Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 1 Filed 07/16/13 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

Jonathan P. Robicheaux Plaintiff/Petitioner
v.

Eastern District of Louisiana Civil Action No. 13-CV-05090

James D. Caldwell in his official capacity as the Louisiana Attorney General Defendant/Respondent

COMPLAINT
NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes JONATHAN P. ROBICHEAUX, a person of full age and majority who is a resident of Orleans Parish and respectfully represents:
1. Made defendant herein is James D. Caldwell in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Louisiana.
2. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana because an Orleans Parish resident is seeking to have a provision of the Louisiana Constitution and an article of the Louisiana Civil Code declared unconstitutional as violating his rights as an American Citizen confirmed and preserved under the Constitution of the United States.
3. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this suit because it is a constitutional challenge invoking the Full Faith and Credit and Supremacy Clauses of the Constitution of the United States.

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 1 Filed 07/16/13 Page 2 of 6
4.
Defendant, James D. Caldwell is the Attorney General for the State of Louisiana.
5.
Notice requirements under Federal Rule 5.1 have been met in this constitutionality
challenge by serving the Louisiana Attorney General and making him the named defendant in his
official capacity.
6.
On September 18, 2004 by popular vote, an amendment was made to the Louisiana
Constitution that reads as follows:
Section 15. Marriage in the state of Louisiana shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall construe this constitution or any state law to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any member of a union other than the union of one man and one woman. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall recognize any marriage contracted in any other jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman.
7.
Article 3520 of the Louisiana Civil Code reads as follows:
Art. 3520. Marriage
A. A marriage that is valid in the state where contracted, or in the state where the parties were first domiciled as husband and wife, shall be treated as a valid marriage unless to do so would violate a strong public policy of the state whose law is applicable to the particular issue under Article 3519.
B. A purported marriage between persons of the same sex violates a strong public policy of the state of Louisiana and such a marriage contracted in another state shall not be recognized in this state for any purpose, including the assertion of any right or claim as a result of the purported marriage.
Petition for Provisions to be Declared Unconstitutional Robicheaux v. Caldwell Page 2

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 1 Filed 07/16/13 Page 3 of 6
Acts 1991, No. 923, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1992; Acts 1999, No. 890, §1. 8.
Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
9. 28 USC § 1738 reads: The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto. The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form. Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.
10. Your Petitioner, Jonathan P. Robicheaux, a man, legally married Derek D. Penton, a man, in Clayton County, Iowa on September 23, 2012. A copy of the marriage certificate is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Petition for Provisions to be Declared Unconstitutional Robicheaux v. Caldwell Page 3

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 1 Filed 07/16/13 Page 4 of 6
11. The officials and courts of Louisiana are barred from recognizing Jon Robicheaux’ marriage to Derek Penton by Section 15 of the Louisiana Constitution and Louisiana Civil Code article 3520.
12. Jon Robicheaux cannot file a joint tax return with Derek Penton.
13. If Derek Penton dies in Louisiana before Jon Robicheaux, Jon Robicheaux will not be entitled to receive the benefits or protections of receiving parts of Derek Penton’s estate provided to surviving spouses who are the widow or widower of a two-sex marriage whether they are married in Louisiana or another state, territory, province or country.
14. If there become any irreconcilable differences such that Jon Robicheaux desires to divorce Derek Penton, Jon Robicheaux is barred from filing a Petition for Divorce in Louisiana.
15. Any couple that is made up of two United States Citizens who have properly observed a state’s requirements to become married and have been issued a marriage certificate therefore have a right under the United States Constitution to have the marriage recognized by all states in which the couple decides to live.
16. Louisiana’s failure to recognize and give full faith and credit to Iowa’s marriage certificate violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.
Petition for Provisions to be Declared Unconstitutional Robicheaux v. Caldwell Page 4

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 1 Filed 07/16/13 Page 5 of 6
17.
As stated by Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316:
This Government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle that it can exercise only the powers granted to it would seem too apparent to have required to be enforced by all those arguments which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted. But the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise so long as our system shall exist. In discussing these questions, the conflicting powers of the General and State Governments must be brought into view, and the supremacy of their respective laws, when they are in opposition, must be settled.
If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect it would be this -- that the Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action. This would seem to result necessarily from its nature. It is the Government of all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all, and acts for all. Though any one State may be willing to control its operations, no State is willing to allow others to control them. The nation, on those subjects on which it can act, must necessarily bind its component parts. But this question is not left to mere reason; the people have, in express terms, decided it by saying, [p406] "this Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof," "shall be the supreme law of the land," and by requiring that the members of the State legislatures and the officers of the executive and judicial departments of the States shall take the oath of fidelity to it. The Government of the United States, then, though limited in its powers, is supreme, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land, "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that after all legal delays and due proceedings are had
there be judgment, finding that Section 15 of the Louisiana Constitution and Louisiana Civil
Code article 3520 unconstitutional, directing those provisions abrogated and ordering the courts
and officials of the State of Louisiana to give full faith and credit to all marriage certificates
Petition for Provisions to be Declared Unconstitutional Robicheaux v. Caldwell Page 5

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 1 Filed 07/16/13 Page 6 of 6 legally issued in any of the several states or countries with which the United States has a treaty requiring such full faith and credit.
Respectfully submitted: SCOTT J. SPIVEY (#25257) 815 Dauphine St, Ste D New Orleans, LA 70116 (504) 684-4904 (office phone) (888) 502-3935 (office fax)
Scott@SpiveyESQ.com Attorney for Plaintiff, Jon Robicheaux
Petition for Provisions to be Declared Unconstitutional Robicheaux v. Caldwell Page 6

 
 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 10 Filed 08/09/13 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

Jonathan P. Robicheaux Plaintiff/Petitioner
v.

Eastern District of Louisiana Civil Action No. 13-CV-05090

James D. Caldwell in his official capacity as the Louisiana Attorney General Defendant/Respondent

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DELARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes JONATHAN P. ROBICHEAUX, a person of full age and majority who is a resident of Orleans Parish, residing in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana’s district, and respectfully represents:
THE PARTIES 1.
Made defendant herein is James D. Caldwell in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Louisiana, thereby meeting notice requirements under Federal Rule 5.1 for this constitutionality challenge.
2. The Plaintiff, Jon Robicheaux, is a man residing in Louisiana who was legally married to his Husband, Derek Robicheaux in Clayton County, Iowa on September 23, 2012 after having been in a committed relationship together since 2005 commingling funds, living together and holding themselves out as monogamous partners that are living together as one union.

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 10 Filed 08/09/13 Page 2 of 17
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3.
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because the suit raises federal questions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the United States Constitution, including without limitation the Fourteenth Amendment.
4. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the Defendant performs his official duties in this district.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 5.
The State of Louisiana prevents any official or court of the State of Louisiana from recognizing a valid marriage from another State or Country that is between a same-sex couple, thus depriving a legally married same-sex couple from securing any benefits of marriage within the State of Louisiana and stripping them of any rights to which a same-sex couple was vested prior to residing in the State of Louisiana.
The State Laws at Issue 6.
On September 18, 2004 by popular vote, an amendment was made to the Louisiana Constitution that reads as follows:
Section 15. Marriage in the state of Louisiana shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall construe this constitution or any state law to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any member of a union other than the union of one man and one woman. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized. No official
Amended Complaint - Robicheaux v. Caldwell Page 2

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 10 Filed 08/09/13 Page 3 of 17
or court of the state of Louisiana shall recognize any marriage contracted in any other jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman.
7. Article 3520 of the Louisiana Civil Code reads as follows: Art. 3520. Marriage A. A marriage that is valid in the state where contracted, or in the state where the parties were first domiciled as husband and wife, shall be treated as a valid marriage unless to do so would violate a strong public policy of the state whose law is applicable to the particular issue under Article 3519. B. A purported marriage between persons of the same sex violates a strong public policy of the state of Louisiana and such a marriage contracted in another state shall not be recognized in this state for any purpose, including the assertion of any right or claim as a result of the purported marriage. Acts 1991, No. 923, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1992; Acts 1999, No. 890, §1.
Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Couples Are Similarly Situated for Purposes of Marriage Benefits
8. The United State Supreme Court has called marriage “the most important relation in life,” Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374,384 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted), and an “expression of emotional support and public commitment.” Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987). It is "a far-reaching legal acknowledgement of the intimate relationship between two people...." United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307, Slip Op., at 20 (U.S. June 26, 2013). This is as true for same-sex couples as it is for opposite-sex couples.
9. Same-sex couples such as Plaintiff and his Husband are identical to opposite-sex couples in all of the characteristics relevant to marriage.
Amended Complaint - Robicheaux v. Caldwell Page 3

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 10 Filed 08/09/13 Page 4 of 17
10. Same-sex couples make the same commitment to one another as opposite-sex couples. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples build their lives together, plan their futures together and hope to grow old together. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples support one another emotionally and financially and take care of one another physically when faced with injury or illness
11. Same-sex couples who marry are just as willing and able as opposite-sex couples to assume the obligations of marriage.
12. The Plaintiff and his Husband and other same-sex couples in Louisiana, if their marriages in other states in which marriage is legal were recognized, would benefit no less than oppositesex couples from the many legal protections and the social recognition afforded to married couples.
13. There was a time when an individual's sex was relevant to his or her legal rights and duties within the marital relationship. For example, husbands had a duty to support their wives but not vice versa and husbands had legal ownership of all property belonging to their wives. But these legal distinctions have all been removed such that the legal rights and duties of husbands and wives are now identical.
Amended Complaint - Robicheaux v. Caldwell Page 4

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 10 Filed 08/09/13 Page 5 of 17
14. The exclusion from marriage undermines the Plaintiff’s ability to achieve the life goals and dreams with his Husband, Derek Penton; threatens their mutual economic stability; and denies them "a dignity and status of immense import." United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307, Slip Op., at 18 (U.S. June 26, 2013). The Exclusion of Same-Sex Couples from the Recognition of Marriage and the Benefits of Marriage Causes Substantial Harm to Couple and Their Families
15. By refusing to recognize same-sex marriage marriages from others states, the State’s laws deprive same-sex couples married in other states of numerous legal protections that are available to opposite-sex couples in Louisiana by virtue of their marriages. By way of example only: The State provides that a living spouse is entitled to benefits upon the death of his or her spouse should the decedent die intestate. Louisiana Civil Code Art. 890. There is no protection for the widow or widower for same-sex spouses married in another State in which they were legally and properly married.
16. Same-sex married couples are excluded from this and many other legal protections provided for married couples under Louisiana law.
17. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage also denies them eligibility for numerous federal protections afforded to married couples including in the areas of immigration and citizenship, taxes, and social security. Some of the federal protections for married couples are only available to couples if their marriages are legally recognized in the state in which they
Amended Complaint - Robicheaux v. Caldwell Page 5

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 10 Filed 08/09/13 Page 6 of 17
live. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(1)(A)(i) (marriage for eligibility for social security benefits based on law of state where couple resides at time of application); 29 C.F.R. § 825.122(b) (same for Family Medical Leave Act). Thus, even Plaintiff and his Husband, who are already married, cannot access such federal protections as long as Louisiana refuses to recognize their existing marriage.
18. The exclusion from marriage also harms same-sex couples and their families in less tangible ways.
19. Although the Plaintiff is in a long-term committed relationship, he, his Husband and other same-sex couples are denied the stabilizing effects of marriage, which helps keep couples together during times of crisis or conflict.
20. Excluding same-sex married couples from recognizing their marriages also harms couples and their children by denying them the social recognition that comes with marriage. Marriage has profound social significance both for the couple that gets married and the family, friends and community that surround them. The terms "married" and "spouse" have universally understood meanings that command respect for a couple's relationship and the commitment they have made.
Amended Complaint - Robicheaux v. Caldwell Page 6

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 10 Filed 08/09/13 Page 7 of 17
21. The exclusion from the esteemed institution of marriage also demeans and stigmatizes lesbian and gay couples and their children by sending the message that they are less worthy and valued than families headed by opposite-sex couples.
22. The impact of the exclusion from marriage on same-sex couples and their families is extensive and real. The denial of the right to marry causes these couples and their families to suffer significant emotional, physical, and economic hardships.
23. The plaintiff recognizes that marriage entails both benefits to and obligations on the partners and welcomes both. Excluding Same-Sex Couples from the Recognition and Benefits of Marriage Is Not
Rationally Related to a Legitimate Government Interest Let Alone Able to Withstand Heightened Scrutiny 24.
As the evidence will show, the prohibition against recognition of marriage for same-sex couples in Louisiana is not closely tailored to serve an important government interest or substantially related to an exceedingly persuasive justification. In fact, as the evidence also will show, the prohibition fails any level of constitutional scrutiny. It is not even rationally related to any legitimate justifications that were offered in support of it when the Constitution was amended in 2004 or to any legitimate interest of the State that Defendants might now offer as a basis for denying same-sex married couples recognition in Louisiana.
Amended Complaint - Robicheaux v. Caldwell Page 7

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 10 Filed 08/09/13 Page 8 of 17
25. The Supreme Court has made clear that the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give effect to private biases and has expressly rejected moral disapproval of marriage for same-sex couples as a legitimate basis for discriminatory treatment of lesbian and gay couples. Windsor, Slip Op., at 21 (an "interest in protecting traditional moral teachings reflected in heterosexual-only marriage laws" was not a legitimate justification for federal Defense of Marriage Act). The State of Louisiana Is Not Entitled to Ignore the Constitution of the United States
by Amending its Constitution and Enacting Laws to Enshrine Its Prejudices That Have No Legitimate State Interest 26.
As stated by Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316: This Government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle that it can exercise only the powers granted to it would seem too apparent to have required to be enforced by all those arguments which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted. But the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise so long as our system shall exist. In discussing these questions, the conflicting powers of the General and State Governments must be brought into view, and the supremacy of their respective laws, when they are in opposition, must be settled. If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect it would be this -- that the Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action. This would seem to result necessarily from its nature. It is the Government of all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all, and acts for all. Though any one State may be willing to control its operations, no State is willing to allow others to control them. The nation, on those subjects on which it can act, must necessarily bind its component parts. But this question is not left to mere reason; the people have, in express terms, decided it by saying, [p406] "this Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof," "shall be the supreme law of the land," and by requiring that the members of the State legislatures and the officers of the executive and judicial departments of the States shall take the oath
Amended Complaint - Robicheaux v. Caldwell Page 8

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 10 Filed 08/09/13 Page 9 of 17
of fidelity to it. The Government of the United States, then, though limited in its powers, is supreme, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land, "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I:
Deprivation of the Fundamental Right to Marry in Violation of the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 27.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
28. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution precludes any State from "depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Governmental interference with a fundamental right may be sustained only upon a showing that the legislation is closely tailored to serve an important governmental interest.
29. The Supreme Court has long recognized that marriage is a fundamental right and that choices about marriage, like choices about other aspects of family, are a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
Amended Complaint - Robicheaux v. Caldwell Page 9

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 10 Filed 08/09/13 Page 10 of 17
30. Louisiana law denies the Plaintiff and other individuals in same-sex marriages this fundamental right by denying them access to the state-recognized institution of marriage and refusing to recognize the marriages they entered into in other states and countries.
31. The State can demonstrate no important interest to justify denying the Plaintiff this fundamental right. Indeed, it cannot demonstrate that the denial is tailored to any legitimate interest at all.
32. The State's refusal to recognize marriages entered into by same-sex couples in other jurisdictions and prohibition for the courts and officials of the State from doing so violates the Due Process Clause.
33. The Defendant, acting under color of state law, is depriving Plaintiffs of rights secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
COUNT II: Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation in
Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
(42 U.S.C. § 1983) 34.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
Amended Complaint - Robicheaux v. Caldwell Page 10

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 10 Filed 08/09/13 Page 11 of 17
35. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "no State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. Const. amend. XIV,§ 1.
36. By denying the Plaintiff and his Husband and other lesbian and gay couples the ability have their out-of-state marriages recognized, the State, through Defendant, disadvantages lesbian and gay people on the basis of their sexual orientation. It denies them significant legal protections. And it "degrade[s] [and] demean[s]" them by "instruct[ing] ...all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children," that their relationship is "less worthy" than the relationships of others. Windsor, Slip Op., at 25.
37. Same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are similarly situated for purposes of marriage.
38. The evidence will show that classifications based on sexual orientation demand heightened scrutiny.
39. Lesbians and gay men are members of a discrete and insular minority that has suffered a history of discrimination in the State and across the United States.
Amended Complaint - Robicheaux v. Caldwell Page 11

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 10 Filed 08/09/13 Page 12 of 17
40. Sexual orientation bears no relation to an individual's ability to perform or contribute to society.
41. Sexual orientation is a core, defining trait that is so fundamental to one's identity that a person may not legitimately be required to abandon it (even if that were possible) as a condition of equal treatment. Sexual orientation generally is fixed at an early age and highly resistant to change through intervention. Efforts to change a person's sexual orientation through interventions by medical professionals have not been shown to be effective. No mainstream mental health professional organization approves interventions that attempt to change sexual orientation, and many —including the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association —have adopted policy statements cautioning professionals and the public about these treatments.
42. Prejudice against lesbians and gay men continues to seriously curtail the operation of the political process preventing this group from obtaining redress through legislative means. Lesbians and gay men lack statutory protection against discrimination in employment, public accommodations, and housing at the federal level and in more than half of the states, including Louisiana. Lesbians and gay men have far fewer civil rights protections at the state and federal level than women and racial minorities had when sex and race classifications-were declared to be suspect or quasi suspect.
43.
Amended Complaint - Robicheaux v. Caldwell Page 12

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 10 Filed 08/09/13 Page 13 of 17
For all these reasons, classification based on sexual orientation should be reviewed under heightened scrutiny, but this one cannot survive under any level of constitutional scrutiny The State's exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is not rationally related to any legitimate governmental interest. All it does it disparage and injure lesbian and gay couples and their children.
44. The State's prohibition of marriage for same-sex couples and its refusal to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples entered into elsewhere violates the Equal Protection Clause.
45. Defendants, acting under color of state law, are depriving Plaintiffs of rights secured by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
COUNT III: Discrimination on the Basis of Sex in Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
(42 U.S.C. § 1983) 46.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
47. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "no State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
Amended Complaint - Robicheaux v. Caldwell Page 13

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 10 Filed 08/09/13 Page 14 of 17
48. State law defines marriage as ". . . the union of one man and one woman” and “No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall recognize any marriage contracted in any other jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman.” Section 15 of the Louisiana Constitution.
49. By defining marriage in this way, the State discriminates on the basis of sex. The only reason that the legal marriage is prohibited is the sex of the partners.
50. The marriage of Plaintiff and his Husband, for example, is denied recognition solely because they are both men.
51. The Supreme Court has made clear that perpetuation of traditional gender roles is not a legitimate government interest.
52. Given that there are no longer legal distinctions between the duties of husbands and wives, there is no basis for the sex-based eligibility requirements for the recognition of a legal marriage performed in another state.
53. The Defendants can demonstrate no exceedingly persuasive justification for this discrimination based on sex.
Amended Complaint - Robicheaux v. Caldwell Page 14

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 10 Filed 08/09/13 Page 15 of 17
54. State law prohibiting marriage and recognition of marriage for same-sex couples thus violates the Equal Protection Clause.
55. Defendants, acting under color of state law, are depriving Plaintiffs of rights secured by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT IV:
Deprivation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution 56.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
57. Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
58. 28 USC § 1738 reads: The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto. The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within
Amended Complaint - Robicheaux v. Caldwell Page 15

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 10 Filed 08/09/13 Page 16 of 17
the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form. Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.
59. State law defines marriage as ". . . the union of one man and one woman” and “No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall recognize any marriage contracted in any other jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman.” Section 15 of the Louisiana Constitution.
60. By prohibiting the courts and officials of the State of Louisiana from recognizing marriage contracted in another state, the State is violating the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
1. Enter a declaratory judgment that Section 18 of the Louisiana Constitution and Louisiana Civil Code Article 3520 B (1) violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
2. Enter a declaratory judgment that Section 18 of the Louisiana Constitution and Louisiana Civil Code Article 3520 B (1) violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
Amended Complaint - Robicheaux v. Caldwell Page 16

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 10 Filed 08/09/13 Page 17 of 17 3. Enter a declaratory judgment that Section 18 of the Louisiana Constitution and Louisiana
Civil Code Article 3520 B (1) violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. 4. Enter a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from denying the Plaintiff and his Husband and all other same-sex couples the benefits of marriage and to recognize marriages validly entered into by the Plaintiff and his Husband and other same-sex couples outside of the State of Louisiana; 5. Award costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and 6. Enter all further relief to which Plaintiffs may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted: SCOTT J. SPIVEY (#25257) 815 Dauphine St, Ste D New Orleans, LA 70116 (504) 684-4904 (office phone) (888) 502-3935 (office fax)
Scott@SpiveyESQ.com Attorney for Plaintiff, Jon Robicheaux
Amended Complaint - Robicheaux v. Caldwell Page 17

 
 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 1 of 32

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JONATHAN P. ROBICHEAUX, ET AL. v.
JAMES D. CALDWELL, LOUISIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 13-5090 C/W NO. 14-97 & NO. 14-327
SECTION "F"

ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court are cross motions for summary judgment. The Court finds that defendants in this passionately charged national issue have the more persuasive argument. The State of Louisiana has a legitimate interest under a rational basis standard of review for addressing the meaning of marriage through the democratic process. For the reasons that follow, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is DENIED and defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
Background These consolidated cases challenge the constitutionality of Louisiana's ban on same-sex marriage and its choice not to recognize same-sex marriages that are lawful in other states. Plaintiffs include six same-sex couples who live in Louisiana and are validly married under the law of another state, one same-sex couple who seeks the right to marry in Louisiana, and the Forum for

1

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 2 of 32

Equality Louisiana, Inc., a nonprofit advocacy organization. Plaintiffs allege that Article XII, Section 15 of the Louisiana Constitution,1 which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and article 3520(B) of the Louisiana Civil Code, 2 which denies recognition of same-sex marriages contracted in other states as being against Louisiana's strong public policy, violate their constitutional rights to Equal Protection and Due Process. 3 They

1

Marriage in the state of Louisiana shall consist

only of the union of one man and one woman. No

official or court of the state of Louisiana shall

construe this constitution or any state law to

require that marriage or the legal incidents

thereof be conferred upon any member of any union

other than the union of one man and one woman. A

legal status identical to or substantially similar

to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall

not be valid or recognized. No official or court

of the state of Loui siana shall recognize any

marriage contracted in any other jurisdiction which

is not the union of one man and one woman.

La. Const. art. 12, § 15.

2

A purported marriage between persons of the same

sex violates a strong public policy of the state of

Louisiana and such a marriage contracted in another

state shall not be recognized in this state for any

purpose, including the assertion of any right or

claim as a result of the purported marriage.

La. Civ. Code art. 3520(B).
3 Plaintiffs in Case Number 14-97 challenge Article XII, Section 15 of the Louisiana Constitution and Louisiana Civil Code article 3520(B). In their prayer for relief in their complaint, those plaintiffs mistakenly refer to Code article 3520(B)(1), which does not exist, and to Article XII, Section 18 of the Constitution, but elsewhere in the complaint make clear that they mean Section 15. Plaintiffs in Case Number 14-327 challenge "Article XII, Section 15 of the Louisiana Constitution, Article 3520(B) of the

2

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 3 of 32
also urge that the Louisiana Department of Revenue Information
Bulletin No. 13-024, 4 which requires same-sex couples lawfully
married in other states to certify on their Louisiana state income
Louisiana Civil Code, and any other Louisiana laws that purport to deny recognition to the marriages of Plaintiffs and other same-sex couples who are m arried under the law of another jurisdiction." Although those plaintiffs do not specifically identify the "other Louisiana laws" in their complaint, plaintiffs' supplemental brief submitted on July 16, 2014 requests "declaratory judgment holding that Louisiana Civil Code articles 86, 89, 3520(B), and Article 12, Section 15 of the Louisiana Constitution are unconstitutional...and the Court should enjoin their enforcement." Article 86 of the Louisiana Civil Code, like Section 15 of the Louisiana Constitution, defines marriage as "a legal relationship between a man and a woman." Code article 89, similar to Code article 3520, prohibits purported marriages between persons of the same sex.
4 The bulletin provides in part:
In compliance with the Louisiana Constitution, the Louisiana Department of Revenue shall not recognize same-sex marriages when determining filing status. If a taxpayer's federal filing status of married filing jointly, married filing separately or qualifying widow is pursuant to IRS Revenue Ruling 2013-17 [ruling that same-sex couples legally married in states that recognize such marriages will be treated as married for federal tax purposes], the taxpayer must file a separate Louisiana return as single, head of household or qualifying widow, as applicable. The taxpayer(s) who filed a federal return pursuant to IRS Revenue Ruling 2013-17 may not file a Louisiana state income tax return as married filing jointly, married filing separately or qualifying widow. The taxpayer must provide the same federal income tax information on the Louisiana State Return that would have been provided prior to the issuance of Internal Revenue Service Ruling 2013-17.
La. Revenue Info. Bulletin No. 13-024 (Sept. 13, 2013).
3

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 4 of 32
tax returns that they are single, violates their First Amendment freedom of speech. Plaintiffs name Tim Barfield, the Louisiana Secretary of Revenue, Devin George, the Louisiana State Registrar, and Kathy Kliebert, the Louisiana Secretary of Health and Hospitals, as defendants.
The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment. All issues have been briefed and the Court has held oral argument5.
I. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 instructs that summary judgment is proper if the record discloses no genuine dispute as to any material fact such that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. No genuine dispute of fact exists if the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). A genuine dispute of fact exists only "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The Court emphasizes that the mere argued existence of a factual dispute does not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion. See id. Therefore, "[i]f the evidence is merely
5 Plaintiffs have seemingly abandoned their Full Faith and Credit Clause claim.
4

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 5 of 32
colorable, or is not significantly probative," summary judgment is appropriate. Id. at 249-50 (citations omitted). Summary judgment is also proper if the party opposing the motion fails to establish an essential element of his case. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). In this regard, the non-moving party must do more than simply deny the allegations raised by the moving party. See Donaghey v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co., 974 F.2d 646, 649 (5th Cir. 1992). Rather, he must come forward with competent evidence, such as affidavits or depositions, to buttress his claims. Id. Finally, in evaluating the summary judgment motion, the Court must read the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.
This national same-sex marriage struggle animates a clash between convictions regarding the value of state decisions reached by way of the democratic process as contrasted with personal, genuine, and sincere lifestyle choices recognition. The defendants maintain that marriage is a legitimate concern of state law and policy. That it may be rightly regulated because of what for centuries has been understood to be its role. Not so say plaintiffs, who vigorously submit if two people wish to enter into a bond of commitment and care and have that bond recognized by law as a marriage, they should be free to do so, and their choice should be recognized by law as a marriage; never mind the historic authority of the state or the democratic process. These are
5

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 6 of 32
earnest and thoughtful disputes, but they have become society's latest short fuse. One may be firmly resolved in favor of same-sex marriage, others may be just as determined that marriage is between a man and a woman. The challenge is how and where best to resolve these conflicting notions about what is marriage and what influence should the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor have? See 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013).
II. A. The Court first takes up the most hefty constitutional issue: Equal Protection. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution commands that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. “The Equal Protection Clause...essentially directs that all persons similarly situated be treated alike.” Stoneburner v. Sec'y of the Army, 152 F.3d 485, 491 (5th Cir. 1998)(citing City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 440 (1985)). However, “if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class,” the Supreme Court has held, “the legislative classification [will survive] so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end.” Romer v. Evans , 517 U.S. 620, 631 (1996)(citing Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319-20 (1993)); City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 440 (“The general rule is that legislation is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification 6

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 7 of 32
drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.”). In the Equal Protection joust, a court's standard of review is central to this analysis. At play are three specialized lines of thought: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and heightened scrutiny. Rational basis is the least austere; heightened scrutiny the most arduous.
When conducting rational basis review, the Supreme Court has instructed that “we will not overturn such [government action] unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that we can only conclude that the [government’s] actions were irrational.” Kimel v. Fl. Bd. of Regents , 528 U.S. 62, 84 (2000)(alterations in original)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "In the ordinary case, a law will be sustained if it can be said to advance a legitimate government interest, even if the law seems unwise or works to the disadvantage of a particular group, or if the rationale seems tenuous." Romer , 517 U.S. at 632 (citations omitted). If, however, heightened scrutiny, the most unforgiving, is warranted, then a law must be "necessary to the accomplishment" of "a compelling governmental interest." Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 432 (1984).6
6 All federal court decisions post-Windsor have stricken same-sex marriage bans under all three standards. Bostic v. Schaefer, Nos. 14-1167, 14-1169 & 14-1173, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14298 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014); Bishop v. Smith, Nos. 14-5003 & 145006, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13733 (10th Cir. July 18, 2014); Kitchen
7

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 8 of 32
Plaintiffs submit that Louisiana's constitutional amendment
and Civil Code article violate the Equal Protection Clause by
prohibiting same-sex marriage within Louisiana, and by declining to
recognize same-sex marriages that are lawful in other states.
Plaintiffs argue that the laws are subject to heightened scrutiny
analysis because they discriminate on the basis of sexual
orientation and gender. Defendants counter that the laws trigger
rational basis review, which is satisfied by Louisiana's legitimate
interest in linking children with intact families formed by their
biological parents, and by ensuring that fundamental social change
occurs by social con sensus through democratic processes. See
Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2697 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting)("[F]or it
is entirely expected that state definitions would 'vary, subject to
v. Hebert, No. 13-4178, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11935 (10th Cir. June 25, 2014); Brenner v. Scott, Nos. 14-107 & 14-138, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116684 (N.D. Fl. Aug. 21, 2014); Burns v. Hickenlooper, No. 14-1817, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100894 (D. Colo. July 23, 2014); Love v. Beshear, No. 13-750, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89119 (W.D. Ky. July 1, 2014); Baskin v. Bogan, Nos. 14-355, 14-404 & 14-406, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86114 (S.D. Ind. June 25, 2014); Wolf v. Walker, No. 14-64, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77125 (W.D. Wis. June 6, 2014); Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 13-1861, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68771 (M.D. Pa. May 20, 2014); Geiger v. Kitzhaber , Nos. 13-1834 & 13-2256, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68171 (D. Or. May 19, 2014); Latta v. Otter, No. 13-482, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66417 (D. Idaho May 13, 2014); DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E.D. Mich. 2014); Tanco v. Haslam, No. 13-1159, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33463 (M.D. Tenn. March 14, 2014); De Leon v. Perry, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632 (W.D. Tex. 2014); Lee v. Orr , No. 13-8719, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21620 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2014); McGee v. Cole, No. 13-24068, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10864 (S.D. W. Va. Jan. 29, 2014). Contra Sevcik v. Sandoval, 911 F. Supp. 2d 996 (D. Nev. 2012)(applying rational basis to reject an Equal Protection challenge to Nevada's same-sex marriage ban). See United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013).
8

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 9 of 32
constitutional guarantees, from one State to the next.'" (citation omitted)). Defendants point out that over 30 states choose not to recognize same-sex marriages, and some 20 states haven chosen to recognize same-sex marriages in free and open debate through the democratic process. Both sides invoke the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (Kennedy, J., majority opinion). But Windsor does little more than give both sides in this case something to hope for.
In Windsor , the Supreme Court held that Section 3 of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman only, violated Equal Protection and Due Process principles when applied to New York state law permitting same-sex marriage. Id. at 2693. Observing "DOMA's unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage," the Court inferred that Congress had acted with a discriminatory purpose. Id. The Court reasoned, to that point, that "'[d]iscriminations of an unusual character especially suggest careful consideration to determine whether they are obnoxious to the constitutional provision.'" Id. at 2692 (quoting Romer, 517 U.S. at 633).7
7 Windsor , in the context of the issues presented to this Court, is unclear (contrary to the conclusions in many recent federal court decisions). It is by its own terms, limited. Its "opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages." 133 S. Ct. at 2696. However, Windsor also references an amorphous but alluring "evolving understanding of the meaning of equality." Id. at 2693. Hence this Court's unease that Windsor merely offers
9

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 10 of 32

As to standard of review, Windsor starkly avoids mention of

heightened scrutiny. Plaintiffs' effort to equate Windsor

's

elusive phrase "careful consideration" with intermediate or

heightened scrutiny seems like intellectual anarchy. In the past,

the Supreme Court considered rational basis as fulfilling the

notion of "careful consideration." See Romer, 517 U.S. at 633-35

(requiring "careful consideration" by applying a rational basis

standard of review). If the Supreme Court meant to apply heightened

scrutiny, it would have said so.8 More importantly, the Court only

required "careful consideration" because of Congress' odd intrusion

on what the Court repeatedly emphasized was historic and essential

state authority to define marriage. By that same logic, no

additional or different consideration is warranted here, where

Louisiana is acting squarely within the scope of its traditional

authority, as underscored by Justice Kennedy. See Windsor, 133 S.

bits and pieces of hope to both sides. See

also id. at 2696

(Roberts, C.J., dissenting)("The Court does not have before it, and

the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question

whether the States, in the exercise of their 'historic and

essential authority to define the marital relation,'...may continue

to utilize the traditional definition of marriage.").

8 This Court is not persuaded by the Ninth Circuit's decision
to the contrary in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs , 740 F.3d 471 (9 th Cir. 2014). Even less explicit regarding the
appropriate standard of review are the split decisions in the Tenth
and Fourth Circuits. See Bostic v. Schaefer, Nos. 14-1167, 14-1169 & 14-1173, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14298 (4 th Cir. July 28, 2014);
Bishop v. Smith, Nos. 14-5003 & 14-5006, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13733 (10th Cir. July 18, 2014); Kitchen v. Heber,t No. 13-4178, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11935 (10th Cir. June 25, 2014).

10

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 11 of 32
Ct. at 2693. Although both sides seek the safe haven of Windsorto
their side of this national struggle, and it is certainly without
dispute that the Supreme Court correctly discredited the tainted
unconstitutional result that DOMA had on democratically debated and
then adopted New York state law blessing same-sex marriages, this
Court finds it difficult to minimize, indeed, ignore, the high
court's powerful reminder in Windsor:
The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens. See Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 298 (1942)("Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders"). The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State's broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the "[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities." Ibid. "[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce...[and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce." Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562, 525 (1906); see also In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-594 (1890)("The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States").
Id. at 2691 (alterations in original). Justice Kennedy further
instructs:
The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation's beginning; for "when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States." Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 383-384 (1930). Marriage laws
11

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 12 of 32

vary in some respects from State to State....

Id. And, finally, he emphasizes why:

The responsibility of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an important indicator of the substantial societal impact the State's classifications have in the daily lives and customs of its people.

Id. at 2693. Windsor leaves unchanged "the concerns for state diversity and sovereign ty." See id. at 2697 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).

But even apart from Windsor , plaintiffs seek to justify the

application of heightened scrutiny because, they argue, Louisiana's

laws and Constitution discriminate based on sexual orientation.

They fail, however, to recognize that neither the Supreme Court nor

the Fifth Circuit has ever before defined sexual orientation as a

protected class, despite opportunities to do so. See,

e.g. ,

Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (majority opinion); Romer, 517 U.S. 620;

Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503 (5 th Cir. 2004); see also Baskin

v. Bogan , Nos. 14-355, 14-404 & 14-406, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

86114, at *34-*35 (S.D. Ind. June 25, 2014)(7 th Circuit precedent

mandates application of rational basis scrutiny to the issue of

sexual orientation discrimination). Admittedly, other federal

courts throughout the country have spoken as if they were deciding

the issue by discovering, at best, unclear case models on the more

demanding standard of review. Or, in the name of rational basis,

12

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 13 of 32
they have at times applied the more exacting review standards.
This Court would be more circumspect. In light of still-binding
precedent, this Court declines to fashion a new suspect class. To
do so would distort precedent and demean the democratic process.
As Justice Powell stressed and cautioned in Furman v. Georgia in a
robust dissent regarding state-adopted capital punishment:
Less measurable, but certainly of no less significance, is the shattering effect this collection of views has on the root principles of stare decisis, federalism, judicial restraint and--most importantly–-separation of powers....In a democracy the first indicator of the public's attitude must always be found in the legislative judgments of the people's chosen representatives.
408 U.S. 238, 417, 436-37 (1972). Of the role of the courts in
such matters:
First, where as here, the language of the applicable provision provides great leeway and where the underlying social policies are felt to be of vital importance, the temptation to read personal preference into the Constitution is understandably great....But it is not the business of this Court to pronounce policy. It must observe a fastidious regard for limitations on its own power, and this precludes the Court giving effect to its own notions of what is wise or politic.
Id. at 431, 433. And his emphatic trust in deference for free and
open debate in a democracy resonates:
It seems to me that the sweeping judicial action undertaken today reflects a basic lack of faith and confidence in the democratic process.
Id. at 464-65.
13

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 14 of 32

Plaintiffs also add that they suffer discrimination based on

gender. Plaintiffs, as do most other federal courts confronted

with these issues, equate this case with Loving v. Virginia , 388

U.S. 1, 8 (1967), where the Supreme Court rightly condemned racial

discrimination even though Virginia's antimiscegenation marriage

laws equally applied to both races. Plaintiffs' argument betrays

itself. Heightened scrutiny was warranted in Loving because the

Fourteenth Amendment expressly condemns racial discrimination as a

constitutional evil; in short, the Constitution specifically bans

differentiation based on race. See id.; see also Bishop v. Smith,

Nos. 14-5003 & 14-5006, 2014 U.S. A pp. LEXIS 13733, at *145 (10 th

Cir. July 18, 2014)(Kelly, J., concurring in part and dissenting in

part)("Oklahoma's efforts to retain its definition of marriage are

benign, and very much unlike race-based restrictions on marriage

invalidated in Loving v. Virginia ." (citation omitted)). Even

ignoring the obvious difference between this case and Loving , no

analogy can defeat the plain reality that Louisiana's laws apply

evenhandedly to both genders--whether between two men or two women.

Same-sex marriage is not recognized in Louisiana and is reasonably

anchored to the democratic process. The Court is therefore

satisfied that rational basis applies. See

also Bostic v.

Schaefer, Nos. 14-1167, 14-1169 & 14-1173, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS

14298, at *92 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014)(Niemeyer, J., dissenting).

14

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 15 of 32
B.
So, is there even any rational basis for Louisiana's
resistance to recognize same-sex marriages entered into in other
states, or to authorize same-sex marriages in Louisiana?
Plaintiffs contend not, and conclude that Louisiana's laws and
Constitution can only be supported by a hateful animus. Defendants
rejoin that the laws serve a central state interest of linking
children to an intact family formed by their biological parents.
Of even more consequence, in this Court's judgment, defendants
assert a legitimate state interest in safeguarding that fundamental
social change, in this instance, is better cultivated through
democratic consensus. This Court agrees.9
9 The Court acknowledges that its decision runs counter to all but two other federal court decisions. SeeMerritt v. Attorney Gen., No. 13-215, 2013 WL 6044329 (M.D. La. Nov. 14, 2013); Sevcik v. Sandoval, 911 F. Supp. 2d 996 (D. Nev. 2012). Butsee Bostic v. Schaefer, Nos. 14-1167, 14-1169 & 14-1173, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14298 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014); Bishop v. Smith, Nos. 14-5003 & 145006, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13733 (10th Cir. July 18, 2014); Kitchen v. Hebert, No. 13-4178, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11935 (10th Cir. June 25, 2014); Brenner v. Scott, Nos. 14-107 & 14-138, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116684 (N.D. Fl. Aug. 21, 2014); Burns v. Hickenlooper, No. 14-1817, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100894 (D. Colo. July 23, 2014); Love v. Beshear, No. 13-750, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89119 (W.D. Ky. July 1, 2014); Baskin v. Bogan, Nos. 14-355, 14-404 & 14-406, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86114 (S.D. Ind. June 25, 2014); Wolf v. Walker, No. 14-64, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77125 (W.D. Wis. June 6, 2014); Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 13-1861, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68771 (M.D. Pa. May 20, 2014); Geiger v. Kitzhaber , Nos. 13-1834 & 13-2256, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68171 (D. Or. May 19, 2014); Latta v. Otter, No. 13-482, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66417 (D. Idaho May 13, 2014); DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E.D. Mich. 2014); Tanco v. Haslam, No. 13-1159, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33463 (M.D. Tenn. March 14, 2014); De Leon v. Perry, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632 (W.D. Tex. 2014); Lee v. Orr , No. 13-8719, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21620 (N.D. Ill.
15

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 16 of 32
Louisiana's laws and Constitution are directly related to achieving marriage's historically preeminent purpose of linking children to their biological parents. Louisiana's regime pays respect to the democratic process; to vigorous debate. To predictable controversy, of course. The fact that marriage has many differing, even perhaps unproved dimensions, does not render Louisiana's decision irrational. Nor does the opinion of a set of social scientists (ardently disputed by many others, it should be noted) that other associative forms may be equally stable, or the view that such judgments vilify a group (even though one finds them in a majority of the states, but not in all states). 10 Even the fact that the state's precepts work to one gr oup's disadvantage does not mandate that they serve no rational basis. SeeRomer, 517 U.S. at 632. The Court is p ersuaded that a meaning of what is marriage that has endured in history for thousands of years, and prevails in a majority of states today, is not universally irrational on the constitutional grid. See Kimel, 528 U.S. at 84;
Feb. 21, 2014); McGee v. Cole, No. 13-24068, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10864 (S.D. W. Va. Jan. 29, 2014). But cf. Bishop, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13733, at *148 (Kelly, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)("Absent a fundamental right, traditional rational basis equal protection principles should apply, and apparently as a majority of this panel believes, the Plaintiffs cannot prevail on that basis.").
10 This Court does not e nter the dispute of which "science" on this issue is correct. The contentious debate in social science literature about what is "marriage" in today's world does not drive or inform the Court's decision.
16

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 17 of 32
Sevcik v. Sandoval, 911 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1014 (D. Nev. 2012).
(Shortly before Windsor , the district court in Sevcik adopted
arguments by Nevada that closely mirror Louisiana's submissions).
The Court also hesitates with the notion that this state's
choice could only be inspired by hate and intolerance. Louisiana
unquestionably respected "a statewide deliberative process that
allowed its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against
same-sex marriage." See Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2689. All sides
for and against grappled with this solemn issue. The Court
declines to assign an illicit motive on the basis of this record,
as have also two federal appellate judges as well.11
Windsor repeatedly and emphatically reaffirmed the
11 In his concurrence in the recent case of Bishop v. Smith, Nos. 14-5003 & 14-5006, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13733, *93-*133 (10th Cir. July 18, 2014), Judge Holmes also declined to agree that state laws limiting same-sex marriage suffer from unconstitutional animus. Judge Holmes, in a very careful opinion, explained that a finding of animus generally requires some structural aberration in the law at issue, like the imposition of wide-ranging and novel deprivations upon the disfavored group or deviation from the historical territory of the sovereign simply to eliminate privileges that the disfavored group might otherwise enjoy. Id.at *106. Judge Holmes offered Romer as an example of the former, and Windsor of the latter, but distinguished the same-sex marriage ban cases because of the stark absence of any structural irregularity. Id. at *133. Judge Holmes reasoned that Oklahoma's prohibition was neither as far reaching as the amendment in Romer nor a departure from traditional sovereign roles like DOMA was in Windsor . Id. This Court agrees entirely with Judge Holmes on this point and concludes the animus doctrine is inapplicable here. To reach a contrary result, it would be necessary to "stretch to accommodate changing societal norms." See Bostic v. Schaefer , Nos. 14-1167, 14-1169 & 14-1173, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14298, at *43 (th4 Cir. July 28, 2014).
17

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 18 of 32
longstanding principle that the authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations belongs to the states, subject to indistinct future constitutional guarantees that in Windsor were, by its expressed limits, left open and rather inexact. Id.at 2691, 2692, 2693, 2696. Although opinions about same-sex marriage will understandably vary among the states, and other states in free and open debate will and have chosen differently, that does not mandate that Louisiana has overstepped its sovereign authority. Seeid. at 2692. Because this Court concludes that Louisiana's laws are rationally related to its legitimate state interests, as defendants plausibly focus, they do not offend plaintiffs' rights to Equal Protection.12
C. The parties also seek summary judgment on Due Process Clause grounds. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from “depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. This protection has been viewed as having both procedural and substantive components when state action is challenged. As the Fifth Circuit has observed:
12 This Court finds common cause with Justice Powell's cautionary injunction in Furman v. Georgia about judicial action that "reflects a basic lack of faith and confidence in the democratic process." 408 U.S. at 464-65.
18

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 19 of 32

Procedural due process promotes fairness in government decisions “by requiring the government to follow appropriate procedures when its agents decide ‘to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.’” Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986). Substantive due process, “by barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them, [ ] serves to prevent government power from being ‘used for purposes of oppression.’” Id.

The John Corp. v. The City of Houston, 214 F.3d 573, 577 (5th Cir. 2000)(additional citation omitted).

The substantive component of due process, which plaintiffs

count on here, protects fundamental rights that are so “implicit in

the concept of ordered liberty” that “neither liberty nor justice

would exist if they were sacrificed.” Palko v. Connecticut , 302

U.S. 319, 325-36 (1937). “Fundamental rights protected by

substantive due process are protected from certain state actions

regardless of what procedures the state uses.” Doe v. Moore, 410

F.3d 1337, 1343 (11 th Cir. 2005)(citing the prominent decision in

Washington v. Glucksberg , 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997)). And such

fundamental rights have been held to include “the rights to marry,

to have children, to direct the education and upbringing of one’s

children, to marital privacy, to use contraception, to bodily

integrity, and to abortion.”

Glucksberg , 521 U.S. at 720

(citations omitted). The Supreme Court has, however, “always been

reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because

guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered area

are scarce and open-ended.” Id. (internal quotation marks and

19

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 20 of 32
citation omitted). There exists then, a central notion that anchors the doctrine of substantive due process: the indispensable presence of a fundamental right.
To establish a substantive due process violation, the aggrieved person must describe the infringed right with particularity and must establish it as “deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.” Malagon de Fuentes v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 498, 505 (5 th Cir. 2006)(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). If a right is so "deeply rooted" as to be fundamental at its core, a more exacting scrutiny is required; if not, the Court applies the less demanding rational basis review. Id.
Plaintiffs fervently insist that Louisiana's laws and Constitution violate their right to substantive due process by depriving them of the fundamental right to marry. Plaintiffs argue that Louisiana substantially burdens what they envision as their fundamental right to marry and that strict scrutiny is the standard of review to guide this Court. Defendants counter, however, that there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage and that rational basis review is appropriate. Defendants correctly point to Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 721, which mandates that plaintiffs provide a "careful description" of the asserted fundamental right to succeed on a substantive due process challenge. The Court agrees that Glucksberg requires a "careful
20

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 21 of 32

description," which, here, means that plaintiffs must specifically assert a fundamental right to same-sex marriage.13
No authority dictates, and plaintiffs do not contend, that same-sex marriage is anchored to history or tradition. 14 The concept of same-sex marriage is "a new perspective, a new insight,"

13 The cases invoked by plaintiffs, including Turner v.

Safely, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), Zablocki v. Redhail , 434 U.S. 374

(1978), and Loving , 388 U.S. 1, do not relieve them of their

obligation to carefully describe the fundamental right at issue

here. Although a procession of federal courts accepted similar

arguments, that trinity of Supreme Court cases does not support the

proposition that marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed to

everyone without limitation; indeed, each case involved marriages

between one man and one woman. See Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 386 ("By

affirming the fundamental character of the right to marry, we do

not mean to suggest that every state regulation which relates in

any way to the incidents of or prerequisites for marriage must be

subjected to strict scrutiny."). Defendants aptly note that it

could not be maintained

that the states violate a general

fundamental right to marry when they restrict marriages between

minors, first cousins, or more than two people, for example. In a

case such as this, the plaintiffs necessarily assert an interest

apart from and beyond the historic and traditional right to marry.

Even plaintiffs admit that such unions would have unacceptable

"significant societal harms."

14 Defendants point to Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972),

in support of the proposition that there is no Supreme Court

precedent for a fundamental right to marry someone of the same sex.

In Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court summarily rejected "for want

of a substantial federal question" the claim that the Constitution

requires a state to authorize same-sex marriage. Defendants point

out that Baker was decided five years after Loving . Unlike the

defendants in many of the other same-sex marriage cases before

other federal courts, however, defendants here do not contend that

Baker forecloses this Court's review or mandates the disposition of

this case. See also Merritt v. Attorney Gen., No. 13-215, 2013 WL

6044329, at *2 (M.D. La. Nov. 14, 2013)(citing Baker

for the

proposition that the Constitution does not require states to permit

same-sex marriage). The Court need not enter the differing

contentions about the viability of Baker v. Nelson.

21

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 22 of 32

nonexistent and even inconceivable until very recently. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2689. M any states have democratically chosen to recognize same-sex marriage. But until recent years, it had no place at all in this nation's history and tradition. Public attitude might be becoming more diverse, but any right to same-sex marriage is not yet so entrenched as to be fundamental. See Malagon, 462 F.3d at 505. The re is simply no fundamental right, historically or traditionally, to same-sex marriage.15
With no fundamental right at stake,16 the Court again reviews under rational basis. The Court has already held that Louisiana's

15 This Court is not the first to reach this conclusion, even post-Windsor. See Love v. Beshear , No. 13-750, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89119, at *18 (W.D. Ky. July 1, 2014)("If the inquiry here is viewed as a contours-of-the-right question, holding that the fundamental right to marry encompasses same-sex marriage would be a dramatic step that the Supreme Court has not yet indicated a willingness to take."); see also Bostic v. Schaefer, Nos. 14-1167, 14-1169 & 14-1173, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14298, at *92 (th4 Cir. July 28, 2014)(Niemeyer, J., dissenting)("At bottom, the fundamental right to marriage does not include a right to same-sex marriage."); Bishop v. Smith , Nos. 14-5003 & 14-5006, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13733, *147-*148 (10th Cir. July 18, 2014)(Kelly J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)("Removing gender complementarity from the historical definition of marriage is simply contrary to the careful analysis prescribed by the Supreme Court when it comes to substantive due process.").

16 Plaintiffs also summarily allege violations of their

fundamental rights to remain married and to parental authority, but

these claims fail for the same reason. The Court notes, however,

that other federal district court opinions post-Windsor

have

favored same-sex marriages under all standards of review. See,

e.g., Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 13-217, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179331

(D. Utah Dec. 20, 2013), aff'd, No. 13-4178, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS

11935 (10th Cir. June 25, 2014); Wolf v. Walker , No. 14-64, 2014

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77125 (W.D. Wis. June 6, 2014); Whitewood v. Wol,f

13-1861, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68771 (M.D. Pa. May 20, 2014).

22

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 23 of 32
law and Constitution survive under a rational basis review. Although plaintiffs maintain that the laws are improperly grounded only in tradition and moral objection, defendants offer a credible, and convincing, rational basis to the contrary. SeeHeller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319-20 (1993).
Although plaintiffs would fashion a modern constitutional construct and place side by side this case to Lawrence v. Texas , 539 U.S. 558 (2003), in which the Supreme Court held that Texas' antisodomy statute violated substantive due process, the Court in Lawrence specifically found that the Texas law furthered no legitimate state interest sufficient to justify its intrusion on the right to privacy. Id. at 578. This Court is persuaded that Louisiana has a legitimate interest...whether obsolete in the opinion of some, or not, in the opinion of others...in linking children to an intact family formed by their two biological parents, as specifically underscored by Justice Kennedy in Windso.r And the Court is not persuaded that Lawrence, a right to privacy model, provides any support for a substantive due process liberty to same-sex marriage. The Court finds it helpful to call attention that Lawrence , by its own terms, did "not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." Id. ; see also id. at 585 (O' Connor, J., concurring)("Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the
23

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 24 of 32
traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations–-the asserted interest in this case–-other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group." (emphasis added)).
D. Both sides also seek summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim that Louisiana Department of Revenue Information Bulletin No. 13024 violates their First Amendment rights. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution declares that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." U.S. Const. amend. I. "As a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 468 (2010)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). And the First Amendment also means that the government cannot compel a person to speak or to parrot a favored viewpoint. Wooley v. Maynard , 430 U.S. 705, 714 (1977)("We begin with the proposition that the right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all."); W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette , 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943)("If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of
24

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 25 of 32
opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."). In the context of compelled speech, c ourts must discern whether a law "regulates conduct, not speech"; only infringements of speech, and not conduct, warrant First Amendment protection. Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Inst. Rights , 547 U.S. 47, 60 (2006)(distinguishing regulation of what someone "must do" from "what they may or may not say" (emphasis in original)).
Bulletin No. 13-024 requires same-sex couples who are lawfully married in other states to nevertheless describe that they are of single status on their Louisiana state income tax returns. Plaintiffs say that compels speech. Defendants answer that the targeted bulletin merely prescribes conduct. They add that the required conduct is necessary to an essential government function, collecting state taxes. They stress helpfully that the Fifth Circuit recently agreed with the Eighth Circuit that the required disclosure of information on a tax form is simply not compelled speech under the First Amendment. SeeUnited States v. Arnold, 740 F.3d 1032, 1035 (5th Cir. 2014)("'There is no right to refrain from speaking when essential operations of government require it for the preservation of an orderly society....'" (quoting United States v. Sindel, 53 F.3d 874, 878 (8th Cir. 1995)).
The Court is satisfied that Bulletin No. 13-024 does not contravene the First Amendment; that the disclosure requirement regulates conduct, not speech. See Rumsfeld , 547 U.S. at 60; Arnold, 740 F.3d at 1034-35. Despite plaintiffs' contentions to
25

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 26 of 32

the contrary, the bulletin has

nothing to do with forcing

plaintiffs to disclaim their "deep spiritual and emotional belief

in the inviolability of their marriages," but, rather, it simply

requires plaintiffs to provide the government with information

necessary for the purpose of state tax collection. See Sindel, 53

F.3d at 878. Taking plaintiffs' argument to its logical

conclusion, any state policy with which one disagrees could

constitute compelled speech. The Court declines to endorse that

shapeless result.

III.

This Court has arduously studied the volley of nationally

orchestrated court rulings against states whose voters chose in

free and open elections, whose legislatures, after a robust, even

fractious debate and exchange of competing, vigorously differing

views, listened to their citizens regarding the harshly divisive

and passionate issue on same-sex marriage. The federal court

decisions thus far exemplify a pageant of empathy; decisions

impelled by a response of innate pathos. Courts that, in the words

of Justice Scalia in a different context in Bond v. United States,

134 S. Ct. 2077, 2094 (2014)(concurring opinion), appear to have

assumed the mantle of a legislative body. In fact Judge Niemeyer

in his "linguistic manipulation" dissent in Bostic v. Schaeferputs

it even more candidly:

This analysis is fundamentally flawed because it fails to take into account that the "marriage" that has long been recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right is

26

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 27 of 32

distinct from the newly purposed relationship of a "samesex marriage." And this failure is even more pronounced by the majority's acknowledgment that same-sex marriage is a new notion that has not been recognized for "most of our country's history." Moreover, the majority fails to explain how this new notion became incorporated into the traditional definition of marriage except by linguistic manipulation.
Nos. 14-1167, 14-1169 & 14-1173, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14298, at
*71-*72 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014)(emphasis added)(citation omitted1)7.
It would no doubt be celebrated to be in the company of the
near-unanimity of the many other federal courts that have spoken to
this pressing issue, if this Court were confident in the belief
that those cases provide a correct guide.
Clearly, many other courts will have an opportunity to take up
the issue of same-sex marriage; courts of appeals and, at some
point, the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision of this Court is but
one studied decision among many. Our Fifth Circuit has not yet
spoken.
The depth of passion inherent in the issues before this Court
defies definition. That federal courts 18 thus far have joined in

17 One case, pre-Windsor but rather close in time, Sevcik v. Sandoval, 911 F. Supp. 2d 996 (D. Nev. 2012), from Nevada, stands apart from the decisions descriptively spawned by Windsor and the contests that followed throughout the nation. Plaintiffs say little, if anything, about Sevcik . See also Merritt v. Attorney Gen., No. 13-215, 2013 WL 6044329 (M.D. La. Nov. 14, 2013).

18 The Tenth Circuit, in a

split decision, has recently

spoken. Kitchen v. Herbert , No. 13-4178, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS

11935 (10th Cir. June 25, 2014). As has the Fourth Circuit. Bostic

v. Schaefer, Nos. 14-1167, 14-1169 & 14-1173, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS

14298 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014).

27

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 28 of 32
the hopeful chorus that the tide is turning seems ardent and is an arguably popular, indeed, poignant, outcome (whether or not credibly constitutionally driven). Perhaps, in the wake of today's blurry notion of evolving understanding, the result is ordained. Perhaps in a new established point of view, marriage will be reduced to contract law, and, by contract, anyone will be able to claim marriage. Perhaps that is the next frontier, the next phase of some "evolving understanding of equality," where what is marriage will be explored. And as plaintiffs vigorously remind, there have been embattled times when the federal judiciary properly inserted itself to correct a wrong in our society. But that is an incomplete answer to today's social issue. When a federal court is obliged to confront a constitutional struggle over what is marriage, a singularly pivotal issue, the consequence of outcomes, intended or otherwise, seems an equally compelling part of the equation. It seems unjust to ignore. And so, inconvenient questions persist. For example, must the states permit or recognize a marriage between an aunt and niece? Aunt and nephew? Brother/brother? Father and child? May minors marry? Must marriage be limited to only two people? What about a transgender spouse? Is such a union same-gender or male-female? All such unions would undeniably be equally committed to love and caring for one another, just like the plaintiffs.19
19 In the words of the Fourth Circuit: "Civil marriage is one of the cornerstones of our way of life. It allows individuals to
28

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 29 of 32

Plaintiffs' counsel was unable to answer such kinds of
questions; the only hesitant response given was that such unions
would result in "significant societal harms" that the states could
indeed regulate. But not same-gender unions. This Court is
powerless to be indifferent to the unknown and possibly imprudent
consequences of such a decision. A decision for which there
remains the arena of democratic debate. Free and open and probing
debate. Indeed, fractious debate. The Court remains drawn to the
forceful and prophetic circumspection expressed by Justice Powell,
and turns the spotlight again not only on his dissent in Furman v.
Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 414 (1972), but also to Judge Kelly in his
dissent in the recent Tenth Circuit decision in Kitchen v. Herber,t
No. 13-4178, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11935 (10th Cir. June 25, 2014).
Their words lead this Court today and ought not be slighted:
[W]here, as here, the language of the applicable provision provides great leeway and where the underlying social policies are felt to be of vital importance, the temptation to read personal preference into the Constitution is understandably great....But it is not the business of this Court to pronounce policy. It must observe a fastidious regard for limitations on its own power, and this precludes the Court's giving effect to its own notions of what is wise or politic.
Furman, 408 U.S. at 431, 433.

celebrate and publicly declare their intentions to form lifelong

partnerships, which provide unparalleled intimacy, companionship,

emotional support, and s ecurity." Bostic , 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS

14298, at *67. But

see id. at *86-*87 (Niemeyer, J.,

dissenting)("To now define the previously recognized fundamental

right to 'marriage' as a concept t hat includes the new notion of

'same-sex marriage' amounts to a dictionary jurisprudence, which

defines terms as convenient to attain an end.").

29

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 30 of 32
[O]n this issue we should defer. To be sure, the constant refrain in these cases has been that the States' justifications are not advanced by excluding same-gender couples from marriage. But that is a matter of opinion; any "improvement" on the classification should be left to the state political process.
Kitchen, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11935, at *146. And, of we judges as
philosopher-kings:
Though the Plaintiffs would weigh the interests of the State differently and discount the procreation, childrearing, and caution rationales, that prerogative belongs to the electorate and their representatives....We should resist the temptation to become philosopher-kings, imposing our views under the guise of constitutional interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Id. at *149-*150. Heeding those cautions, it is not for this Court
to resolve the wisdom of same-sex marriage2.0 The nation is witness
20 Windsor offers no obstacle to this point, which the Supreme Court even more recently reaffirmed in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action , 134 S. Ct. 1623 (2014). In Schuette , the Court held that a Michigan constitutional amendment preventing the use of race-based preferences as part of the admissions process for state universities did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Kennedy, the author of Windsor, writing for the Court, emphasized that the question before the Court was "not the permissibility of race-conscious admissions policies under the Constitution but whether, and in what manner, voters in the States may choose to prohibit consideration of racial preferences in governmental decisions." Id. at 1630. In other words, the question was whether "the courts [may or] may not disempower the voters from choosing which path to follow." Id.at 1635. The Supreme Court held not. It reasoned: "This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it. There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this Court's precedents for the Judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters." Id. at 1638. This case shares striking similarities with Schuette. Just as in Schuette, this case involves "[d]eliberative debate on sensitive issues [that] all too often may shade into rancor." Id. And so just like the Supreme Court very recently held, this Court agrees "that does not justify removing certain court-determined issues from the voters' reach.
30

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 31 of 32
to a strong conversation about what is marriage. The central question that must first be asked, is what is the fairest forum for the answer? A new right may or may not be affirmed by the democratic process. "Perhaps someday same-gender marriage will become part of this country's history and tradition, but that is not a choice this court should make." Id. at *133. As Judge Niemeyer bluntly wrote in his insightful dissent in Bostic:
Because there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage and there are rational reasons for not recognizing it, just as there are rational reasons for recognizing it, I conclude that we, the Third Branch, must allow the States to enact legislation on the subject in accordance with their political processes. The U.S. Constitution does not, in my judgment, restrict the States' policy choices on this issue. If given the choice, some States will surely recognize same-sex marriage and some will surely not. But that is, to be sure, the beauty of federalism. 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1 4298, at *109. Federalism is not extinct. Federalism remains a vibrant and essential component of our nation's constitutional structure. See Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2697 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting)("[B]ut a State's definition of marriage is the foundation of the State's broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the protection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). For all of these reasons, the Court finds that Louisiana's
Democracy does not presume that some subjects are either too divisive or too profound for public debate." Id.
31

Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-ALC Document 131 Filed 09/03/14 Page 32 of 32
definition of marriage as between one man and one woman and the limitation on recognition of same-sex marriages permitted by law in other states found in Article XII, Section 15 of the Louisiana Constitution and article 3520(B) of the Louisiana Civil Code do not infringe the guarantees of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution. The record reveals no material dispute: the defendants have shown that Louisiana's decision to neither permit nor recognize same-sex marriage, formed in the arena of the democratic process, is supported by a rational basis.21 The Court further finds that plaintiffs have failed to establish a genuine dispute regarding a First Amendment violation on this record. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is DENIED and defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, September 3, 2014.
______________________________ MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21 The public contradictions and heated disputes among the community of social scientists, clergy, politicians, and thinkers about what is marriage confirms and clearly sends the message that the state has a legitimate interest, a rational basis, in addressing the meaning of marriage.
32

 
 Robicheaux v. Caldwell, 986 F.Supp.2d 749 (2013)

986 F.Supp.2d 749 United States District Court,
E.D. Louisiana.
Jonathan P. ROBICHEAUX v.
James D. CALDWELL, Louisiana Attorney General.
Civil Action No. 13–5090. | Nov. 27, 2013. | Order Denying Reconsideration Jan. 13, 2014.
Synopsis Background: Same-sex partners married in Ohio brought action against Louisiana Attorney General, challenging the constitutionality of Louisiana provisions barring same-sex marriage and recognition of same-sex marriages entered into in other states. Attorney General moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
[Holding:] The District Court, Martin L.C. Feldman, J., held that partners failed to satisfy specificity nexus required to warrant application of Ex parte Young.
Motion granted.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*750 Scott J. Spivey, Scott J. Spivey, Esq. A Professional Law Corporation, New Orleans, LA, for Jonathan P. Robicheaux.
Jessica M.P. Thornhill, Angelique Duhon Freel, Louisiana Department of Justice, Baton Rouge, LA, for James D. Caldwell, Louisiana Attorney General.
ORDER & REASONS
MARTIN L.C. FELDMAN, District Judge.
Before the Court are defendant’s motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and to dismiss or transfer for improper venue. For the reasons that follow, the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED, and the motion to

dismiss or transfer for improper venue is DENIED as moot.

Background
This civil rights lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Louisiana’s ban on same-sex marriage and its unwillingness to recognize same-sex marriages entered into in other states. Jonathan Robicheaux married his same-sex partner in Iowa, but he lives in Orleans Parish, Louisiana. He alleges that Louisiana’s defense of marriage *751 amendment to the state constitution (La. Const. art. 12, § 15) and Article 3520 of the Louisiana Civil Code (which decrees that same-sex marriage violates Louisiana’s strong public policy and precludes recognition of any such marriage contract from another state) violate his federal constitutional rights.1

1

In particular, Robicheaux alleges that the state’s ban on

same-sex marriage and refusal to recognize the

marriage contract he entered into in Iowa:

(1) deprives him of his fundamental right to marry in

violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth

Amendment Due Process Clause;

(2) deprives him of equal protection of the law in

violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth

Amendment because it constitutes discrimination on

the basis of sexual orientation and/or sex; and

(3) violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the

U.S. Constitution.

Robicheaux first brought this suit alone, but has since amended his complaint to include his partner, Derek Penton, and another same-sex couple who were also married in Iowa, but now live in Louisiana, Nadine and Courtney Blanchard. The plaintiffs sued the Louisiana Attorney General James “Buddy” Caldwell, the only defendant in this lawsuit. The Attorney General has filed two motions: first, a motion to dismiss for improper venue, to transfer for improper venue, or to transfer in the interest of justice; and second, a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on Eleventh Amendment immunity.

I.
[1] Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, the Court first considers whether it has
1

Robicheaux v. Caldwell, 986 F.Supp.2d 749 (2013)
jurisdiction here. Motions filed under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to challenge the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). The Attorney General challenges this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, invoking the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The burden of proof for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is on the party asserting jurisdiction. Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.2001).
[2] [3] The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars suits by private citizens against a state in federal court. K.P. v. LeBlanc, 627 F.3d 115, 124 (5th Cir.2010) (citing Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 700, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978)). This immunity extends to protect state actors who are acting in their official capacities. Id. There is, of course, a narrow exception to this immunity from suit: the iconic Ex parte Young exception, which “is based on the legal fiction that a sovereign state cannot act unconstitutionally[; t]hus, where a state actor enforces an unconstitutional law, he is stripped of his official clothing and becomes a private person subject to suit.” See id. (emphasis added)(citing Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908)); see also Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (noting “[o]f course a state official in his or her official capacity, when sued for injunctive relief, would be a person under § 1983 because ‘official-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the State’ ”).
[4] [5] [6] The Ex parte Young exception applies when the plaintiff demonstrates that the state officer has “some connection” with the enforcement of the disputed act. K.P., 627 F.3d at 124 (citing Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. at 160, 28 S.Ct. 441, and noting that the purpose of the connection requirement is to prevent litigants from misusing the exception). As the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has observed:
Ex parte Young gives some guidance about the required “connection” between *752 a state actor and an allegedly unconstitutional act. “The fact that the state officer, by virtue of his office, has some connection with the enforcement of the act, is the important and material fact, and whether it arises out of the general law, or is specially created by the act itself, is not material so long as it exists.”
Id. (quoting Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. at 157, 28 S.Ct. 441). Ex parte Young limits the plaintiff to prospective relief, and bars money damages. Verizon Md. Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635, 645, 122 S.Ct. 1753, 152 L.Ed.2d 871 (2002). To determine whether Ex parte Young’s mandate is satisfied, “a court need only conduct a

straightforward inquiry into whether [the] complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)(alteration in original).
Because plaintiffs, as the record stands, have made no effort or attempt to seek official recognition of their samesex marriages by the State of Louisiana, the Attorney General submits he lacks the requisite connection with the enforcement of the challenged provisions that is necessary to meet the imperatives of the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity. Invoking Okpalobi v. Foster, 244 F.3d 405, 411 (5th Cir.2001),2 Mr. Caldwell contends that plaintiffs must allege that he has both a particular duty to enforce the challenged provisions in question, and a demonstrated willingness to exercise that duty. To the extent that the Attorney General reads the scope of the Ex parte Young exception based on the Fifth Circuit’s analysis in Okpalobi, the Court notes that the Fifth Circuit’s discussion of sovereign immunity in Okpalobi was in a plurality opinion. As the Fifth Circuit has observed, “[b]ecause that part of the en banc opinion did not garner majority support, the Eleventh Amendment analysis is not binding precedent.” K.P., 627 F.3d at 124 (citing United States v. Ferguson, 211 F.3d 878, 885 (5th Cir.2000)). Nevertheless, the plurality comments are helpful, and are echoed in the case literature.

2

In Okpalobi, the Fifth Circuit held that to determine

whether the Ex parte Young exception applies, the

Court “should gauge (1) the ability of the official to

enforce the statute at issue under his statutory or

constitutional powers, and (2) the demonstrated

willingness of the official to enforce the statute.” 244

F.3d at 417.

[7] The Court finds that plaintiffs fall short of satisfying the “some connection” requirement of Ex parte Young even without Okpalobi. Plaintiffs ask the Court “to take judicial notice of the fact that the Louisiana Attorney General is quintessentially the official responsible for enforcing the laws of Louisiana.” The Attorney General’s sweeping responsibility to enforce the laws of the State of Louisiana lacks the Ex parte Young specificity nexus between the Attorney General and the alleged unconstitutional provisions that is essential to defeat sovereign immunity.
Plaintiffs also cite to a pending state-court action, In re Costanza,3 involving different plaintiffs but similar issues and the same defendant; they argue that that case illustrates the Attorney General’s ability and
2

Robicheaux v. Caldwell, 986 F.Supp.2d 749 (2013)

demonstrated willingness to enforce the provisions at issue here. The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs contend that the Attorney General represents the State of Louisiana as the defendant in that case. The referenced case might demonstrate the Attorney General’s willingness to defend the provisions at issue here, but it in no way focuses or establishes his willingness *753 to enforce them. See K.P., 627 F.3d at 124 (explaining that “a state actor must be connected with an act’s ‘enforcement’ for the [Ex parte Young ] exception to apply,” and that “ ‘[e]nforcement’ typically involves compulsion or constraint.” (citations omitted)).

3

Plaintiffs provide neither a full citation nor a copy of

this case to the Court.

Plaintiffs also invoke an advisory opinion by the Attorney General, at the request of Frank Perez, General Counsel with the Department of Health and Hospitals in Louisiana, in which the Attorney General opined that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution does not require the Vital Records Registrar to accept an out-of-state adoption judgment that names as the adoptive parents two persons considered married in another jurisdiction but not in Louisiana. Notably, in reaching that result, the Attorney General explicitly relied on La. Child. Code arts. 1198 and 1221, not on La. Const. art. 12, § 15 or La. Civ.Code art. 3520, the provisions at issue in this lawsuit.
[8] Finally, plaintiffs maintain that because they seek injunctive relief and not money damages, sovereign immunity “cannot apply.” See Will, 491 U.S. at 71 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 2304. They are wholly mistaken. A request for prospective relief is one requisite element, but not itself sufficient, to invoke the Ex parte Young exception. Verizon, 535 U.S. at 645, 122 S.Ct. 1753.
Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of establishing this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161. Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity is GRANTED. Defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue is DENIED as moot.

Background
This lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of Louisiana’s ban on same-sex marriage and its refusal to recognize same-sex marriages permitted in other states. Jonathan Robicheaux married his same-sex partner in Iowa, but lives in Orleans Parish, Louisiana; he alleged that Louisiana’s defense of marriage amendment to the state constitution (La. Const. art. 12, § 15) and article 3520 of the Louisiana Civil Code (which decrees that same-sex marriage violates Louisiana’s strong public policy and precludes recognition of any such marriage contract from another state) violate his federal constitutional rights.
Robicheaux named the Louisiana Attorney General James “Buddy” Caldwell as the only defendant in this case. When Robicheaux first brought suit, he alleged only violations of the full faith and credit clause; however, he then amended his complaint to add claims of due process and equal protection violations. And although Robicheaux initially brought this suit alone, he amended his complaint for a second time to include as additional plaintiffs his partner, Derek Penton, and another couple also married in Iowa but now living in Louisiana, Nadine and Courtney Blanchard.
Attorney General Caldwell moved to dismiss or transfer the case for improper venue, and then to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity. On November 26, 2013, the Court granted the Attorney General’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and denied the motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue as moot. The Court held that plaintiffs fell short of satisfying the requirement *754 of Ex parte Young1 that the state official have “some connection” to the enforcement of the challenged state law. Six days later, plaintiffs filed this motion asking the Court to reconsider its ruling. Plaintiffs have also filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint.

1

209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908).

ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court are plaintiffs’ motions to reconsider and for leave to file a third amended complaint. For the reasons that follow, the motions are DENIED.

I. 3

Robicheaux v. Caldwell, 986 F.Supp.2d 749 (2013)
A.
Motions requesting reconsideration of court orders generally fall under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Higgins v. Cain, No. 07– 9729, 2012 WL 3309716, at *1 (E.D.La. Aug. 13, 2012). Rule 59(e) provides that a motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than twenty-eight days after the entry of judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Rule 60(b), on the other hand, applies to motions filed after the twenty-eight day period, but demands more “exacting substantive requirements.” See Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173–74 (5th Cir.1990), abrogated on other grounds, Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1078 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc). Because the Court entered the order dismissing the case on November 26, 2013, and the plaintiffs filed the motion to reconsider six days later on December 2, 2013, the motion is timely under Rule 59(e), and such analysis is appropriate.
B.
[9] [10] [11] [12] “A Rule 59(e) motion ‘calls into question the correctness of a judgment.’ ” Templet v. Hydrochem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 (5th Cir.2004) (quoting In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir.2002)). Because of the interest in finality, Rule 59(e) motions may only be granted if the moving party shows there was a mistake of law or fact or presents newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered previously. Id. at 478–79. Moreover, Rule 59 motions should not be used to relitigate old matters, raise new arguments, or submit evidence that could have been presented earlier in the proceedings. See id. at 479; Rosenblatt v. United Way of Greater Houston, 607 F.3d 413, 419 (5th Cir.2010) (“[A] motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) ‘must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence’ and ‘cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued.’ ”) (citing Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 864 (5th Cir.2003)) (quoting Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir.1990)). The grant of such a motion is an “extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.” Indep. Coca–Cola Employees’ Union of Lake Charles, No. 1060 v. Coca–Cola Bottling Co. United, Inc., 114 Fed.Appx. 137, 143 (5th Cir.2004) (citing Templet, 367 F.3d at 479). The Court must balance two important judicial imperatives in deciding whether to reopen a case in response to a motion for reconsideration: “(1) the need to bring the litigation to an end; and (2) the need to render

just decisions on the basis of all the facts.” Templet, 367 F.3d at 479.

II.
Plaintiffs contend that the Court should reconsider its order dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity. However, instead of asserting a mistake of law or fact, plaintiffs submit for the first time a new claim that La. Const. art. 12, § 15 violates not only the U.S. Constitution but also the Enabling *755 Act of the State of Louisiana.2 Plaintiffs also contend that notwithstanding Hans v. Louisiana3 and over one hundred years of jurisprudence, Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity does not actually apply to suits commenced against a state by its own citizens. Plaintiffs maintain that a state simply cannot be immune from its obligation to comply with federal law.

2

ch. 21, 2 Stat. 641 (1811).

3

134 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890).

Plaintiffs fail to persuade the Court that the extraordinary remedy of reconsideration is warranted. Plaintiffs merely try to relitigate issues and add arguments that they ignored earlier; they show no mistake of law or fact in the Court’s prior ruling, nor do they present anything that undermines the Court’s order.

III.
[13] Alternatively, plaintiffs urge the Court to permit them to file a third amended complaint in order to name another state official with the requisite enforcement connection necessary to avoid sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs contend that under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2), “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” However, plaintiffs do not dispute the more exacting standard applicable to requests for leave to amend filed after a case has been dismissed. “Post-judgment amendment to a complaint can only occur once the judgment itself is vacated under Rule 59(e).” See Heimlich v. Harris Cnty., Texas, 81 Fed.Appx. 816, 817 (5th Cir.2003) (citing Vielma v. Eureka Co., 218 F.3d 458, 468 (5th Cir.2000)). The Fifth Circuit has instructed that “[i]n cases where a
4

Robicheaux v. Caldwell, 986 F.Supp.2d 749 (2013)
party seeks to amend a complaint after entry of judgment, ‘we have consistently upheld the denial of leave to amend where the party seeking to amend has not clearly established that he could not reasonably have raised the new matter prior to the trial court’s merits ruling.’ ” Id. (citing Briddle v. Scott, 63 F.3d 364, 380 (5th Cir.1995)).
The Court has declined to grant reconsideration of its order dismissing plaintiffs’ claims. And plaintiffs provide no support for their position that the Court should grant
	   	  

leave to amend for a third time, nor do they provide any credible and competent explanation why permission for such amendment was not requested before now.
Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motions for reconsideration and for leave to file a third amended complaint are DENIED.
	  
	  

5

 
 Case: 14-31037 Document: 00513102305 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/01/2015 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-MBN Document 144 Filed 07/02/15 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 14-31037 _______________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:13-CV-5090 D.C. Docket No. 2:14-CV-327 D.C. Docket No. 2:14-CV-97

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 1, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

JONATHAN P. ROBICHEAUX; DEREK PENTON; NADINE BLANCHARD; COURTNEY BLANCHARD,
Plaintiffs - Appellants
v.
JAMES D. CALDWELL, in his official capacity as the Louisiana Attorney General, also known as Buddy Caldwell,
Defendant - Appellee _______________________________________________________________________
JONATHAN P. ROBICHEAUX; DEREK PENTON; NADINE BLANCHARD; COURTNEY BLANCHARD; ROBERT WELLES; GARTH BEAUREGARD,
Plaintiffs - Appellants
v.
DEVIN GEORGE, in his official capacity as the State Registrar and Center Director at Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals; TIM BARFIELD, in his official capacity as the Louisiana Secretary of Revenue; KATHY KLIEBERT, in her official capacity as the Louisiana Secretary of Health and Hospitals,
Defendants - Appellees

Case: 14-31037 Document: 00513102305 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/01/2015 Case 2:13-cv-05090-MLCF-MBN Document 144 Filed 07/02/15 Page 2 of 2
________________________________________________________________________ FORUM FOR EQUALITY LOUISIANA, INCORPORATED; JACQUELINE M. BRETTNER; M. LAUREN BRETTNER; NICHOLAS J. VAN SICKELS; ANDREW S. BOND; HENRY LAMBERT; R. CAREY BOND; L. HAVARD SCOTT, III; SERGIO MARCH PRIETO,
Plaintiffs - Appellants v. TIM BARFIELD, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Revenue; DEVIN GEORGE, in his official capacity as Louisiana State Registrar,
Defendants - Appellees Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
J U D G M E N T This cause was considered on the record on appeal and was argued by counsel. It is ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion of this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellees pay to appellants the costs on appeal to be taxed by the Clerk of this Court.
Certified as a true copy and issued as the mandate on Jul 01, 2015 Attest: Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

 
 Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 1 of 27
CLOSED,MASTER
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:13−cv−05090−MLCF−MBN

Robicheaux v. Caldwell Assigned to: Judge Martin L.C. Feldman Referred to: Magistrate Judge Michael North Cause: 00:0000 Cause Code Unknown Plaintiff Jonathan P. Robicheaux
Plaintiff Derek Penton
Plaintiff Nadine Blanchard
Plaintiff Courtney Blanchard

Date Filed: 07/16/2013 Date Terminated: 11/27/2013 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 950 Constitutional − State Statute Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Richard Gerard Perque Law Office of Richard G. Perque, LLC 700 Camp St. New Orleans, LA 70130 504−681−2003 Fax: 504−681−2004 Email: richard@perquelaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott J. Spivey Scott J Spivey, Esq A Professional Law Corporation 1010 Common St. Suite 2600 New Orleans, LA 70112 504−930−4857 Fax: 888−502−3935 Email: sjspivey@msn.com TERMINATED: 04/08/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Richard Gerard Perque (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott J. Spivey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Richard Gerard Perque (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott J. Spivey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Richard Gerard Perque (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 2 of 27
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott J. Spivey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

V. Consol Plaintiff Jonathan P. Robicheaux (14−0097)
Consol Plaintiff Derek Penton (14−0097)
Consol Plaintiff Nadine Blanchard (14−0097)
Consol Plaintiff Courtney Blanchard (14−0097)
Consol Plaintiff Robert Welles (14−0097)

represented by Richard Gerard Perque (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott J. Spivey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Richard Gerard Perque (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott J. Spivey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Richard Gerard Perque (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott J. Spivey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Richard Gerard Perque (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott J. Spivey (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/08/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Scott J. Spivey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John D. Sileo John D. Sileo, Attorney at Law

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 3 of 27

320 N. Carrollton Ave. Suite 101 New Orleans, LA 70119 504−486−4343 Email: jack@johnsileolaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
Garth Beauregard (14−0097)

represented by Scott J. Spivey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John D. Sileo (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
Forum for Equality Louisiana, Inc. (14−0327)

represented by James Dalton Courson Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC (New Orleans) 909 Poydras Street Suite 3150 New Orleans, LA 70112−4042 (504) 593−0812 Email: dcourson@stonepigman.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brooke C. Tigchelaar Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC (New Orleans) 546 Carondelet St. New Orleans, LA 70130−3588 504−593−0862 Email: btigchelaar@stonepigman.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John M. Landis Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC (New Orleans) 546 Carondelet St. New Orleans, LA 70130−3588 (504) 581−3200 Email: jlandis@stonepigman.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lesli D. Harris Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC (New Orleans) 909 Poydras Street Suite 3150 New Orleans, LA 70112−4042 (504) 581−3200 Email: lharris@stonepigman.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maurine Wall Laborde Wall, Bullington & Cook, LLC 540 Elmwood Park Blvd. Harahan, LA 70123 504−736−0347 Fax: 504−596−0982 Email: mlaborde@wallbulling.com

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 4 of 27

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
Jacqueline M. Brettner (14−0327)

represented by James Dalton Courson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brooke C. Tigchelaar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John M. Landis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lesli D. Harris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maurine Wall Laborde (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
M. Lauren Brettner (14−0327)

represented by James Dalton Courson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brooke C. Tigchelaar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John M. Landis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lesli D. Harris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maurine Wall Laborde (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
Nicholas J. Van Sickels (14−0327)

represented by James Dalton Courson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brooke C. Tigchelaar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John M. Landis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lesli D. Harris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 5 of 27

Consol Plaintiff Andrew S. Bond (14−0327)
Consol Plaintiff Henry Lambert (14−0327)
Consol Plaintiff R. Carey Bond (14−0327)

Maurine Wall Laborde (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Dalton Courson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brooke C. Tigchelaar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John M. Landis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lesli D. Harris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maurine Wall Laborde (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Dalton Courson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brooke C. Tigchelaar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John M. Landis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lesli D. Harris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maurine Wall Laborde (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Dalton Courson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brooke C. Tigchelaar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John M. Landis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 6 of 27

Lesli D. Harris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maurine Wall Laborde (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
L Havard Scott, III (14−0327)

represented by James Dalton Courson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brooke C. Tigchelaar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John M. Landis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lesli D. Harris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maurine Wall Laborde (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
Sergio March Prieto (14−0327)

represented by James Dalton Courson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brooke C. Tigchelaar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John M. Landis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lesli D. Harris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maurine Wall Laborde (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
James D. Caldwell in his official capacity as the Louisiana Attorney General also known as Buddy Caldwell

represented by Stuart Kyle Duncan Louisiana Department of Justice (94005) P. O. Box 94005 Baton Rouge, LA 70804−9005 202−714−9492 Email: kduncan@schaerr−duncan.com LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 7 of 27
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Angelique Duhon Freel Louisiana Department of Justice (Baton Rouge) 1885 N. 3rd Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 225−326−6017 Email: freela@ag.state.la.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Glen Sanders Louisiana Department of Justice Litigation Division P.O. Box 94005 1885 North 3rd St. Baton Rouge, LA 70804−9005 225−326−6300 Fax: 225−326−6192 Email: sandersd@ag.louisiana.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica M. P. Thornhill Louisiana Department of Justice Civil Division 626 N. Fourth St. P.O. Box 94095 Baton Rouge, LA 70804−9095 225−326−6000 Email: thornhillj@ag.state.la.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Phyllis Esther Glazer Meeks & Associates, LLC 3401 West Esplanade Ave. Suite 3 Metairie, LA 70002 504−355−0020 Fax: 504−355−0024 Email: pglazer@meekslawllc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Consol Defendant
Devin George in his official capacity as the State Registrar and Center Director of Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (14−0097)

represented by Stuart Kyle Duncan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Glen Sanders (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
J. Michael Johnson Law Offices of Mike Johnson, LLC 2250 Hospital Drive Suite 248 Bossier City, LA 71111 318−658−9456 Fax: 318−658−9605 Email: mjohnsonlegal@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 8 of 27

Phyllis Esther Glazer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Tim Barfield in his official capacity as the Louisiana Secretary of Revenue (14−0097)

represented by Stuart Kyle Duncan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Glen Sanders (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Michael Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Phyllis Esther Glazer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Kathy Kliebert in her official capacity as the Louisiana Secretary of Health and Hospitals (14−0097)

represented by Stuart Kyle Duncan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Glen Sanders (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Michael Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Phyllis Esther Glazer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Tim Barfield in his official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Revenue (14−0327)

represented by Stuart Kyle Duncan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Glen Sanders (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Michael Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Phyllis Esther Glazer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Defendant
Devin George in his official capacity as Louisiana State Registrar (14−0327)

represented by Stuart Kyle Duncan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 9 of 27

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Glen Sanders (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

J. Michael Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Phyllis Esther Glazer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus OutServe−SLDN Inc.

represented by Ryan P. Delaney Delaney & Robb, Attorneys at Law, LLC 2800 Veterans Blvd. Suite 213 Metairie, LA 70002 504−267−9700 Email: ryan@delaneyandrobb.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus American Military Partner Association

represented by Ryan P. Delaney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Helen M. Alvare

represented by John Bennett Wells Law Offices of John B. Wells P. O. Box 5235 Slidell, LA 70469 985−641−1855 Fax: 985−649−1536 Email: JohnLawEsq@msn.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Mark D. Regnerus

represented by F. Evans Schmidt Koch & Schmidt, LLC 650 Poydras St. Suite 2415 New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 208−9040 Email: feschmidt@kochschmidt.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Felix J. Sternfels Felix J. Sternfels, Attorney at Law P.O. Box 760 P.O. Box 760 4858 Hwy 1 Napoleonville Napoleonville, LA 70390 985−369−1608 Fax: 985−369−6110

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 10 of 27

Email: sternfels@acadianlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Joseph Price

represented by F. Evans Schmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Felix J. Sternfels (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Catherine R. Pakaluk

represented by F. Evans Schmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Felix J. Sternfels (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Byron R. Johnson

represented by F. Evans Schmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Felix J. Sternfels (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Allen J. Hawkins, Jr.

represented by F. Evans Schmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Felix J. Sternfels (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus David J. Eggebeen

represented by F. Evans Schmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Felix J. Sternfels (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Douglas W. Allen

represented by F. Evans Schmidt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Felix J. Sternfels (See above for address)

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 11 of 27

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Louisiana

represented by Candice C. Sirmon 2723 D'Abadie Street New Orleans, LA 70119 917−699−5405 Email: candice.sirmon@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin Paul Harrison American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (New Orleans) 1340 Poydras St. Suite 2160 P. O. Box 56157 New Orleans, LA 70156 504−522−0628 ext. 122 Email: jharrison@laaclu.org TERMINATED: 07/31/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Amicus National Center for Lesbian Rights

represented by Justin Paul Harrison (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Marriage Law Foundation

represented by Ben E. Clayton Ben E. Clayton, Attorney at Law P.O. Box 189 411 Sabine Street Bogalusa, LA 70427 1921 Corporate Square Blvd Ste H, Slidell, LA 70461 Bogalusa, LA 70429 985−863−3065 Fax: 985−863−7707 Email: benclayt@bellsouth.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Alan J Hawkins

represented by Daniel R. Atkinson , Jr. Joubert Law Firm, APLC 2171 Quail Run Drive Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70808 225−761−3822 Fax: 225−767−7967 Email: danny@joubertlawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Robert P. George

represented by Warren L. Montgomery District Attorney's Office (22nd JDC) 701 N. Columbia St. Covington, LA 70433 985−809−8383 Email: wmontgomery@22da.com

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 12 of 27

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Sherif Girgis

represented by Warren L. Montgomery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Ryan T. Anderson

represented by Warren L. Montgomery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus John Randall Trahan

represented by Gregory Scott LaCour Blue Williams, LLP (Metairie) 3421 N. Causeway Blvd. Suite 900 Metairie, LA 70002 (504) 831−4091 Fax: 504−818−0408 Email: glacour@bluewilliams.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda Pendleton Sigur David J. Lukinovich, APC (Baton Rouge) 17991 Old Perkins Road East Suite F Baton Rouge, LA 70809 5048180401 Fax: 5048180401 Email: amanda@lukinovichlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Katherine Shaw Spaht

represented by Gregory Scott LaCour (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amanda Pendleton Sigur (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.

represented by Justin Paul Harrison , American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (New Orleans)

1340 Poydras St. Suite 2160 P. O. Box 56157 New Orleans, LA 70156 504−522−0628 ext. 122 Fax: Email: jharrison@laaclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 13 of 27

Amicus Jason S. Carroll
Amicus New Orleans City
Amicus Donaldson Adoption Institute formerly known as Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute

represented by Daniel R. Atkinson , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sharonda R. Williams Fishman Haygood, LLP (New Orleans) 201 St. Charles Ave. Suite 4600 New Orleans, LA 70170−4600 504−556−5506 Email: swilliams@fishmanhaygood.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Arthur L. Stewart Arthur L. Stewart, Attorney at Law, LLC 1869 Avenue of the Americas Suite B Monroe, LA 71201 318−387−1981 Email: arthur@stewartlawllc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/16/2013 07/16/2013
07/16/2013 07/22/2013 07/23/2013 07/29/2013 08/08/2013
08/09/2013

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants (In Forma Pauperis status requested) filed by Jonathan P. Robicheaux. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit)(Spivey, Scott) Modified on 7/16/2013 (caa, ). (Entered: 07/16/2013)
2 EXPARTE/CONSENT First MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Jonathan P. Robicheaux. Motion(s) referred to Alma L. Chasez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Application, # 2 Proposed Order)(Spivey, Scott) Modified on 7/16/2013 (caa, ). (Entered: 07/16/2013)
3 Initial Case Assignment to Judge Martin L.C. Feldman and Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez. (mmv, ) (Entered: 07/16/2013)
4 ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez on 7/19/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Pauper Letter) (caa, ) (Entered: 07/23/2013)
5 Summons Issued as to James D. Caldwell. (caa, ) (Entered: 07/23/2013)
6 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed; waiver sent to James D. Caldwell on 7/25/2013, answer due 9/23/2013. (Spivey, Scott) Modified on 7/30/2013 (caa, ). (Entered: 07/29/2013)
7 EXPARTE/CONSENT First MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by Jonathan P. Robicheaux. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Proposed Pleading)(Spivey, Scott) Modified on 8/9/2013 (caa, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/13/2013: # 4 Summons) (caa, ). (Entered: 08/08/2013)
8 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 7 First MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Filing attorney incorrectly changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Judge Y/N?' and Document does not contain Case Number, Section or Magistrate Judge. This motion will be decided by the district judge and All future pleadings must reflect Case Number 13−5090, Section F & Magistrate Judge 5. Clerk took corrective action.(caa, ) Modified on 8/9/2013 (caa, ). (Entered:

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 14 of 27

08/09/2013 08/09/2013 08/13/2013 08/16/2013 09/26/2013
10/02/2013 10/16/2013
10/28/2013 10/30/2013 10/30/2013 11/01/2013 11/04/2013 11/04/2013 11/04/2013 11/04/2013 11/06/2013

08/09/2013)
9 ORDER granting 7 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 8/9/2013. (caa, ) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
10 AMENDED COMPLAINT against James D. Caldwell filed by Jonathan P. Robicheaux.(caa, ) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
11 Summons Issued as to James D. Caldwell. (caa, ) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
12 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed; waiver sent to James D. Caldwell on 8/13/2013, answer due 10/15/2013. (Spivey, Scott) (Entered: 08/16/2013)
13 MOTION to Dismiss Case For Improper Venue, MOTION to Transfer Case to Middle District of Louisiana by James D. Caldwell. Motion set for 10/16/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Martin L.C. Feldman. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)Attorney Jessica M. P. Thornhill added to party James D. Caldwell(pty:dft).(Thornhill, Jessica) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
14 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Jonathan P. Robicheaux re 13 MOTION to Dismiss Case For Improper Venue MOTION to Transfer Case to Middle District of Louisiana . (Spivey, Scott) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
15 ORDER that, no later than 10/30/2013, counsel for both sides must submit simultaneous suppl papers, supported by citation to legal authority and if relevant and necessary evidence, addressing whether venue is proper in the EDLA under either 28 USC 1391(b)(1) or (b)(2). FURTHER ORDERED Resetting Hearing on 13 MOTION to Dismiss Case For Improper Venue, MOTION to Transfer Case to MDLA for 11/13/2013, on the papers, unless otherwise ordered. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 10/16/2013.(caa, ) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
16 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Jonathan P. Robicheaux re 13 MOTION to Dismiss Case For Improper Venue MOTION to Transfer Case to Middle District of Louisiana First Supplemental. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Spivey, Scott) (Entered: 10/28/2013)
17 **DEFICIENT** EXPARTE/CONSENT Second MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by Jonathan P. Robicheaux. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Proposed Order)(Spivey, Scott) Modified on 10/31/2013 (clm, ). (Entered: 10/30/2013)
18 MEMORANDUM filed by James D. Caldwell re 13 MOTION to Dismiss Case For Improper Venue MOTION to Transfer Case to Middle District of Louisiana in response to Rec. Doc. 15. (Thornhill, Jessica) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
19 EXPARTE/CONSENT Second MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by Jonathan P. Robicheaux. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Summons)(Spivey, Scott) Modified on 11/4/2013 (clm, ). (Entered: 11/01/2013)
20 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 19 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Document contains blank page. Filing attorney should remove any blank pages prior to filing future documents. No further action required. (clm, ) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
21 ORDER granting 19 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 11/4/2013. (caa, ) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
22 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against James D. Caldwell filed by Jonathan P. Robicheaux, Derek Penton, Nadine Blanchard & Courtney Blanchard.(caa, ) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
23 Summons Issued as to James D. Caldwell. (caa, ) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
24 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by James D. Caldwell. Motion set for 11/27/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Martin L.C. Feldman. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Thornhill, Jessica) (Entered:

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 15 of 27

11/07/2013 11/08/2013 11/12/2013 11/12/2013
11/13/2013 11/25/2013 11/26/2013 11/27/2013 11/27/2013 11/27/2013 12/02/2013
12/02/2013
12/03/2013
12/03/2013

11/06/2013)
25 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed; waiver sent to James D. Caldwell on 11/5/2013, answer due 1/6/2014. (Spivey, Scott) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
26 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 24 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction . (Attachments: # 1 Request for Oral Argument)(Spivey, Scott) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
27 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by All Plaintiffs regarding 24 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction . (clm, ) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
28 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 26 Response/Memorandum in Opposition to Motion. Filing attorney attached a Request/Statement for Oral Argument to this motion instead of filing it as a separate entry. Clerk took corrective action by separating the request and docketing it as a separate entry. All future requests for oral argument must be filed separately. (clm, ) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
29 ORDER Resetting Hearing on 13 MOTION to Dismiss Case For Improper Venue MOTION to Transfer Case to Middle District of Louisiana for 11/27/2013, to be decided on the papers, unless otherwise ordered. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 11/13/2013.(caa, ) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
30 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum filed by James D. Caldwell . (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Thornhill, Jessica) Modified on 11/26/2013 (clm, ). (Entered: 11/25/2013)
31 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 30 Response/Memorandum. Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct event is 'Motion for Leave to File.' Clerk took corrective action by changing the event. (clm, ) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
32 ORDER denying 27 Request/Statement of Oral Argument filed by Nadine Blanchard, Courtney Blanchard, Derek Penton & Jonathan P. Robicheaux. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 11/27/2013.(caa, ) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
33 ORDER & REASONS denying as moot 13 Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Case for improper venue and granting 24 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 11/26/2013. (caa, ) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
34 ORDER denying 30 MOTION for Leave to File filed by James D. Caldwell. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 11/26/2013.(caa, ) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
35 First MOTION for Reconsideration re 33 Order on Motion to Dismiss Case, Order on Motion to Transfer Case, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction ; by Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Derek Penton, Jonathan P. Robicheaux. Motion set for 1/15/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Martin L.C. Feldman. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Spivey, Scott) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
36 **DEFICIENT** First MOTION to Amend/Correct 22 Amended Complaint with Third Amended Complaint by Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Derek Penton, Jonathan P. Robicheaux. Motion set for 1/15/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Martin L.C. Feldman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission, # 4 Summons)(Spivey, Scott) Modified on 12/3/2013 (clm, ). (Entered: 12/02/2013)
37 First MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint by Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Derek Penton, Jonathan P. Robicheaux. Motion(s) referred to Alma L. Chasez. Motion set for 1/15/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Notice of Submission, # 5 Summons)(Spivey, Scott) Modified on 12/4/2013 (clm, ). (Entered: 12/03/2013)
38 Amendment/Supplement to Document by Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Derek Penton, Jonathan P. Robicheaux re 37 First MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint. (Spivey, Scott) Modified on 12/4/2013 (clm, ). (Entered: 12/03/2013)

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 16 of 27

12/04/2013
12/05/2013 12/16/2013 12/17/2013 12/17/2013 12/30/2013 12/31/2013
01/02/2014 01/02/2014 01/07/2014 01/13/2014 01/16/2014 01/16/2014 01/16/2014

39 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 37 MOTION for Leave to File. Filing attorney should have changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the magistrate judge. In addition, Filing attorney selected incorrect judicial officer for submission/hearing. When setting a motion for submission/hearing there is a reminder message 'Be sure to select the correct Judge or Magistrate Judge:'. Motion(s) referred to Alma L. Chasez. Motion set for 1/15/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez.Clerk took corrective action. (clm, ) (Entered: 12/04/2013)
40 ORDER Setting Oral Argument on 37 MOTION for Leave to File : Motion set for 1/15/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez via telephone. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez.(lag, ) (Entered: 12/05/2013)
41 EXPARTE/CONSENT First MOTION to Expedite hearing on Motion to Amend by Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Derek Penton, Jonathan P. Robicheaux. Motion(s) referred to Alma L. Chasez. (Spivey, Scott) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/17/2013: # 1 Proposed Order) (cml, ). (Entered: 12/16/2013)
42 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 41 First MOTION to Expedite hearing on Motion to Amend. Filing attorney did not include a proposed order. Proposed Order subsequently provided to Clerk and has now been attached to the motion. (cml, ) (Entered: 12/17/2013)
43 ORDER granting 41 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on 37 MOTION for Leave to File ; Motion reset for 1/8/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez via telephone. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alma L. Chasez.(lag, ) (Entered: 12/17/2013)
44 ORDER Resetting Hearing on 37 MOTION for Leave to File third amended complaint, for 1/15/2014, to be decided by the Court on the papers together with plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 12/30/2013.(caa, ) (Entered: 12/30/2013)
45 EXPARTE/CONSENT First MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion for Reconsideration by Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Derek Penton, Jonathan P. Robicheaux. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading − Supplement Memorandum )(Spivey, Scott) Modified text on 1/2/2014 (cml, ). (Entered: 12/31/2013)
46 ORDER granting 45 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 1/2/2014. (caa, ) (Entered: 01/02/2014)
47 Supplemental Memorandum filed by All Plaintiffs, in support of 35 First MOTION for Reconsideration re 33 Order on Motion to Dismiss Case, Order on Motion to Transfer Case, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction. (caa, ) (Entered: 01/02/2014)
48 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by James D. Caldwell re 35 First MOTION for Reconsideration re 33 Order on Motion to Dismiss Case, Order on Motion to Transfer Case, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction ; . (Thornhill, Jessica) Modified text on 1/8/2014 (cml, ). (Entered: 01/07/2014)
49 ORDER & REASONS denying 35 Motion for Reconsideration & 37 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 1/13/2014. (caa, ) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
50 **ERROR: DOCUMENT REFILED CORRECTLY AS REC. DOC. 51** NOTICE OF APPEAL by All Plaintiffs as to 49 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Order on Motion for Leave to File. (In Forma Pauperis status granted) (Spivey, Scott) Modified on 1/16/2014 (cml, ). Modified on 5/15/2014 (jdh). (Entered: 01/16/2014)
51 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Derek Penton, Jonathan P. Robicheaux as to 49 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Order on Motion for Leave to File. (In Forma Pauperis status granted) (Spivey, Scott) (Entered: 01/16/2014)
52 APPEAL TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Derek Penton, Jonathan P. Robicheaux for proceedings held on n/a re 51 Notice of Appeal. (Spivey, Scott) (Entered: 01/16/2014)

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 17 of 27

01/21/2014 01/21/2014 01/22/2014 01/23/2014
01/23/2014 01/23/2014
01/24/2014
01/27/2014 02/05/2014
02/07/2014 02/07/2014
02/07/2014 02/07/2014 02/13/2014 02/13/2014

53 ORDER that 14−0097 is consolidated with 13−5090. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman.(caa, ) (Entered: 01/21/2014)
54 JUDGMENT entered in favor of James D. Caldwell against Courtney Blanchard, Derek Penton, Jonathan P. Robicheaux and Nadine Blanchard. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 1/21/2014.(Reference: 13−5090)(caa, ) (Entered: 01/21/2014)
55 EXPARTE/CONSENT First MOTION for Leave to Amend/Correct Complaint in 14−cv−0097 by Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Derek Penton, Jonathan P. Robicheaux. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Summons)(Ref Modified on 1/23/2014 (cml, ). (Entered: 01/22/2014)
56 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 55 First MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint to 14−cv−0097. Filing attorney incorrectly changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the district judge. Clerk took correctiveaction. (Reference: 14−97)(cml, ) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
57 ORDER denying 55 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 1/23/2014. (Reference: 14−0097)(caa, ) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
58 EXPARTE/CONSENT First MOTION to Consolidate Cases − unconsolidate cases by Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Derek Penton, Jonathan P. Robicheaux. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 14−cv−00097)(Spivey, Scott) (Main Document 58 replaced on 1/24/2014) (caa, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2014: # 2 Memorandum in Support) (caa, ). (Entered: 01/23/2014)
59 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 58 First MOTION to Consolidate Cases − unconsolidate cases. Multiple documents were incorrectly filed as one PDF. The Memorandum in Support should have been filed as attachment to Motion. All future filings should be entered this way. Clerk took corrective action. No further action is necessary. (Reference: 14−0097)(caa, ) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
60 ORDER denying 58 Motion to De−consolidate Cases. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 1/27/2014. (Reference: BOTH CASES)(caa, ) (Entered: 01/27/2014)
61 EXPARTE/CONSENT Second MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint to Add Plaintiffs by Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Derek Penton, Jonathan P. Robicheaux. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Proposed Pleading, # 4 Summons)(Reference: 14−cv−00097)(Spivey, Scott) (Entered: 02/05/2014)
62 ORDER granting 61 Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 2/7/2014. (Reference: 14−0097)(caa, ) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
63 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against Tim Barfield, Devin George & Kathy Kliebert filed by Derek Penton, Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Jonathan P. Robicheaux, Robert Welles & Garth Beauregard.(Reference: 14−0097)Attorney Scott J. Spivey added to party Robert Welles(pty:conpla), Attorney Scott J. Spivey added to party Garth Beauregard(pty:conpla).(caa, ) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
64 Summons Issued as to Tim Barfield, Devin George & Kathy Kliebert. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons)(Reference: 14−0097)(caa, ) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
65 ORDER of USCA as to 51 Notice of Appeal. The appeal is dismissed as of 2/5/2014 pursuant to appellant's motion. USCA Judge Name: Clerk of Court (Attachments: # 1 Transmittal Letter)(cml, ) (Entered: 02/12/2014)
66 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed; waiver sent to Devin George on 2/13/2014, answer due 4/14/2014; Kathy Kliebert on 2/13/2014, answer due 4/14/2014. (Reference: 14−cv−00097)(Spivey, Scott) (Entered: 02/13/2014)
67 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed; waiver sent to Tim Barfield on 2/13/2014, answer due 4/14/2014. (Reference: 14−cv−00097)(Spivey, Scott) (Entered: 02/13/2014)

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 18 of 27

02/27/2014
02/27/2014 02/28/2014 03/14/2014 03/18/2014 03/20/2014
03/20/2014 03/20/2014 03/26/2014 04/04/2014
04/04/2014

68 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear as Counsel of Record by Tim Barfield, James D. Caldwell, Devin George, Kathy Kliebert. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order on Motion for Appearance as Counsel)(Reference: 14−cv−0097)Attorney Stuart Kyle Duncan added to party Tim Barfield(pty:condft), Attorney Stuart Kyle Duncan added to party James D. Caldwell(pty:dft), Attorney Stuart Kyle Duncan added to party Devin George(pty:condft), Attorney Stuart Kyle Duncan added to party Kathy Kliebert(pty:condft).(Duncan, Stuart) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
69 ORDER: Status Conference set for 3/14/2014 10:30 AM before Judge Martin L.C. Feldman. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman.(Reference: 14−0097)(caa, ) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
70 ORDER granting 68 Motion to Appear for Attorney Stuart Kyle Duncan for Tim Barfield, James D. Caldwell, Devin George & Kathy Kliebert. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 2/28/2014. (Reference: BOTH CASES)(caa, ) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
71 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Martin L.C. Feldman: Status Conference held on 3/14/2014. (Court Reporter Toni Tusa.) (Reference: 14−0097)(caa) (Entered: 03/14/2014)
72 ORDER that 14−0327 is consolidated with 13−5090. FURTHER ORDER that Case is transferred to Magistrate Judge Michael North for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 3/18/2014.(Reference: 14−0327)(caa) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
73 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Hearing and MOTION To Set Briefing and Argument Schedule by Tim Barfield(in his official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Revenue (14−0097)), Garth Beauregard, Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Andrew S. Bond, R. Carey Bond, Jacqueline M. Brettner, M. Lauren Brettner, James D. Caldwell, Forum for Equality Louisiana, Inc., Devin George(in his official capacity as the State Registrar and Center Director of Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (14−0097)), Kathy Kliebert, Henry Lambert, Derek Penton, Sergio March Prieto, Jonathan P. Robicheaux, L Havard Scott, III, Nicholas J. Van Sickels & Robert Welles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 14−97, 14−327). (Duncan, Stuart) Modified on 3/20/2014 (caa). (Entered: 03/20/2014)
74 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 73 MOTION for Hearing MOTION to Set Briefing and Argument Schedule. Filing attorney incorrectly selected filers in multiple party roles. When selecting a party with multiple party roles select only one. Multiple selections will result in duplicate docket text. Clerk took corrective action. No further action necessary at this time. (Reference: 14−0097 & 14−0327)(caa) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
75 ORDER granting 73 Motion for Hearing and To Set Briefing and Argument Schedule. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 3/20/2014. (Reference: ALL CASES)(caa) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
76 ANSWER to Complaint by Tim Barfield(in his official capacity as the Louisiana Secretary of Revenue (14−0097)), Devin George(in his official capacity as Louisiana State Registrar (14−0327)).(Reference: 14−327)(Duncan, Stuart) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
77 **DEFICIENT** EXPARTE/CONSENT First MOTION to Appear as Counsel of Record by Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Derek Penton, Jonathan P. Robicheaux. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order to Appear as Counsel)(Reference: 13−5090, 14−0327, 14−0097)Attorney Richard Gerard Perque added to party Courtney Blanchard(pty:pla), Attorney Richard Gerard Perque added to party Nadine Blanchard(pty:pla), Attorney Richard Gerard Perque added to party Derek Penton(pty:conpla), Attorney Richard Gerard Perque added to party Jonathan P. Robicheaux(pty:conpla).(Perque, Richard) Modified on 4/4/2014 (caa). (Entered: 04/04/2014)
78 EXPARTE/CONSENT First MOTION to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Richard G. Perque to be substituted in place of Scott Spivey by Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Derek Penton, Jonathan P. Robicheaux. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 13−5090, 14−0327, 14−0097)Attorney Richard Gerard Perque

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 19 of 27

04/08/2014 04/14/2014 04/17/2014
04/17/2014 04/17/2014 04/17/2014 04/21/2014 04/22/2014

added to party Courtney Blanchard(pty:conpla), Attorney Richard Gerard Perque added to party Nadine Blanchard(pty:conpla), Attorney Richard Gerard Perque added to party Derek Penton(pty:conpla), Attorney Richard Gerard Perque added to party Jonathan P. Robicheaux(pty:conpla).(Perque, Richard) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
79 ORDER granting 78 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Added attorney Richard Gerard Perque for Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Derek Penton, & Jonathan P. Robicheaux. Attorney Scott J. Spivey terminated. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 4/8/2014. (Reference: ALL CASES)(caa) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
80 ANSWER to 63 Amended Complaint, by Tim Barfield, Devin George, Kathy Kliebert.(Reference: 14−97)(Duncan, Stuart) Modified on 4/15/2014 (cml). (Entered: 04/14/2014)
81 DEFICIENT: MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Andrew S. Bond, R. Carey Bond, Jacqueline M. Brettner, M. Lauren Brettner, Forum for Equality Louisiana, Inc., Henry Lambert, Derek Penton, Sergio March Prieto, Jonathan P. Robicheaux, L Havard Scott, III, Nicholas J. Van Sickels. Motion set for 6/25/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Martin L.C. Feldman. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 3 Exhibit 1 − Robicheaux Decl., # 4 Exhibit 2 − Penton Decl., # 5 Exhibit 3 − C. Blanchard Decl., # 6 Exhibit 4 − N. Blanchard Decl., # 7 Exhibit 5 − Van Sickels Decl., # 8 Exhibit 6 − A. Bond Decl., # 9 Exhibit 7 − J. Brettner Decl., # 10 Exhibit 8 − L. Brettner Decl., # 11 Exhibit 9 − Lambert Decl., # 12 Exhibit 10 − C. Bond Decl., # 13 Exhibit 11 − Scott Decl., # 14 Exhibit 12 − March Prieto Decl., # 15 Exhibit 13 − Brady Decl., # 16 Exhibit 14 − Robb Decl., # 17 Exhibit 15 − Munster Decl., # 18 Exhibit 16 − Gates Decl., # 19 Exhibit 17 − McConnell Decl., # 20 Exhibit 18 − RIB No. 13−024, # 21 Exhibit 19 − Instructions, # 22 Exhibit 20 − La. HB 12, # 23 Exhibit 21 − Henry v. Himes, # 24 Exhibit 22 − Baskin v. Bogan, # 25 Notice of Submission)(Reference: ALL CASES)(Courson, James) Modified on 4/18/2014 (bbc). (Entered: 04/17/2014)
82 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Seal Document (Certain Exhibits to Declarations Submitted in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment) by Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Andrew S. Bond, R. Carey Bond, Jacqueline M. Brettner, M. Lauren Brettner, Forum for Equality Louisiana, Inc., Henry Lambert, Derek Penton, Sergio March Prieto, Jonathan P. Robicheaux, L Havard Scott, III & Nicholas J. Van Sickels. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: ALL CASES)(Courson, James) Modified on 4/18/2014 (bbc). Modified on 4/21/2014 (caa). (Entered: 04/17/2014)
83 DEFICIENT: MOTION to Dismiss , MOTION for Summary Judgment by Tim Barfield(in his official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Revenue (14−0327)), Devin George(in his official capacity as Louisiana State Registrar (14−0327)), Kathy Kliebert. Motion set for 6/25/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Martin L.C. Feldman. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 3 Affidavit Exhibit #1, # 4 Affidavit Exhibit #2, # 5 Affidavit Exhibit #3)(Reference: 14−97, 14−327)(Duncan, Stuart) Modified on 4/18/2014 (bbc). (Entered: 04/17/2014)
85 Manual Attachment Received (Sealed Docs) re 82 MOTION to Seal Document (Certain Exhibits to Declarations Submitted in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment). (Reference: All Cases)(cml) (Entered: 04/22/2014)
84 MOTION to Dismiss , MOTION for Summary Judgment by Tim Barfield(in his official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Revenue (14−0327)), Devin George(in his official capacity as the State Registrar and Center Director of Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (14−0097)), Kathy Kliebert. Motion set for 6/25/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Martin L.C. Feldman. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Appendix Table of Contents and Authorities, # 3 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 4 Affidavit Exhibit #1, # 5 Affidavit Exhibit #2, # 6 Affidavit Exhibit #3, # 7 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 14−97, 14−327)(Duncan, Stuart) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
86 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Andrew S. Bond, R. Carey Bond, Jacqueline M. Brettner, M. Lauren Brettner, Forum for Equality Louisiana, Inc., Henry Lambert, Derek Penton, Sergio March Prieto,

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 20 of 27

04/22/2014 05/07/2014 05/10/2014 05/12/2014 05/12/2014
05/12/2014
05/12/2014

Jonathan P. Robicheaux, L Havard Scott, III, Nicholas J. Van Sickels. Motion set for 6/25/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Martin L.C. Feldman. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Table of Contents for Memorandum in Support, # 3 Table of Authorities for Memorandum in Support, # 4 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 5 Exhibit 1 − Robicheaux Decl., # 6 Exhibit 2 − Penton Decl., # 7 Exhibit 3 − C. Blanchard Decl., # 8 Exhibit 4 − N. Blanchard Decl., # 9 Exhibit 5 − Van Sickels Decl., # 10 Exhibit B to Exhibit 5 − birth certificate filed under seal, # 11 Exhibit 6 − A. Bond Decl., # 12 Exhibit B to Exhibit 6 − birth certificate filed under seal, # 13 Exhibit 7 − J. Brettner Decl., # 14 Exhibit B to Exhibit 7 − birth certificate filed under seal, # 15 Exhibit 8 − L. Brettner Decl., # 16 Exhibit B to Exhibit 8 − birth certificate filed under seal, # 17 Exhibit 9 − Lambert Decl., # 18 Exhibit 10 − C. Bond Decl., # 19 Exhibit 11 − Scott Decl., # 20 Exhibit 12 − March Prieto Decl., # 21 Exhibit 13 − Brady Decl., # 22 Exhibit 14 − Robb Decl., # 23 Exhibit 15 − Munster Decl., # 24 Exhibit 16 − Gates Decl., # 25 Exhibit 17 − McConnell Decl., # 26 Exhibit 18 − La. Rev. Info. Bulletin No. 13−024, # 27 Exhibit 19 − 2013 La. Individual Income Tax Return Instructions, # 28 Exhibit 20 − La. H.B. 12, # 29 Exhibit 21 − Henry v. Himes, # 30 Exhibit 22 − Baskin v. Bogan, # 31 Notice of Submission)(Reference: ALL CASES)(Courson, James) (Attachment 10 replaced on 4/22/2014) (caa). (Attachment 12 replaced on 4/22/2014) (caa). (Attachment 14 replaced on 4/22/2014) (caa). (Attachment 16 replaced on 4/22/2014) (caa). (Entered: 04/22/2014)
87 ORDER granting 82 Motion to Seal Document. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 4/21/2014. (Reference: ALL CASES)(caa) (Entered: 04/22/2014)
88 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by American Military Partner Association and OutServe−SLDN Inc. (Attachments: # 2 Appendix Table of Contents, # 3 Appendix Table of Authorities)(Reference: ALL CASES)Attorney Ryan P. Delaney added to party Ryan P Delaney(pty:am).(Delaney, Ryan) (Main Document 88 replaced on 5/7/2014) (caa). Modified on 5/7/2014 (caa). Modified on 5/8/2014 (caa). (Entered: 05/07/2014)
89 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Helen M. Alvare . (Reference: All)(Wells, John) Modified on 5/12/2014 (cml). (Entered: 05/10/2014)
90 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 89 Response/Memorandum in Opposition to Motion. Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct event is 'Amicus Curiae Appearance'. Clerk took corrective action by editing the text. In addition, Filing attorney incorrectly linked document to document 86 Motion. Clerk removed link. No further action required. (cml) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
91 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Mark D. Regnerus, Joseph Price, Catherine R. Pakaluk, Byron R. Johnson, Allen J. Hawkins, Jr, David J. Eggebeen, Douglas W. Allen (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Table of Authorities, # 2 Exhibit Tables of Contents)(Reference: 14−0097)Attorney F. Evans Schmidt added to party Mark D. Regnerus(pty:am), Attorney F. Evans Schmidt added to party Joseph Price (pty:am), Attorney F. Evans Schmidt added to party Catherine R. Pakaluk(pty:am), Attorney F. Evans Schmidt added to party Byron R. Johnson(pty:am), Attorney F. Evans Schmidt added to party Allen J. Hawkins, Jr(pty:am), Attorney F. Evans Schmidt added to party David J. Eggebeen(pty:am), Attorney F. Evans Schmidt added to party Douglas W. Allen(pty:am).(Schmidt, F.) Modified on 5/13/2014 (caa). (Entered: 05/12/2014)
92 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Louisiana, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. & National Center for Lesbian Rights (Reference: ALL CASES)Attorney Justin Paul Harrison added to party American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Louisiana(pty:am), Attorney Justin Paul Harrison added to party Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.(pty:am), Attorney Justin Paul Harrison added to party National Center for Lesbian Rights(pty:am).(Harrison, Justin) Modified on 5/13/2014 (caa). (Entered: 05/12/2014)
93 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Marriage Law Foundation (Reference: 13−5090, 14−00097)Attorney Ben E. Clayton added to party Marriage Law Foundation(pty:am).(Clayton, Ben) Modified on 5/12/2014 (caa). (Entered: 05/12/2014)

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 21 of 27

05/12/2014 05/12/2014 05/12/2014 05/12/2014 05/12/2014 05/12/2014 05/19/2014
05/19/2014
05/20/2014 06/02/2014 06/02/2014

94 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Alan J Hawkins & Jason S. Carroll (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Exhibit 1 −Table of Contents, # 2 Appendix Exhibit 2 − Table of Authorities)(Reference: ALL CASES)Attorney Daniel R. Atkinson, Jr added to party Alan J Hawkins(pty:am), Attorney Daniel R. Atkinson, Jr added to party Jason S Carol(pty:am).(Atkinson, Daniel) Modified on 5/13/2014 (caa). (Entered: 05/12/2014)
95 **DUPLICATE FILING** Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Ryan T. Anderson, Sherif Girgis and Robert P. George. (Reference: ALL CASES)(Montgomery, Warren) Modified on 5/12/2014 (caa). Modified on 5/12/2014 (caa). (Entered: 05/12/2014)
96 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Ryan T. Anderson, Robert P. George & Sherif Girgis. (Reference: ALL CASES)(Montgomery, Warren) Modified on 5/12/2014 (caa). (Entered: 05/12/2014)
97 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by John Randall Trahan & Katherine Shaw Spaht (Reference: ALL CASES)Attorney Gregory Scott LaCour added to party John Randall Trahan(pty:selreq), Attorney Gregory Scott LaCour added to party Katherine Shaw Spaht(pty:selreq).(LaCour, Gregory) Modified on 5/13/2014 (caa). (Entered: 05/12/2014)
98 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by New Orleans City (Reference: ALL CASES)Attorney Sharonda R. Williams added to party City of New Orleans(pty:am).(Williams, Sharonda) Modified on 5/13/2014 (caa). (Entered: 05/12/2014)
99 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Donaldson Adoption Institute (Reference: ALL CASES)Attorney Arthur L. Stewart added to party Arthur L. Stewart(pty:am).(Stewart, Arthur) Modified on 5/13/2014 (caa). (Entered: 05/12/2014)
100 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Andrew S. Bond, R. Carey Bond, Jacqueline M. Brettner, M. Lauren Brettner, Forum for Equality Louisiana, Inc., Henry Lambert, Derek Penton, Sergio March Prieto, Jonathan P. Robicheaux, L Havard Scott, III, Nicholas J. Van Sickels re 84 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment . (Attachments: # 1 Table of Contents, # 2 Table of Authorities, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts)(Reference: ALL CASES)(Courson, James) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
101 **DEFICIENT** RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Tim Barfield(in his official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Revenue (14−0327)), Devin George(in his official capacity as the State Registrar and Center Director of Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (14−0097)), Kathy Kliebert re 86 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Tables of Contents and Authorities)(Reference: 14−97, 14−327)(Duncan, Stuart) Modified on 5/20/2014 (cml). (Entered: 05/19/2014)
102 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Tim Barfield(14−0327), Devin George(14−0097), Kathy Kliebert re 86 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Tables of Contents and Authorities, # 2 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts)(Reference: 14−97, 14−327)(Duncan, Stuart) Modified text on 5/21/2014 (cml). (Entered: 05/20/2014)
103 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief by Tim Barfield, Devin George, Kathy Kliebert. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Defendants' Reply Brief, # 3 Exhibit Defendants' Reply Brief Tables)(Reference: 14−97, 14−327)(Duncan, Stuart) Modified on 6/3/2014 (cml). (Entered: 06/02/2014)
104 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Andrew S. Bond, R. Carey Bond, Jacqueline M. Brettner, M. Lauren Brettner, Forum for Equality Louisiana, Inc., Henry Lambert, Derek Penton, Sergio March Prieto, Jonathan P. Robicheaux, L Havard Scott, III, Nicholas J. Van Sickels. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Reference: ALL CASES)(Courson, James) (Entered: 06/02/2014)

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 22 of 27

06/04/2014 06/04/2014
06/04/2014 06/04/2014 06/10/2014 06/10/2014 06/11/2014 06/24/2014 06/25/2014
06/26/2014 06/27/2014
07/16/2014 07/16/2014

105 ORDER granting 104 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 6/4/2014. (Reference: ALL CASES)(caa) (Entered: 06/04/2014)
106 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Andrew S. Bond, R. Carey Bond, Jacqueline M. Brettner, M. Lauren Brettner, Forum for Equality Louisiana, Inc., Henry Lambert, Derek Penton, Sergio March Prieto, Jonathan P. Robicheaux, L Havard Scott, III & Nicholas J. Van Sickels re 86 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. (Reference: ALL CASES)(caa) (Entered: 06/04/2014)
107 ORDER granting 103 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 6/4/2014. (Reference: ALL CASES)(caa) (Entered: 06/04/2014)
108 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Tim Barfield, Devin George & Kathy Kliebert re 84 MOTION to Dismiss , MOTION for Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Table of Contents)(Reference: ALL CASES)(caa) (Entered: 06/04/2014)
109 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear as Counsel of Record J. Michael Johnson by Tim Barfield, James D. Caldwell, Devin George & Kathy Kliebert. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: ALL CASES) (Johnson, J.) Modified on 6/10/2014 (caa). (Entered: 06/10/2014)
110 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 109 MOTION to Appear as Counsel of Record. Filing attorney incorrectly selected filers in multiple party roles. When selecting a party with multiple party roles select only once. Multiple selections will result in duplicate docket text. Clerk took corrective action. No further action necessary at this time. (Reference: ALL CASES)(caa) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
111 ORDER granting 109 Motion to Appear for Attorney J. Michael Johnson for Tim Barfield, Devin George & Kathy Kliebert. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 6/11/2014. (Reference: ALL CASES)(caa) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
112 NOTICE by Tim Barfield (14−0327), Devin George (14−0097), Kathy Kliebert . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental Authority)(Reference: 14−97, 14−327)(Duncan, Stuart) Modified text on 6/25/2014 (cml). (Entered: 06/24/2014)
113 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Martin L.C. Feldman: Motion Hearing held on 6/25/2014 re 84 MOTION to Dismiss , MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Kathy Kliebert, Devin George & Tim Barfield & 86 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Andrew S. Bond, Forum for Equality Louisiana, Inc., L Havard Scott, III, Jacqueline M. Brettner, Nicholas J. Van Sickels, Henry Lambert, M. Lauren Brettner, Nadine Blanchard, Courtney Blanchard, Derek Penton, Jonathan P. Robicheaux, Sergio March Prieto & R. Carey Bond. (Court Reporter Toni Tusa.) (Reference: ALL CASES)(caa) (Entered: 06/25/2014)
114 ORDER directed both sides to submit additional briefing within 21 days, addressing the remaining outstanding issues. The plaintiffs and defendants will each have 25 pages for their respective briefs, which will be due no later than Wednesday, 7/16/2014. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 6/26/2014.(Reference: ALL CASES)(caa) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
115 NOTICE by Courtney Blanchard, Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Andrew S. Bond, R. Carey Bond, Jacqueline M. Brettner, M. Lauren Brettner, Forum for Equality Louisiana, Inc., Henry Lambert, Derek Penton, Derek Penton, Sergio March Prieto, Jonathan P. Robicheaux, Jonathan P. Robicheaux, L Havard Scott, III, Nicholas J. Van Sickels of Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Reference: 13−5090; 14−327)(Harris, Lesli) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
116 **ERROR: INCOMPLETE DOCUMENT − REFILED AS REC DOC. 117** First MOTION for Summary Judgment by Garth Beauregard, Robert Welles. Motion set for 8/13/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Martin L.C. Feldman. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 2 Proposed Order)(Reference: 14−cv−00097)(Spivey, Scott) Modified on 7/16/2014 (cml). (Entered: 07/16/2014)
117 First MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Garth Beauregard, Robert Welles. Motion set for 8/13/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Martin L.C. Feldman. (Attachments:

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 23 of 27

07/16/2014 07/16/2014 07/16/2014 07/16/2014
07/16/2014 07/16/2014
07/17/2014 07/21/2014 07/28/2014
07/30/2014

# 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 3 Exhibit Garth Beauregard Affidavit, # 4 Exhibit Robert Welles Affidavit, # 5 Proposed Order, # 6 Notice of Submission)(Reference: 14−cv−00097)(Spivey, Scott) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
118 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Garth Beauregard, Robert Welles regarding 117 First MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Reference: 14−cv−00097)(Spivey, Scott) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
119 EXPARTE/CONSENT First MOTION to Dismiss Full Faith and Credit Claim by Courtney Blanchard, Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Derek Penton, Derek Penton, Jonathan P. Robicheaux, Jonathan P. Robicheaux. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 13−5090, 14−0327, 14−0097)(Perque, Richard) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
120 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Tim Barfield(in his official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Revenue (14−0327)), Devin George(in his official capacity as the State Registrar and Center Director of Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (14−0097)), Kathy Kliebert, in Support of 84 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Tables of Contents and Authorities)(Reference: 14−97, 14−327)(Duncan, Stuart) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
121 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Tim Barfield(in his official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Revenue (14−0327)), Devin George(in his official capacity as the State Registrar and Center Director of Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (14−0097)), Kathy Kliebert re 117 First MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment . (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts Response to Statement of Material Facts)(Reference: 14−97)(Duncan, Stuart) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
122 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 116 First MOTION for Summary Judgment . Filing attorney erroneously filed incomplete document and will be noted as such. Document was correctly refiled as Rec. Doc. 117. No further action required. (cml) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
123 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Garth Beauregard, Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Andrew S. Bond, R. Carey Bond, Jacqueline M. Brettner, M. Lauren Brettner, Forum for Equality Louisiana, Inc., Henry Lambert, Derek Penton, Sergio March Prieto, Jonathan P. Robicheaux, L Havard Scott, III, Nicholas J. Van Sickels, Robert Welles, in support of 117 First MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment , 86 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment . (Attachments: # 1 Tables of Contents and Authorities, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2)(Reference: ALL CASES)(Courson, James) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
124 ORDER granting without prejudice, 119 Motion to Dismiss the claim for violation of Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 7/17/2014. (Reference: ALL CASES)(caa) (Entered: 07/17/2014)
125 ORDER denying 118 Request/Statement of Oral Argument filed by Robert Welles & Garth Beauregard. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 7/21/2014.(Reference: ALL CASES)(caa) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
126 NOTICE by Garth Beauregard, Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Andrew S. Bond, R. Carey Bond, Jacqueline M. Brettner, M. Lauren Brettner, Forum for Equality Louisiana, Inc., Henry Lambert, Derek Penton, Sergio March Prieto, Jonathan P. Robicheaux, L Havard Scott, III, Nicholas J. Van Sickels, Robert Welles re 117 First MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment , 86 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment of Supplemental Authority. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Bostic v. Schaefer))(Reference: ALL CASES)(Courson, James) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
127 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Candice C. Sirmon to be substituted in place of Justin P. Harrison by American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Louisiana. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 14−00097)Attorney Candice C. Sirmon added to party American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Louisiana(pty:am).(Sirmon, Candice) (Entered: 07/30/2014)

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 24 of 27

07/31/2014 08/05/2014
08/12/2014 09/03/2014 09/03/2014
09/04/2014 09/04/2014 09/05/2014 09/05/2014 09/05/2014 09/05/2014
09/08/2014

128 ORDER granting 127 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Justin Paul Harrison terminated. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 7/31/2014. (Reference: ALL CASES)(caa) (Entered: 07/31/2014)
129 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on June 25, 2014 before Judge Martin L. C. Feldman. Court Reporter/Recorder Toni Tusa, Telephone number 504−589−7778. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/3/2014. (Reference: All Cases)(rsg) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
130 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority by Tim Barfield, Devin George, Kathy Kliebert . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental Authority)(Reference: 14−97, 14−327)(Duncan, Stuart) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
131 ORDER & REASONS granting 84 Motion for Summary Judgment & denying 86 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment & 117 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 9/3/2014. (Reference: ALL CASES)(caa) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
132 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Devin George, James D. Caldwell, Kathy Kliebert, Tim Barfield and against Andrew S. Bond, Courtney Blanchard, Derek Penton, Garth Beauregard, Henry Lambert, Jacqueline M. Brettner, Jonathan P. Robicheaux, L Havard Scott, III, M. Lauren Brettner, Nadine Blanchard, Nicholas J. Van Sickels, R. Carey Bond, Robert Welles, Sergio March Prieto. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 9/3/2014.(Reference: ALL CASES)(caa) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
133 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Andrew S. Bond, R. Carey Bond, Jacqueline M. Brettner, M. Lauren Brettner, Forum for Equality Louisiana, Inc., Henry Lambert, Sergio March Prieto, L Havard Scott, III, Nicholas J. Van Sickels as to 132 Judgment, 131 Order & Reasons. (Credit Card not accepted or unavailable − payment of filing fee due within 2 business days) (Reference: 14−327)(Harris, Lesli) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
USCA Appeal Fee paid as to Forum for Equality Louisiana, Inc. (Filing fee $ 505) re 133 Notice of Appeal, filed by Andrew S. Bond, Forum for Equality Louisiana, Inc., L Havard Scott, III, Jacqueline M. Brettner, Nicholas J. Van Sickels, Henry Lambert, M. Lauren Brettner, R. Carey Bond, Sergio March Prieto (Reference: 14−327)(glt) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
134 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Courtney Blanchard, Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Derek Penton, Derek Penton, Jonathan P. Robicheaux, Jonathan P. Robicheaux as to 132 Judgment, 131 Order & Reasons. (Credit Card not accepted or unavailable − payment of filing fee due within 2 business days) (Reference: 14−0097)(Perque, Richard) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
135 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Courtney Blanchard, Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Derek Penton, Derek Penton, Jonathan P. Robicheaux, Jonathan P. Robicheaux as to 132 Judgment, 131 Order & Reasons. (Credit Card not accepted or unavailable − payment of filing fee due within 2 business days) (Reference: 13−5090)(Perque, Richard) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
136 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Garth Beauregard, Robert Welles as to 132 Judgment, 131 Order & Reasons. (Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 053L−4580870.) (Reference: 14−cv−00097)(Spivey, Scott) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
137 APPEAL TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Andrew S. Bond, R. Carey Bond, Jacqueline M. Brettner, M. Lauren Brettner, Forum for Equality Louisiana, Inc., Henry Lambert, Sergio March Prieto, L Havard Scott, III, Nicholas J. Van Sickels for proceedings held on 03/14/14 & 06/25/14 re 133 Notice of Appeal,. (Transcript(s) ordered) (Court Reporter Toni Tusa noticed) (Reference: 14−327)(Courson, James) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
USCA Appeal Fee paid as to Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Derek Penton, Jonathan P. Robicheaux (Filing fee $ 505) re 135 Notice of Appeal, filed by Nadine Blanchard, Courtney Blanchard, Derek Penton, Jonathan P. Robicheaux (Reference: 13−5090)(glt) (Entered: 09/08/2014)

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 25 of 27

09/08/2014 09/09/2014 09/09/2014 09/23/2014
01/14/2015 07/02/2015
07/02/2015 07/02/2015 07/06/2015
07/08/2015

USCA Appeal Fee paid as to Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Derek Penton, Jonathan P. Robicheaux (Filing fee $ 505) re 134 Notice of Appeal, filed by Nadine Blanchard, Courtney Blanchard, Derek Penton, Jonathan P. Robicheaux (Reference: 14−0097)(glt) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
138 APPEAL TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by All Plaintiffs for proceedings held on 3/14/14, 6/25/14 re 135 Notice of Appeal,. (Transcript(s) ordered) (Court Reporter Toni Tusa noticed) (Reference: 13−5090)(Perque, Richard) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
139 APPEAL TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Derek Penton, Jonathan P. Robicheaux for proceedings held on 3/14/14, 6/25/14 re 134 Notice of Appeal,. (Transcript(s) ordered) (Court Reporter Toni Tusa noticed) (Reference: 14−0097)(Perque, Richard) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
140 APPEAL TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on March 14, 2014 before Judge Martin L.C. Feldman. Court Reporter/Recorder Toni Tusa, Telephone number 504 589−7778. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/22/2014. (Reference: 13−5090)(brd) (Entered: 09/23/2014)
141 Letter from U.S. Supreme Court denying Writ of Certiorari (Reference: 13−5090, 14−327, 14−97)(cml) (Entered: 01/21/2015)
142 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Forum for Equality Louisiana, Inc., Andrew S. Bond, Courtney Blanchard, Derek Penton, Garth Beauregard, Henry Lambert, Jacqueline M. Brettner, Jonathan P. Robicheaux, Katherine Shaw Spaht, L Havard Scott, III, M. Lauren Brettner, Nadine Blanchard, Nicholas J. Van Sickels, R. Carey Bond, Robert Welles and Sergio March Prieto and against Devin George, James D. Caldwell, Kathy Kliebert and Tim Barfield, as stated herein. FURTHER ORDERED that this Court's Order and Reasons and the accompanying Judgment dated 9/3/2014, are hereby recalled and rescinded. ORDERED that Plaintiffs in each of these consolidated cases are awarded their costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys' fees according to 42 U.S.C. 1988 and any other applicable laws. The question of quantum is referred to the magistrate judge. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 7/2/2015.(Reference: ALL CASES) (NEF: MAG−5) (caa) (Entered: 07/02/2015)
143 ORDER SCHEDULING STATUS CONFERENCE re The issue of the quantum of costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys fees due to the Plaintiffs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North.(Reference: All Cases)(bwn) (Entered: 07/02/2015)
144 USCA JUDGMENT issued as mandate on 7/1/2015. It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court is REVERESED, and the cause is REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion of this Court. FURTHER ORDERED that appellees pay to appellants the costson appeal to be taxed by the Clerk of this Court. USCA judge name: HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES. (Attachments: # 1 Opinion, # 2 Transmittal Letter)(Reference: All Cases)(cml) (Entered: 07/02/2015)
145 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear as Counsel of Record by Tim Barfield(in his official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Revenue (14−0327)), James D. Caldwell, Devin George(in his official capacity as the State Registrar and Center Director of Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (14−0097)), Kathy Kliebert. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: All Cases)Attorney Phyllis Esther Glazer added to party Tim Barfield(pty:condft), Attorney Phyllis Esther Glazer added to party James D. Caldwell(pty:dft), Attorney Phyllis Esther Glazer added to party Devin George(pty:condft), Attorney Phyllis Esther Glazer added to party Kathy Kliebert(pty:condft).(Glazer, Phyllis) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
146 ORDER granting 145 Motion to Appear for Attorneys David Glen Sanders & Phyllis Esther Glazer for Tim Barfield, James D. Caldwell, Devin George & Kathy Kliebert. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 7/7/2015. (Reference: ALL CASES)(caa) (Entered: 07/08/2015)

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 26 of 27

07/14/2015
07/15/2015 07/15/2015 07/15/2015 07/20/2015 07/20/2015 07/20/2015 07/27/2015 07/28/2015
07/29/2015 07/29/2015
07/29/2015

147 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion to Set Quantum for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Related Nontaxable Expenses by Garth Beauregard, Courtney Blanchard, Nadine Blanchard, Andrew S. Bond, R. Carey Bond, Jacqueline M. Brettner, M. Lauren Brettner, Forum for Equality Louisiana, Inc., Henry Lambert, Derek Penton, Sergio March Prieto, Jonathan P. Robicheaux, L Havard Scott, III, Nicholas J. Van Sickels, Robert Welles. Motion(s) referred to Michael North. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: ALL CASES)(Courson, James) (Entered: 07/14/2015)
148 ORDER granting 147 Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion to Set Quantum for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Related Nontaxable Expenses. Plaintiffs are granted a thirty (30) day extension until Monday, August 17, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North. (Reference: All Cases)(bwn) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
149 BILL OF COSTS by Andrew S. Bond, R. Carey Bond, Jacqueline M. Brettner, M. Lauren Brettner, Forum for Equality Louisiana, Inc., Henry Lambert, Sergio March Prieto, L Havard Scott, III, Nicholas J. Van Sickels. Matter to be submitted on 7/30/2015 at 7/30/2015 before Clerk of Court. Any opposition should be filed within 14 days of the filing of this document. (Attachments: # 1 Documentation for Bill of Costs)(Reference: 14−327)(Wall, Maurine) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
150 BILL OF COSTS by Garth Beauregard, Robert Welles. Matter to be submitted on 07/30/2015 before Clerk of Court. Any opposition should be filed within 14 days of the filing of this document. (Reference: 13−5090)(Spivey, Scott) Modified submission date on 7/20/2015 (cml). (Entered: 07/15/2015)
151 Memorandum by Garth Beauregard, Robert Welles re 150 Bill of Costs (before Clerk), (Reference: 14−cv−0097)(Spivey, Scott) (Entered: 07/20/2015)
152 Response/Reply by Tim Barfield(in his official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Revenue (14−0327)), James D. Caldwell, Devin George(in his official capacity as the State Registrar and Center Director of Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (14−0097)), Kathy Kliebert to 149 Bill of Costs (before Clerk), 150 Bill of Costs (before Clerk), (Reference: All Cases)(Glazer, Phyllis) (Entered: 07/20/2015)
153 Response/Reply by Garth Beauregard, Robert Welles to 152 Response/Reply, 151 Memorandum, 150 Bill of Costs (before Clerk), (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit IRS FOIA Guidelines)(Reference: 14−cv−0097)(Spivey, Scott) (Entered: 07/20/2015)
154 EXPARTE/CONSENT First MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record by Garth Beauregard, Robert Welles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reference: 13−05090)(Spivey, Scott) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
155 **ERROR: DOCUMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE LEAVE OF COURT**EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Response/Reply by Andrew S. Bond, R. Carey Bond, Jacqueline M. Brettner, M. Lauren Brettner, Forum for Equality Louisiana, Inc., Henry Lambert, Sergio March Prieto, L Havard Scott, III, Nicholas J. Van Sickels to 152 Response/Reply, 149 Bill of Costs (before Clerk), (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading , # 2 Exhibit Declaration of J. Dalton Courson, # 3 Proposed Order Proposed Order on Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Bill of Costs(Reference: 14−327)(Wall, Maurine) Modified on 7/29/2015 (cml). Modified on 7/29/2015 (cml). (Entered: 07/28/2015)
156 Reply Memorandum in Support by Forum for Equality Louisiana, Inc., Sergio March Prieto, L Havard Scott, III, Nicholas J. Van Sickels to 149 Bill of Costs (before Clerk), (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(cml) (Entered: 07/29/2015)
157 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 155 Response/Reply. 1) Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct event is " Exparte/Consent Motion for Leave to File". 2) However,a Motion for Leave of Court is not required to file this Response. Filing attorney should have filed the Response into the Record. 3) Attachment has duplicate description. For attachment, select either a category OR enter a description, selecting both will result in duplicate docket text. Clerk took corrective action and filed the Response into the Record as Rec Doc.156. No further action required. (Reference: 13−5090)(cml) (Entered: 07/29/2015)
158 ORDER granting 154 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney John D. Sileo for Garth Beauregard & Robert Welles. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman

Case: 2:13-cv-5090 As of: 10/31/2017 11:03 AM CDT 27 of 27

07/29/2015
08/04/2015 08/04/2015 08/04/2015 08/04/2015 08/10/2015 09/29/2015 10/08/2015

on 7/29/2015. (Reference: 13−5090, 14−0097)(caa) (Entered: 07/29/2015)
159 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael North: Status Conference held on 7/29/2015. In light of the parties efforts to amicably resolve the attorneys fee issue, the deadline of August 17, 2015 within which Plaintiffs were to file their fee applications is continued without date. (Reference: All Cases)(bwn) (Entered: 07/30/2015)
160 Bill of Costs Taxed in amount of $960.23. Signed by Clerk (Reference: 13−5090, 14−97, 14−327)(cms) (Entered: 08/04/2015)
161 Bill of Costs Taxed in amount of $620.00. Signed by Clerk (Reference: 13−5090, 14−97, 14−327,)(cms) (Entered: 08/04/2015)
162 Bill of Costs Taxed in amount of $960.23. Signed by Clerk (Reference: 14−327)(cml) (Entered: 08/05/2015)
163 Bill of Costs Taxed in amount of $620.00. Signed by Clerk (Reference: 13−5090, 14−97)(cml) (Entered: 08/05/2015)
164 ORDER SCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE for 9/29/2015 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Michael North. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North on 8/10/2015.(Reference: All Cases)(bwn) (Entered: 08/11/2015)
165 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael North: Settlement Conference held on 9/29/2015. (Reference: All Cases)(bwn) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
166 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael North: Settlement Conference held on 10/8/2015. As a result of ongoing negotiations among the Court and the parties, a settlement agreement was reached with respect to all claims for attorneys fees and costs in this matter. (NEF: Judge Feldman's Chambers) (Reference: All Cases)(bwn) (Entered: 10/09/2015)