statement of Facts in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 45−49)(Aiken, Shawn) *Main document is duplicate to the entry at (Doc. 32 ); attorney notified on 4/22/2014 (ALS). (Entered: 04/21/2014)
42 *Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 32 Statement of Facts in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 50−63)(Aiken, Shawn) *Main document is duplicate to the entry at (Doc. 32 ); attorney notified on 4/22/2014 (ALS). (Entered: 04/21/2014)
43 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Overlength Brief Re:Motion for Summary Judgment by Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
44 *(Filed at Doc. 47 )−−LODGED Proposed Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment Memorandum of Law re: 43 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Overlength Brief Re:Motion for Summary Judgment . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Aiken, Shawn) Modified on 4/29/2014 (LSP). (Entered: 04/21/2014)
45 Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 43 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Overlength Brief Re:Motion for Summary Judgment Proposed Order by Plaintiffs Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 04/22/2014)
46 JUDGE SEDWICK TEXT ORDER re 43 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The motion at docket 43 is GRANTED. [COUNSEL ARE REMINDED THAT A COPY OF ALL PROPOSED ORDERS ARE TO BE PROVIDED TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE IN WORD OR WORD PERFECT FORMAT.] This is a TEXT ENTRY

Case: 2:14-cv-24 As of: 10/18/2015 11:50 AM MST 17 of 22

04/29/2014 06/10/2014 06/10/2014 06/10/2014 06/10/2014
06/10/2014
06/10/2014
06/10/2014 06/10/2014 06/11/2014 06/11/2014 06/11/2014 06/11/2014 06/16/2014 06/16/2014

ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (JWS) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
47 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (LSP) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
48 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs' Nominal−Damages Claim by Janice K Brewer, Thomas C Horne, Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting 12(c) Motion)(Sweeney, Kathleen) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
49 NOTICE of Appearance by James Andrew Campbell on behalf of Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young. (Campbell, James) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
50 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth John Connelly on behalf of Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young. (Connelly, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
51 MOTION for Leave to File Overlength Memorandum of Law in Support of Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment with Consolidated Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion For Summary Judgment by Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Babione, Byron) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
52 *(Filed at Doc. 58 and 59 )−−LODGED Proposed Defendants' Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law in Support with Consolidated Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment re: 51 MOTION for Leave to File Overlength Memorandum of Law in Support of Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment with Consolidated Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion For Summary Judgment . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young. (Babione, Byron) Modified on 6/11/2014 (LSP). (Entered: 06/10/2014)
53 STATEMENT of Facts in Support of Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−10, # 2 Exhibit 11−26, # 3 Exhibit 27−36, # 4 Exhibit 37−45, # 5 Exhibit 46−52, # 6 Exhibit 53−60, # 7 Exhibit 61−66, # 8 Exhibit 67−71)(Babione, Byron) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
54 STATEMENT of Controverting Statement of Facts in Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young. (Babione, Byron) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
55 MOTION for Leave to File Non−Electronic Exhibits by Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Babione, Byron) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
56 ORDER granting 55 Motion for Leave to Non−Electronically file two exhibits. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 6/11/14.(JWS) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
57 ORDER granting 51 Defendants' Motion for Leave to File. The Clerk's Office shall electronically file the Memorandum of Law. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 6/11/14.(LSP) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
58 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment by Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young. Note: Filed as one document with Response to 47 Motion for Summary Judgment. (LSP) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
59 RESPONSE to Motion re: 47 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young. NOTE: Filed as one document with 58 Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. (LSP) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
60 NOTICE re: Filing Non−Electronic Documents by Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young . (Babione, Byron) (Entered: 06/16/2014)
Two DVDs − House Third Reading Calendar and Senate Committee of the Whole and Final Reading received and stored in the Phoenix file room. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (CAD) (Entered:

Case: 2:14-cv-24 As of: 10/18/2015 11:50 AM MST 18 of 22

06/27/2014 06/30/2014 06/30/2014 06/30/2014 06/30/2014 06/30/2014
07/01/2014 07/01/2014 07/01/2014 07/01/2014

06/17/2014)
61 RESPONSE to Motion re: 48 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs' Nominal−Damages Claim filed by Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
62 *RESPONSE to Defendants' Statement of Facts in Support of Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment re: 53 Statement by Plaintiffs Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Aiken, Shawn) *Modified event type on 7/1/2014 (ALS). (Entered: 06/30/2014)
63 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Non−Electronically File One Exhibit by Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
64 Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 63 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Non−Electronically File One Exhibit [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Non−Electronically File One Exhibit by Plaintiffs Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
65 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Overlength Brief Re: Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment −And− Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
66 FILED as Doc. 70 LODGED Proposed Document: RESPONSE to Motion re: 58 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 65 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Overlength Brief Re: Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment −And− Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgmen, 47 MOTION for Summary Judgment [Proposed] Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment −and− Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Aiken, Shawn) *Modified event type on 7/1/2014 (ALS). Modified on 7/23/2014 (LFIG). (Entered: 06/30/2014)
67 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 63 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Non−Electronically File One Exhibit filed by Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young. (Dalton, Jonathan) (Entered: 07/01/2014)
68 VACATED by (Doc. 71 )− ORDER granting 63 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Non−electronically File One Exhibit. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 7/1/2014.(ALS) Modified on 7/2/2014 (ALS). (Entered: 07/01/2014)
69 ORDER that the Plaintiffs' 65 request to file their overlength Response in Opposition to Defendants Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply in Support of Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 7/1/2014.(ALS) (Entered: 07/01/2014)
70 RESPONSE to 58 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment; REPLY in Support of 47 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece. (ALS) (Entered: 07/01/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-24 As of: 10/18/2015 11:50 AM MST 19 of 22

07/02/2014 07/03/2014 07/07/2014
07/09/2014
07/10/2014 07/11/2014 07/21/2014 07/21/2014
07/23/2014 07/23/2014 07/29/2014
07/30/2014 08/01/2014 10/07/2014

71 ORDER from Chambers of the Honorable John W. Sedwick: The order 68 is hereby VACATED as improvidently entered. Plaintiffs shall either withdraw the motion 63 or file a reply to the Defendants' opposition 67 on or before July 9, 2014. (ALS) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
72 STIPULATION for Extension of Time for Defendants' Reply in Support of Their Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs' Nominal Damages Claim by Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Extension)(Sweeney, Kathleen) (Entered: 07/03/2014)
73 ORDER Granting Extension of Time: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the 72 Stipulation and extending the time for Chad Roche, the Clerk of the Superior Court of Pinal County; Michael K. Jeanes, the Clerk of the Superior Court of Maricopa County; and Deborah Young, the Clerk of the Superior Court of Coconino County, to file a reply in support of their Rule 12(c) Motion 48 until July 11, 2014. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 7/7/2014. (ALS) (Entered: 07/07/2014)
74 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 63 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Non−Electronically File One Exhibit (Doc. 67) filed by Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
75 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS − the 63 Motion for Leave to File Non−Electronically File One Exhibit is DENIED. (KMG) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
76 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 48 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs' Nominal−Damages Claim filed by Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young. (Sweeney, Kathleen) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
77 MOTION for Leave to File Overlength Reply in Support of Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment by Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Babione, Byron) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
78 FILED as Doc. 80 LODGED Proposed Defendants' Reply in Support of Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment re: 77 MOTION for Leave to File Overlength Reply in Support of Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young. (Babione, Byron) Modified on 7/23/2014 (LFIG). (Entered: 07/21/2014)
79 ORDER that Defendants' 77 Motion to File Excess Pages is GRANTED. The Clerk's Office shall electronically file the Reply that Defendants have lodged with the Court. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 7/23/2014.(LFIG) (Entered: 07/23/2014)
80 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 58 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young. (LFIG) (Entered: 07/23/2014)
81 NOTICE re: Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority by Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley re: 70 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A: Bostic Opinion)(Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 07/29/2014)
82 ORDER: the 48 motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim for nominal damages is GRANTED. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 7/29/2014. (See Order for details)(ALS) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
83 *NOTICE of Attorney Withdrawal of Todd Allison filed by Kathleen Patricia Sweeney. (Sweeney, Kathleen) *Modified to terminate attorney Todd Allison on 8/1/2014 (ALS). (Entered: 08/01/2014)
84 NOTICE re: (Second) of Supplemental Authority by Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Opinion in Latta v.

Case: 2:14-cv-24 As of: 10/18/2015 11:50 AM MST 20 of 22

10/09/2014
10/15/2014 10/16/2014 10/17/2014
10/17/2014 10/24/2014
10/27/2014 10/27/2014 11/17/2014 11/18/2014 11/25/2014

Otter)(Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
85 JUDGE SEDWICK TEXT ORDER re: 47 MOTION for Summary Judgment AND 58 MOTION for Summary Judgment. The court has read the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Latta, et al. v. Otter, el al., Ninth Circuit Case No. 14−35420 filed October 7, 2014. It appears that the Latta decision controls the outcome of the cross−motions for summary judgment at dockets 47 and 58 in this case. Latta appears to require that the motion at docket 47 be granted, and the motion at docket 58 be denied. The court invites the parties each to submit a supplemental brief discussing how the Latta decision applies to the motions at dockets 47 and 58. The supplemental briefs should be filed not more than 7 days from the date of this order. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (JWS) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
86 SUPPLEMENT Plaintiffs' Brief Re Application of Latta v. Otter re: 85 Order, Set Deadlines by Plaintiffs Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
87 SUPPLEMENT Brief Addressing Applicability of Ninth Circuit's Latta v. Otter Decision by Defendants Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young. (Sweeney, Kathleen) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
88 ORDER AND OPINION granting 47 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. This court hereby declares Article 30, Section 1, of the Arizona Constitution; A.R.S § 25−101 and A.R.S. § 25−125(A) unconstitutional by virtue of the fact that they deny same−sex couples the equal protection of the law. It is further ordered that defendants are hereby ordered to permanently cease enforcement of those provisions of Arizona law declared unconstitutional by this order. Finally, this court declines to stay the effect of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot 58 Defendants' Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 10/16/14.(LSP) (Entered: 10/17/2014)
89 CLERK'S JUDGMENT it is ordered and adjudged that pursuant to the Court's Order filed October 17, 2014, judgment is entered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants. This action is hereby terminated. (LSP) (Entered: 10/17/2014)
90 STIPULATION re: 88 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment Stipulation to Extend Time to File A Motion For Attorneys' Fees and Bill of Costs by Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order Extending Time for Filing Moton For Attorneys' Fees and Costs)(Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
91 ORDER granting 90 Stipulation: Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and a bill of costs should be filed on or before December 1, 2014. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 10/27/14. (LSP) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
92 *NOTICE of Attorney Withdrawal Babione, Campbell, Connelly, Dalton filed by Kathleen Patricia Sweeney. (Sweeney, Kathleen) *Modified to terminate attorneys Babione, Campbell, Connelly and Dalton as to defendants on 10/28/2014 (ALS). (Entered: 10/27/2014)
93 *NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals re: 88 Order and Opinion, 89 Clerks Judgment by Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young. Filing fee received: $ 505.00, receipt number 0970−11073997. (Sweeney, Kathleen) *Modified to create reference to related document on 11/18/2014 (ALS). (Entered: 11/17/2014)
94 USCA Case Number re: 93 Notice of Appeal. Ninth Circuit Case Number 14−17274. (Copies sent by Ninth Circuit) (LFIG) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
95 STIPULATION Second Stipulation to Extend Time to File a Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Bill of Costs by Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark

Case: 2:14-cv-24 As of: 10/18/2015 11:50 AM MST 21 of 22

12/01/2014 07/23/2015 07/23/2015 07/23/2015
07/23/2015
07/29/2015 07/30/2015 08/10/2015 09/08/2015 09/08/2015 09/09/2015 09/28/2015

Rowley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
96 ORDER pursuant to 95 Stipulation : Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and a bill of costs may be filed thirty days after this Court's judgment becomes final, following the appeal in this case. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 12/1/2014. (ALS) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
97 MOTION for Attorney Fees Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Related Non−Taxable Expenses by Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 07/23/2015)
98 BILL OF COSTS by Plaintiffs by Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 07/23/2015)
99 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Related Non−Taxable Costs 97 MOTION for Attorney Fees Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Related Non−Taxable Expenses by Plaintiffs Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A−C and 1−7, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits 8−12)(Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 07/23/2015)
100 * Proposed Order re 97 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Aiken, Shawn) * Modified to correct event; attorney noticed on 7/24/2015 (LAD). (Entered: 07/23/2015)
101 STIPULATION re: 97 MOTION for Attorney Fees Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Related Non−Taxable Expenses by Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Time)(Ellman, Robert) (Entered: 07/29/2015)
102 ORDER pursuant to 101 Stipulation re: 97 MOTION for Attorney Fees Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Related Non−Taxable Expenses. Responses due September 7, 2015. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 7/30/15. (JWS) (Entered: 07/30/2015)
103 Taxation Judgment in amount of $400.00 against defendants. Signed by Chief Deputy Clerk Michael O'Brien on 8/10/15. (CSL) (Entered: 08/10/2015)
104 *STIPULATION for Thirty−Day Extension of Time for Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' 97 Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Related Non−Taxable Expenses by Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order proposed Order)(Sweeney, Kathleen) *Modified to add document linkage on 9/9/2015 (ATD). (Entered: 09/08/2015)
105 ORDER pursuant to 104 Stipulation re: 97 MOTION for Attorneys' Fees. Defendants response to the motion at docket 97 is due October 7, 2015.. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 9/8/15. (JWS) (Entered: 09/08/2015)
106 MANDATE of USCA, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, this appeal is voluntarily dismissed; the parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys' fees on appeal, re: 93 Notice of Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 NDA) (copies sent by the Ninth Circuit)(REW) (Entered: 09/09/2015)
107 STIPULATION for Entry of Judgment for Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Related Nontaxable Expenses by Michael K Jeanes, Chad Roche, Deborah Young. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Judgment)(Sweeney, Kathleen) (Entered: 09/28/2015)

Case: 2:14-cv-24 As of: 10/18/2015 11:50 AM MST 22 of 22

09/30/2015

108 JUDGMENT on Attorney Fees and ORDER granting 97 Joint Stipulation for Entry of Judgment for Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Related Nontaxable Expenses. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants in the amount of $200,000 and that postjudgment interest on the $200,000 amount shall accrue at the current statutory rate beginning thirty days after this Court enters its Judgment for that amount if the amount has not been paid in full by that date. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 9/29/15. (LSP) (Entered: 09/30/2015)