[Attorneys for Plaintiffs listed on signature page]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION

ANGELA ROLANDO and TONYA ROLANDO; CHASE WEINHANDL and BENJAMIN MILANO; SUSAN HAWTHORNE and ADEL JOHNSON; and SHAUNA GOUBEAUX and NICOLE GOUBEAUX,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TIM FOX, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Montana; MICHAEL KADAS, in his official capacity as the Director of the Montana Department of Revenue; and FAYE McWILLIAMS, in her official capacity as Clerk of Court of Cascade County.
Defendants.

Cause No. _ _ _ _ __
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiffs Angela Rolando and Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl and Benjamin Milano, Susan Hawthorne and Adel Johnson, and Shauna Goubeaux and Nicole Goubeaux (collectively "Plaintiffs") file this Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against Defendants Tim Fox, Michael Kadas, and Faye McWilliams (collectively "Defendants"), and allege as follows:

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 1

I. INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs are all loving, committed, same-sex couples who reside in Montana. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to section 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to challenge the validity of Art. XIII, § 7 of the Montana Constitution and related statutory provisions that bar marriage between two people ofthe same sex or preclude recognition of such marriages validly entered into in another state. Plaintiffs challenge any and all Montana statutes that refer to marriage as a relationship between a "husband" and "wife" or "man" and "woman" to the extent such provisions operate as a statutory ban on marriage for same-sex couples. 2. Marriage is universally recognized and celebrated as the hallmark of a couple's love for and commitment to each other. When two people marry, they commit personally and publicly to build a life together, and they ask their families, friends, communities, and govermnent to respect, honor, and support that commitment. Marriage has long been recognized and valued for its beneficial contribution to the welfare of society and to individual happiness. The paramount significance of marriage to lesbian and gay couples in Montana is no different than it is to different-sex couples. Yet, Montana law specifically singles out same-sex couples for exclusion from this important right. This has the effect not only of

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 2

denying same-sex couples the freedom and dignity afforded to other Montanans,

but also the legal protections, duties, and benefits that marriage affords under

federal and Montana law.

3. Montana's exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of

marriage and all that marriage signifies and bestows contrasts sharply with the

State's long history of respect for individual liberty. This history of respect is most

eloquently set forth in the Montana Constitution, which was itself established "to

improve the quality oflife, equality of opportunity, and to secure the blessings of

liberty" for all Montanans. (Mont. Const. Preamble.) The Constitution's

Declaration of Rights declares that "[a]ll persons are born free and have certain

inalienable rights," including "the rights ofpursuing life's basic necessities,

enjoying and defending their lives and liberties ... , and seeking their safety,

health and happiness in all lawful ways." (Mont. Const. Art. II. Sec. 3.) The

Constitution declares that the "dignity ofthe human being is inviolable." (Mont.

Const. Art. II. Sec. 4.)

4. The marriage ban-singling out a minority of Montanans to deny

them a fundamental right enjoyed by all other Montanans-cannot be squared with

the State's history or with its culture.

5. Marriage laws are changing across the United States, reflecting a

growing understanding that marriage is a deeply personal, important, and
Complaint for Declaratory and InjlUlctive Relief

Page 3

fundamental right for all Americans. At various points in our history; states have·

prohibited marriage among slaves, marriage between two people of different races,

and even marriage between two people of different faiths. State laws also made a

woman the subordinate partner in a marriage, legally barred from controlling her

own finances and property. Now, through the actions oflegislatures and courts, 19

states and the District of Columbia have extended the freedom to marry to same-

sex couples.

6. The Plaintiffs in this action are same-sex couples who seek the

freedom to marry in Montana, or who seek to have the State of Montana recognize

marriages that were legally contracted in another jurisdiction. Montana's denial of

the freedom to marry has harmed these couples and their families in numerous

ways, including suffering the stigma that comes from the State's denigration of

their relationships as unworthy of recognition. Through the State's marriage ban

and Defendants' enforcement of that ban, Defendants send a purposeful message

that they view lesbians, gay men, and their children as second-class citizens who

are undeserving of the legal sanction, respect, protections, and support that

heterosexual couples and their families are able to enjoy through marriage.

7. Plaintiffs ask that the Court to ensure that Plaintiffs are afforded the

fundamental freedoms that the Constitution of the United States guarantees.

Montana's marriage ban denies those freedoms. Plaintiffs therefore ask this Court

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 4

to declare unconstitutional and enjoin enforcement of Article XIII, § 7, of the

Montana Constitution and all provisions of Montana law that limit or could be

construed as limiting marriage to different-sex couples, on the grounds that such

laws violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States

Constitution (U.S. Const. amend. xiv, § 1).

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 to

redress deprivations of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the

Constitution of the United States under color of State law. This Court has

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3).

9. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 139l(b). Defendants

reside and have offices within the district, and all Defendants reside in the State of

Montana. Also, events giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims occurred, and will occur, in

i

I this district.

10. This case is appropriately filed in the Great Falls Division because

two of the Plaintiffs reside in, and events giving rise to their claims occurred in,

Cascade County, such that venue would be proper in Cascade County.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

PageS

III. PARTIES The Plaintiffs 11. Plaintiffs Angela Rolando and Tonya Rolando reside in Great Falls, Montana. They are a loving, committed, same-sex couple, and they wish to marry in Montana. They would marry in Montana but for the marriage ban. 12. Plaintiffs Chase Weinhandl and Benjamin Milano reside in Bozeman, Montana. They are a loving, committed, same-sex couple legally married under the laws of Hawaii. They wish to have their Hawaii marriage recognized by the State of Montana. 13. Plaintiffs Susan Hawthorne and Adel Johnson reside in Helena, Montana. They are a loving, committed, same-sex couple legally married under the laws of the State of Washington. They wish to have their Washington marriage recognized by the State of Montana. 14. Plaintiffs Shauna Goubeaux and Nicole Goubeaux reside in Billings, Montana. They are a loving, committed, same-sex couple legally married under the laws ofIowa. They wish to have their Iowa marriage recognized by the State of Montana.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 6

The Defendants

15. Defendant Tim Fox is sued in his official capacity as Attorney

General ofthe State of Montana. Fox is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, and he is, was, and will be acting under color of state law at all times

relevant to this Complaint. In his capacity as Attorney General, Fox serves as the

chieflegal officer ofthe State. His office represents and provides legal advice to

State agencies, including those that act to enforce the marriage ban.

16. Defendant Faye McWilliams is sued in her official capacity as

Cascade County Clerk of Court. McWilliams is a person within the meaning of 42

U.S.C. § 1983, and she is, was, and will be acting under color of state law at all

times relevant to this Complaint. As Clerk of Court for Cascade County,

McWilliams has the authority to issue or withhold a marriage license, and to

ensure compliance with laws that prohibit the issuance of a marriage license to a

i

same-sex couple.

I !

17. Defendant Michael Kadas is sued in his official capacity as Director

of the Montana Department of Revenue. Kadas is a person within the meaning of

42 U.S.C. §1983, and he is, was, and will be acting under color of state law at all

times relevant to this Complaint. As Director of the Montana Department of

Revenue, Kadas has the authority to enforce the revenue code of Montana,

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page?

including its provisions related to the treatment for revenue purposes of marriages contracted in Montana and in other jurisdictions.
IV. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 18. Plaintiffs all are residents of Montana who experience the same joys and the same challenges of family life as their heterosexual neighbors, co-workers, and other community members who are free to marry. Plaintiffs are productive, contributing members of society who support their committed partners, but must do so without the same protections and respect afforded by the State to other families through access to the universally understood and celebrated status of marriage. 19. Montana law would allow Plaintiffs Angela Rolando and Tonya Rolando to marry but for the fact that they are a same-sex couple. They are not related to one another by blood or marriage. Neither is married to anyone else, and both are over the age of 18. They have the capacity to consent to marry and want to be married. 20. Montana law would recognize the marriages ofthe other Plaintiff couples but for the fact that they are same-sex couples. Each couple was legally married in another state.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 8

A. Angela Rolando and Tonya Rolando 21. Angela Rolando, 37, and Tonya Rolando, 33, are in a loving, committed, same-sex relationship. They live together in Great Falls, Montana, and have been a couple for more than 5 years. Angela is a training and development specialist for the Montana Department of Child and Family Services. Tonya is a retired E-4 Senior Airman from the United States Air Force. She currently works as an EMT at the Pondera Medical Center in Conrad, Montana. Tonya earned several awards in the Air Force and was honorably discharged. 22. Angela was raised in Butte, Montana, and Tonya moved to Montana 12 years ago with the Air Force. Angela and Tonya expressed their love and commitment during a ceremony on October 16, 2009, in Whitefish, Montana. However, it was with great disappointment and sadness that they could not marry in Montana, the state each has called home for many years. 23. Together, the couple helps raise Angela's 16-year-old son from a prior marriage, Matthew, and Tonya's 10 year-old son from a prior marriage, Tyler. Angela and Tonya spend much of their time supporting their children, including attending school programs, football games, tennis matches, and band concerts. They also enjoy watching baseball, playing softball, and traveling, and they are proud supporters of Montana State University Bobcat Football.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 9

24. Angela and Tonya are deeply committed to each another. Describing

Tonya, Angela says, "my every day is her." They want to be married in Montana

and describe themselves as "one united front," determined to earn the right to

marry and to express to each other the commitment marriage represents.

25. Angela and Tonya also want the same legal and practical security that

marriage provides to different-sex couples. For example, Tonya still feels the sting

of an employer making it difficult for her to obtain leave to attend the funeral of

Angela's brother. Although the employer ultimately approved the leave, it was

unpaid since Tonya was not considered a member of Angela's family. As a result

of incidents like this, the couple worries about what would happen if, for example,

one oftheir sons had a medical emergency. Angela and Tonya strongly believe

that their relationship is no different than any other committed, loving relationship

and that they are entitled to the same protections and benefits obligations as

married different-sex couples receive.

,i

26. On May 19,2014, Angela and Tonya went to the office ofthe

Cascade County Clerk of Court. They asked to apply for a marriage license, but

were denied because they are a same-sex couple. The Cascade County Clerk of

Court is managed by, and under the control of, Defendant Faye McWilliams. The

Clerk of Court is the person responsible under Montana law for issuing marriage

licenses.
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page \0

B. Chase Weinhandl and Benjamin Milano 27. Plaintiffs Chase Weinhandl, 29, and Benjamin ("Ben") Milano, 30,

are in a loving, committed, same-sex relationship. They live together in Bozeman,

Montana. Chase is a manager at the local Costco, where over the past ten years he

worked his way up from pushing carts and bagging groceries. Ben telecommutes

from the home that Chase and Ben recently built in Bozeman. Ben is a senior

account manager for the Chicago-based brand marketing firm, Brandmuscle, where

he has worked for the past four years.

28. Both men are proud Montanans. Chase was born in Great Falls,

Montana, and raised in the small town of Charlo, Montana, earning his

undergraduate degree in business management from Montana State University.

Ben moved to Montana full time in 2006, having spent his summers in the state

since he was a teenager. Chase and Ben met in 2007. They decided to express

their love and commitment to one another by entering a civil union in Chicago in

September 2011. Earlier this year, Chase and Ben traveled to Hawaii and legally

married in that state.

29. Outside of work, Chase and Ben are inseparable. They spend their

free time working on their new house and working in the yard alongside their three

dogs, although they also love getting away to more remote parts of the state on

hiking and camping trips. Chase and Ben share a love of travel and adventure.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page II

30. The couple believes that marriage was the most important step to

demonstrate their love and devotion to each other and their commitment to spend

the rest oftheir lives together. Yet, Montana will not recognize their marriage,

solely because they are ofthe same sex. Beyond the community recognition

bestowed by marriage, they also wish for the legal and practical security it

provides. They worry, for example, that if one of them were injured or worse, they

would have no assurance that their relationship would be honored.
c. Susan Hawthorne and Adel Johnson
31. Plaintiffs Susan ("Sue") Hawthorne, 49, and Adel Johnson, 44, are in

a loving, committed, same-sex relationship. They have been together for 17 years

and currently reside in Helena, Montana. Sue, who recently retired with the rank

of Sergeant First Class, served 28 years on active duty in the U.S. Army, in the

Army Reserves and Montana Army National Guard. Her military duties took her

to Germany, North Carolina, Michigan, and ultimately Montana, where she has

lived since 1991. As a Human Resource Sergeant and Operations Sergeant in the

Guard, Sue focused on personnel issues and coordinated training operation and

readiness for deploying soldiers. Her retirement was in part due to a disability she

suffered from a car accident on active duty.

32. Adel, who was born and raised in Philipsburg and is a lifelong

resident of Montana, is a full-time federal employee with 12-years of experience in

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 12

the Department of Military Affairs' Environmental Office and is a Major with 14-

years of service in the Army National Guard. Adel's current posts are

Environmental Protection Specialist and Preventive Medicine Officer, roles in

which she focuses on environmental regulatory compliance and protecting soldiers

from preventable diseases and injuries.

33. Sue and Adel, who had met two years earlier, reconnected at a golf

event and began dating. Together, they enjoy hiking, backpacking, and mountain

biking in the summer, and skiing and snowshoeing in the winter. They are

constant, active companions.

34. Sue and Adel were legally married in Washington earlier this year, but

they know that Montana will not recognize that marriage because they are a same-

sex couple. They worry that without the legal status of marriage, their relationship

will not be recognized in the event of a medical emergency or some other

i

important life event.

I.;

D. Shauna Goubeaux and Nicole Goubeaux

35. Plaintiffs Shauna Goubeaux, 43, and Nicole Goubeaux, 35, are in a

loving, committed, same-sex relationship, and are the proud parents of their 1-

year-old son, Aden, whom they adopted when he was an infant. They have been

together for 11 years and currently live in Billings, Montana. Nicole is a night

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 13

shift nurse at Advanced Care Hospital in Billings. Shauna is also a nurse and

provides homecare work for Interim, a nurse staffing agency in Billings.

36. Shauna and Nicole met in 2003 while they were working at the same

hospital in Wyoming. The couple went on one date and they have been together

ever since, describing it as "the longest first date ever."

37. Shauna and Nicole expressed their love and commitment to each other

when they were legally married in August 2011 in Iowa. Shauna changed her last

name to Goubeaux. After they were married, Shauna and Nicole moved to

I

Billings. The couple purchased a home together in Billings in 2013.

38. Montana will not recognize Shauna and Nicole's marriage, solely

because they are ofthe same sex. The couple wants Montana to recognize their

marriage, first and foremost, to protect their son. Shauna and Nicole do not want

Aden to grow up feeling that his family is different or less than any other family.

Additionally, Shauna and Nicole want the same legal and practical security

marriage provides to different-sex couples. For example, although the couple was

able to file their federal taxes as a married couple, they were forced to file their

state taxes separately. Detangling their finances for the purposes of filing state

taxes was an exacting process that took at least 40 hours. The couple was

particularly shocked when they had to divide their expenses with regard to Aden,

given that they jointly provide his support.
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 14

E. Montana's Discriminatory Marriage Ban 39. Montana's discriminatory marriage ban, which has been enshrined in

the State's constitution since 2004, provides that "[0Jnly a marriage between one

man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state."

Mont. Const. Art. XIII, § 7. Montana Code Annotated § 40-1-401 (d) also prohibits

"marriage between persons ofthe same sex," and Montana Code Annotated § 40-

1-103 defines marriage in Montana as "a personal relationship between a man and

a woman arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of the parties is

essential."

l,

;:

40. On its face, Montana's marriage ban expressly bars marriage between

two people ofthe same sex and precludes recognition of valid marriages lawfully

entered into between same-sex couples in other jurisdictions. As a result, on its

face, Montana's marriage ban does not permit Plaintiffs to marry, and prohibits the

recognition of Plaintiffs' out-of-state marriages.

F. Substantial Harm to Plaintiffs and Other Same-Sex Couples 41. Denying two people in a loving, committed relationship the freedom

to marry denies them the opportunity to express and legally embody their

commitment in the most serious way that society provides. It denies them the

opportunity to enter into a relationship that is universally respected and recognized

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 15

as a symbol oflove and commitment and withholds from them the reverence and

recognition associated only with marriage.

42. Barring same-sex couples from marriage also disqualifies them from

critically important protections under Montana state law that different-sex couples

rely upon to secure their commitment to each other, and to safeguard their families.

Plaintiffs in Donaldson v. State ofMontana, Case No. BVD-201 0-702, a case

pending in Montana state court, challenge this discrimination under state equal

protection law. The State has taken the position in Donaldson that the

discriminatory treatment of same-sex couples is justified by the Montana

Constitution's ban on same-sex marriage.

43. The marriage ban also makes it impossible for same-sex couples to

receive the protections currently provided only to married couples under federal

law. After the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S._,

133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") no longer

I

excludes same-sex couples from access to federal marriage protections. Same-sex

couples unable to marry in Montana cannot receive these benefits. Even couples

married in other states are denied some ofthe federal marital protections that are

only available ifthe marriage is recognized in a couple's state ofresidence-e.g.,

veteran and family medical leave protections.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 16

44. The state and federal protections denied Plaintiffs and other same-sex

couples in Montana include, by way of example only:

(a) The right to solenmize their relationships through a state-

sanctioned ceremony.

(b) The right to safeguard family resources under an array of laws

that protect spousal finances, including, for example, the

exemption oftaxes on the property of widows and widowers.

(c) The right to secure legal recognition for parent-child bonds

through the mechanisms afforded to spouses, including joint

adoption, adoption of a spouse's child as a stepparent, and the

presumption of parentage for children born into a marriage.

(d) The right to make caretaking decisions in times of death or

disaster, including priority to make medical decisions for an

incapacitated spouse, and the automatic right and priority to

make anatomical gifts of a decedent's body.

(e) The right to inherit under the laws of intestacy, and rights in the

family residence pending final determination of the estate.

(f) The right to receive exemptions for state income tax purposes.

(g) The right to receive certain tax deductions for medical

insurance expenses for a spouse.
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 17

(h) The right to receive certain tax deductions for long term care

insurance for a spouse.

(i) The right to seek damages for loss of society and

companionship in case of wrongful death.

G) The right to be afforded the presumption of confidentiality for

communications with health insurers about a spouse's medical

condition.

(k) In the event that a couple separates, the right to access an

orderly dissolution process for terminating the relationship and

assuring an equitable division of the couple's assets and debts.

(1) The right to assert the privilege not to testifY against one

another as to matters protected by spousal privilege.

(m) The right to receive certain retirement benefits that only

available to the spouse of a police officer or firefighter.

(n) The right to receive certain worker's compensation benefits that

are only available to a spouse.

(0) The right to receive certain financial protections for disabled or

non-working spouses.

45. In addition to the tangible harms it causes, the marriage ban also

perpetuates discrimination against lesbian and gay Montanans. The ban sends a

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 18

powerful message to same-sex couples, their families, and the public that these

couples are not good enough for marriage and their relationships are undeserving

of the respect and dignity associated with marriage alone.

46. The substantive and dignitary inequities imposed on committed same-

sex couples include particular harms to same-sex couples' children, who are

equally deserving ofthe stability and legitimacy that are enjoyed by children of

different-sex couples who marry. Civil marriage affords official sanctuary to the

family unit, offering parents and children critical means to secure legal parent-

child bonds, and a familiar, public way of demonstrating those bonds to third

parties. By denying same-sex couples marriage, Montana reinforces the view held by some that the family bonds that unite same-sex parents and their children are

,'~ i
,1

1

less consequential, enduring, and meaningful than those of different-sex parents

and their children. Same-sex couples and their children accordingly must live with

I

!

the vulnerability and stress inflicted by a lack of access to the same mechanisms

for securing their legal relationships, and the ever-present possibility that others

may question their familial relationship-in social, legal, educational, and medical

settings and in moments of crisis-in a way that spouses can avoid by simple

reference to being married.

47. Children from a young age understand that marriage signifies an

enduring family unit, and likewise understand that Montana has deemed a class of

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 19

families as less worthy than other families, undeserving of marriage, and not

entitled to the same societal recognition and support as other families. The marital

ban marks the children of same-sex couples with a badge of inferiority that will

invite disrespect in school, on the playground, and in every other sphere of their

lives.

G. Montana's Discriminatory Marriage Ban Does Not Serve Any Compelling, Important, or Even Legitimate Government Interest
48. The Ninth Circuit recently held that classifications based on sexual

orientation are subject to heightened scrutiny. See SmithKline Beecham Corp. v.

Abbott Labs., 740 F.3d 471 (9th Cir. 2014). Under this level of scrutiny,

Montana's marriage ban must be struck down unless it serves some legitimate state

interest that justifies the harm it inflicts on Plaintiffs and other same-sex couples.

1
No legitimate, let alone important or compelling, interest exists to exclude same-

sex couples from the historic and highly venerated institution of marriage. An

I

!

individual's capacity to establish a loving and enduring relationship does not

depend upon that person's sexual orientation or gender in relation to his or her life

partner, nor is there even a legitimate interest in justifying same-sex couples'

exclusion from marriage and the spousal protections it provides.

49. Neither history nor tradition can legally justify Montana's

discriminatory exclusion of same-sex couples from marrying or having their out-

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 20

of-state marriages recognized. Marriage has remained vital and enduring because

of, not despite, its resiliency in response to a dynamic society, for example as

society and the courts have cast off prior restrictions on interracial marriage.

Montana is not confined to historic notions of equality, and no excuse for the

State's discriminatory restriction can be found in the pedigree of such

discrimination.

50. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage does not further any

interest relating to the well-being of children. The Montana Supreme Court, in

Kulstad v. Maniaci, 220 P.3d 595 (Mont. 2009), has already found that the State

has no legitimate interest related to protection of children that could justify

discriminating against same-sex couples. The court held that "children of same-

sex parents fare just as well as their peers physically, psychologically, emotionally,

cognitively, and socially."

51. Furthermore, there is no rational connection between excluding

lesbian and gay couples from marriage and encouraging different-sex couples to

have children within marriage. Nor does the exclusion rationally promote any

particular type of family setting for children since same-sex and different-sex

couples have children whether or not same-sex couples are permitted to marry.

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage serves only to harm the children raised

by lesbian and gay couples.
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 21

52. The Montana Supreme Court has recognized the lack of any

legitimate government interest in policies that discriminate between same-sex and

different-sex couples. See Snetsinger v. Montana Univ. Sys., 104 P.3d 445 (Mont.

2004). In Snetsinger, the court held there was no legitimate interest in the state

university system's denial of dependent health insurance coverage to same-sex

couples, concluding that the differential treatment between same- and different-sex

couples was a clear violation of equal protection. The marriage ban is similarly

I

i

devoid of any legitimate interest justifying the harm it inflicts. Denying same-sex

couples the esteem and universal recognition of marriage can only be explained as

an effort to denigrate lesbian and gay couples. Labeling lesbian and gay couples as

inferior is not a legitimate governmental interest.

53. The State deprives same-sex couples of these freedoms for no other

reason than their sexual orientation and their sex.

V.
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
(U.S. Const. Amend. XIV and 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

54. Plaintiffs re-allege the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as

though fully set forth herein.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 22

55. Amendment XIV, § 1 ofthe United States Constitution provides that no State shall "deprive any person oflife, liberty, or property, without due process oflaw ...."
56. The Due Process Clause protects the fundamental right to marry the person of one's choice and related constitutional rights to liberty, dignity, autonomy, family integrity, and association.
57. Montana's marriage ban does not permit same-sex couples to marry nor does it permit the recognition ofthe marriages of same-sex couples lawfully entered into outside of Montana.
58. There is no adequate justification for the exclusion of Plaintiffs from marriage or the refusal to recognize Plaintiffs' marriages. Moreover, the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is neither narrowly tailored to, nor the least restrictive means to further, a compelling or important government interest.
59. Defendants' duties and actions to ensure compliance with the marriage ban preventing Plaintiffs from lawfully marrying in the State of Montana, and preventing the recognition of Plaintiffs' marriages lawfully entered into outside Montana, deprive Plaintiffs ofthe fundamental right to marry and their constitutional rights to liberty, autonomy, family integrity, and association without due process oflaw.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 23

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 (U.S. Const. Amend. XIV and 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

60. Plaintiffs re-allege the foregoing paragraphs ofthis Complaint as

though fully set forth herein.

61. Amendment XIV, § 1 of the United States Constitution provides that

no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection ofthe

laws."

62. Same-sex couples in committed relationships who wish to marry are

similarly situated in every material respect to different-sex couples in committed

relationships who wish to marry. Same-sex couples who have lawfully married

outside of Montana are similarly situated in every material respect to different-sex

i

couples who have lawfully married outside of Montana.

i
I

I

63. . Montana's marriage ban does not permit same-sex couples to marry

i

nor does it permit the recognition ofthe marriages of same-sex couples lawfully

entered into outside of Montana. It therefore discriminates against Plaintiffs and

other lesbian and gay couples on the basis of sexual orientation.

64. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation demands a

heightened level of scrutiny under the United States Constitution since the

marriage ban and Defendant's actions in administering and enforcing it
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 24

purposefully single out a minority group (lesbians and gay men) that historically

has suffered discriminatory treatment and, thus, been relegated to a position of

political powerlessness, solely on the basis of their sexual orientation-a

characteristic that bears no relation to their ability to contribute to society and is

immutable in that it is central to their core identity.

65. There is no adequate justification for the exclusion of Plaintiffs from

marriage or the refusal to recognize their marriages. Moreover, the exclusion of

same-sex couples from marriage is neither narrowly tailored to, nor the least

restrictive means to further, a compelling or important government interest. The

marriage ban is not even rationally related to any legitimate government interest.

66. Defendants' duties and actions to ensure compliance with the

marriage ban preventing Plaintiffs from lawfully marrying in the State of Montana,

and preventing the recognition of Plaintiffs' marriages lawfully entered into

outside Montana, deprive Plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws based on

their sexual orientation.

COUNT III: Discrimination on the Basis of Sex in Violation ofthe Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const. Amend. XIV and 42 U.S.c. § 1983)

67. Plaintiffs re-allege the foregoing paragraphs ofthis Complaint as

though fully set forth herein.
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 25

68. Amendment XIV, § 1 of the United States Constitution provides that

no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the

laws."

69. The Montana marriage ban discriminates based on gender because it

permits a man and woman to marry, but does not allow a man to marry a man, or a

woman to marry a woman, and because it permits different-sex marriages lawfully

entered into outside of Montana to be recognized but does not allow the marriages

of same-sex couples lawfully entered into outside of Montana to be recognized.

70. Discrimination on the basis of sex demands heightened scrutiny under

the United States Constitution.

71. There is no adequate justification for the exclusion of Plaintiffs from

marriage or the refusal to recognize Plaintiffs' marriages. Moreover, the exclusion

of same-sex couples from marriage is neither narrowly tailored to, nor the least

i

restrictive means to further, a compelling or important government interest. The

!

marriage ban is not even rationally related to any legitimate government interest.

72. Defendants' duties and actions to ensure compliance with the

marriage ban preventing Plaintiffs from lawfully marrying in the State of Montana,

and preventing the recognition of Plaintiffs' marriages lawfully entered into

outside Montana, deprive Plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws based on

their gender.
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 26

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
73. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court enter judgment:

(A) declaring that Article XIII, § 7 of the Montana Constitution and all

provisions of Montana statutes that ban same-sex marriage or refer to marriage as a

relationship between a "husband" and "wife" or "man" and "woman" and operate

as a statutory ban on marriage for same-sex couples violate the Due Process Clause

and the Equal Protection Clause ofthe United States Constitution (Amendment

XIV, § 1) by preventing Plaintiffs and other same-sex couples from lawfully

marrying in the State of Montana and by preventing the recognition of the

marriages of Plaintiffs and other same-sex couples lawfully entered into outside of

the State;

(B) permanently enjoining all Defendants from enforcing Article XIII, § 7

~

I

I

and any other sources of state law that operate to exclude same-sex couples from

!. i

i

i

marriage or to deny recognition of the marriages of same-sex couples validly

contracted in another jurisdiction;

(C) awarding Plaintiffs the costs and expenses ofthis action together with

reasonable attorneys' fees; and

(D) entering such other and further relief as deemed appropriate by the

Court.

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 27

DATED this 21 st day of May, 2014.

lsI BenAlke James H. Goetz Benjamin J. Alke Goetz, Baldwin & Geddes, P.C. 35 North Grand (zip code 59715) P.O. Box 6580 Bozeman, Montana 59771 Ph: (406) 587-0618 Fax: (406) 587-5144 E-mail: jim@goetzlawfmn.com
balke@goetzlawfinn.com

Jim Taylor, Legal Director American Civil Liberties Union of Montana Foundation 241 E. Alder (zip code 59802) P. O. Box 9138 Missoula, MT 59807 Ph: (406) 880-6159 Email: JimT@ac1umontana.org

Ruth N. Borenstein Stuart C. Plunkett Emily F. Regier (pro hac vice motion to be filed) Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Ph: (415) 268-7000 Fax: (415) 268-7522 Email: RBorenstein@mofo.com
SPlunkett@mofo.com ERegier@mofo.com

Elizabeth O. Gill (pro hac vice motion to be filed) LGBT & AIDS Project American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Ph: (415) 621-2493, Ext. 437 Fax: (415) 255-8437 Email: Egill@ac1unc.org

Ariel F. Ruiz (pro hac vice motion to be filed) Morrison & Foerster LLP 250 West 55th Street NewYork,NewYork 10019 Ph: (212) 468-8000 Fax: (212) 468-7900 Email: aruiz@mofo.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 28

 
 Case 4:14-cv-00040-BMM Document 44 Filed 11/19/14 Page 1 of 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION

ANGELA ROLANDO and TONYA ROLANDO; CHASE WEINHANDL and BENJAMIN MILANO; SUSAN HAWTHORNE and ADEL JOHNSON; and SHAUNA GOUBEAUX and NICOLE GOUBEAUX,
Plaintiffs,

CV-14-40-GF-BMM ORDER

v.

TIM FOX in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Montana; MICHAEL KADAS, in his official capacity as the Director of the Montana Department of Revenue; and FAYE McWILLIAMS, in her official capacity as Clerk of Court of Cascade County,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs challenge the Montana laws that ban the marriage of same-sex couples and ban the recognition of valid marriages of same-sex couples in other jurisdictions.

1

Case 4:14-cv-00040-BMM Document 44 Filed 11/19/14 Page 2 of 18
BACKGROUND Montana voters amended the Montana Constitution in 2004 to ban same-sex marriage. The Montana Constitution provides that “[o]nly a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.” Mont. Const. Art. XIII, § 7. Montana statutory law also prohibits same-sex marriage. Montana Code Annotated section 40-1-401(1)(d) prohibits “marriage between persons of the same sex.” Similarly, Montana Code Annotated section 40-1-103 defines marriage as “a personal relationship between a man and a woman arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of the parties is essential.” Previous litigation in the courts of the State of Montana has highlighted the multitude of benefits and responsibilities that arise from a valid civil marriage contract. See Donaldson v. Montana, 292 P.3d 364 (Mont. 2012). These benefits include tax preferences that reflect society’s desire for the families of married couples to succeed financially. See, e.g., Mont. Code Ann. § 19-17-405 (survivorship benefits for surviving spouses); Mont. Code Ann. § 33-20-1402 (spouse qualifies as dependent under life insurance); Mont. Code Ann. § 39-512205 (surviving spouse eligible to receive payments of accrued unemployment insurance benefits); Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-723 (surviving spouse eligible to receive payment of workers’ compensation benefits); Mont. Code Ann. § 72-2-112 (providing first priority to surviving spouse under intestate secession); and Mont.
2

Case 4:14-cv-00040-BMM Document 44 Filed 11/19/14 Page 3 of 18
Code Ann. § 15-30-2114 (providing exemption for taxpayer’s spouse under state tax code). These responsibilities reflect society’s recognition that married couples stand in the best position to make life and death decisions regarding the well-being of their family. See, e.g., Mont. Code Ann. § 2-18-601 (allowing leave time for state employees to care for sick spouses); Mont. Code Ann. § 50-9-106 (authorizing spouse to consent to, or withhold consent of, medical treatment); and Mont. Code Ann. § 15-30-2366 (providing tax credit for qualified elderly care expenses for care of taxpayer’s spouse).
Plaintiffs Angela Rolando and Tonya Rolando, a same-sex couple, live in Great Falls, Montana. (Doc. 1 at 6). The couple attempted to obtain a marriage license at the Cascade County Clerk of Court’s office on May 19, 2014. The Cascade County Clerk of Court’s office denied the Rolandos a marriage license because Montana law prohibits the marriage of same-sex couples. (Doc. 36 at 1).
Plaintiffs Chase Weinhandl and Benjamin Milano, Susan Hawthorne and Adel Johnson, and Shauna Goubeaux and Nicole Goubeaux are same-sex couples who reside in Montana. Each couple, while living in Montana, traveled outside Montana to marry. The couples legally married under the laws of Hawaii, Washington, and Iowa, respectively. (Doc. 36 at 1-2). The State of Montana refuses to recognize these marriages of same-sex partners.
3

Case 4:14-cv-00040-BMM Document 44 Filed 11/19/14 Page 4 of 18
Plaintiffs initially asked the Court to declare that Montana laws that prohibit same-sex marriage violate Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection of the laws enshrined in the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs alleged that the Montana laws violated their right to equal protection by discriminating against them on the basis of both sexual orientation and on the basis of gender. Plaintiffs further requested that this Court declare that Montana laws that ban same-sex marriage violate Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry. After Plaintiffs filed their complaint, the Ninth Circuit determined that laws that banned same-sex marriage in Idaho and Nevada violated the constitutional right of same-sex couples to equal protection of the laws. Latta v. Otter, ___ F.3d ____, 2014 WL 4977682 (9th Cir. 2014).
Plaintiffs now have filed a motion for summary judgment on their equal protection claim. (Doc. 35). Plaintiffs argue that the State of Montana has discriminated against them on the basis of sexual orientation. The Court would not need to reach Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry claim, or decide whether Montana has discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of gender, if it determines that Montana laws that ban same-sex marriage violate Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection of the laws.
STANDARD OF REVIEW A party is entitled to summary judgment when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
4

Case 4:14-cv-00040-BMM Document 44 Filed 11/19/14 Page 5 of 18
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts could affect the outcome of a case. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary to the outcome of the case will not be counted. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
ANALYSIS The Court first must assess whether it possesses jurisdiction to hear Plantiffs’ challenges. A. Baker v. Nelson Defendants argue that Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), a 1972 Supreme Court decision, precludes this Court from considering Plaintiffs’ claims. The Minnesota Supreme Court earlier had rejected due process and equal protection challenges to a state law that prohibited same-sex marriage. Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971). The plaintiffs sought review from the United States Supreme Court. The Court summarily dismissed the petition “for want of a substantial federal question.” Baker, 409 U.S. at 810. A federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear a claim that fails to present a substantial federal question. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 343-44 (1975). The Supreme Court typically remains the final arbiter of whether a claim presents a substantial federal question. New doctrinal developments must occur to indicate that the question has become substantial in order to revive the issue. Hicks, 422 U.S. at 344.
5

Case 4:14-cv-00040-BMM Document 44 Filed 11/19/14 Page 6 of 18
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ complaint presents the same issue rejected in Baker: whether a constitutional right to same-sex marriage exists. The Court agrees. Defendants further argue that no sufficient doctrinal developments have occurred to render this issue a substantial federal question. The Court disagrees.
The Ninth Circuit directly considered this issue in Latta. Latta, *2. The court reviewed United States v. Windsor, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), in which the Supreme Court addressed a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA recognized opposite-sex marriages under federal law, but not same-sex marriages. This distinction violated the Fifth Amendment. Windsor explained that DOMA’s “principal purpose and . . . necessary effect” served “to demean” legally married same-sex couples. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2695. “[N]o legitimate purpose” behind DOMA could overcome such an injury to same-sex couples. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2696.
The court in Latta also reviewed Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578-79 (2003), where the Supreme Court recognized a due process right to engage in intimate conduct with a same-sex partner. The court finally considered Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631-34 (1996), where the Supreme Court determined that a law that barred enactment of any statute or ordinance that would protect the civil rights of gays and lesbians violated equal protection.
6

Case 4:14-cv-00040-BMM Document 44 Filed 11/19/14 Page 7 of 18
The court concluded that these recent decisions of the Supreme Court had produced sufficient doctrinal developments to determine that same-sex marriage now presents a substantial federal question. Latta, *3. Federal district courts in Arizona and Alaska permanently enjoined enforcement of same-sex marriage bans in those states after Latta. See Connolly v. Jeanes, 2014 WL 5320642 (D. Ariz. 2014), and Hamby v. Parnell, 2014 WL 5089399 (D. Alaska 2014). These decisions comport with the outcome of litigation of same-sex marriage bans in other federal courts in states in the Ninth Circuit. See Perry v. Brown, 725 F.3d 968, 970 (9th Cir. 2013) (dissolving stay of order that had enjoined California’s marriage ban); Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 994 F. Supp. 2d 1128, 1147-48 (D. Or. 2014) (overturning Oregon’s marriage ban). The legislatures in Hawaii and Washington passed laws to permit same-sex marriage. See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572-1 and Wash. Rev. Code § 26.04.010(1). Montana now stands as the lone state in the Ninth Circuit to prohibit the marriage of same-sex couples and to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages that validly have taken place in other jurisdictions.
Defendants argue that Latta misinterprets these Supreme Court cases and arrives at the erroneous conclusion that Baker no longer serves as binding precedent. This Court has reviewed the analysis in Latta and agrees that Baker no longer precludes consideration of challenges to the constitutionality of laws that prohibit same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, even if the Court disagreed with the
7

Case 4:14-cv-00040-BMM Document 44 Filed 11/19/14 Page 8 of 18
analysis in Latta, that analysis represents “binding authority” that “must be followed unless and until overruled.” Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1170 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court thus must consider Plaintiffs’ equal protection challenge to the Montana laws that prohibit same-sex marriage. B. Constitutional Right to Equal Protection of the Laws
Plaintiffs contend that Montana laws and the Montana Constitution violate their right to equal protection of the laws by prohibiting same-sex marriage. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
The Supreme Court has developed tiers of judicial scrutiny to evaluate whether a law violates an individual’s right to equal protection of the laws. The first step involves a determination as to what classification the law makes. Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456, 461 (1988). The classification made in the law indicates what level of scrutiny the Court should apply when evaluating the law. Jeter, 486 U.S. at 461. 1. Form of Classification
Plaintiffs argue that Montana’s laws that ban same-sex marriage discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Defendants contend that these
8

Case 4:14-cv-00040-BMM Document 44 Filed 11/19/14 Page 9 of 18
facially neutral laws apply with equal force to all persons. Defendants concede that the laws may have a disparate impact as applied to gays and lesbians.
Montana’s laws that ban same-sex marriage distinguish on their face between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples. Montana law permits opposite-sex couples to marry. Montana law similarly recognizes the out-of-state marriages of opposite-sex couples. Montana law bans same-sex couples from marrying. Montana law further prohibits the recognition of out-of-state marriages by same-sex couples.
The Ninth Circuit in Latta analyzed laws in Idaho and Nevada that imposed nearly identical prohibitions on same-sex marriages as the laws in Montana. Latta determined that these Idaho and Nevada laws discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Latta, *3. Montana’s laws that ban same-sex marriage likewise discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. 2. Level of Scrutiny
The Ninth Circuit applied heightened scrutiny in Latta to classifications based on sexual orientation. Latta, *4. Defendants contend that Latta misapplied Ninth Circuit precedent. Defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority in which they cited to the Sixth Circuit’s recent decision in DeBoer v. Snyder, 2014 WL 5748990 (6th Cir. 2014). The court in DeBoer applied rational basis scrutiny in rejecting a challenge to bans on same-sex marriage in four states. Latta
9

Case 4:14-cv-00040-BMM Document 44 Filed 11/19/14 Page 10 of 18
represents binding Ninth Circuit precedent and provides the framework that this Court must follow. Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc., 663 F.2d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 1981).
The Ninth Circuit previously had determined that rational basis review should apply to classifications based on sexual orientation. High Tech Gays v. Def. Indus. Sec. Clearance Office, 895 F.2d 563, 574 (9th Cir. 1990). There a class of plaintiffs challenged the Department of Defense’s policy of “refusing to grant security clearances to known or suspected gay applicants.” High Tech Gays, 895 F.2d at 565. The court acknowledged that gays and lesbians had suffered a history of discrimination. The court nevertheless determined that gays and lesbians failed to meet the definition of a suspect class that would warrant application of heightened scrutiny. High Tech Gays, 895 F.2d at 573.
The Ninth Circuit recently revisited this issue in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 740 F.3d 471, 480-84 (9th Cir. 2014). The court acknowledged that the Supreme Court in Windsor had failed to articulate the precise level of scrutiny that should apply to classifications based on sexual orientation. SmithKline, 740 F.3d at 480. The court determined that the Supreme Court, in fact, had applied heightened scrutiny in analyzing DOMA. SmithKline, 740 F.3d at 483. The court reasoned that Windsor now required it “to apply heightened scrutiny to classifications based on sexual orientation for purposes of equal protection.” SmithKline, 740 F.3d at 484.
10

Case 4:14-cv-00040-BMM Document 44 Filed 11/19/14 Page 11 of 18
The court in Geiger hesitated to apply the heightened scrutiny standard demanded in SmithKline in evaluating Oregon’s ban on same-sex marriage. The court noted that the panel’s decision in SmithKline was “not yet a truly final and binding decision” based upon the fact that the mandate had not issued. Geiger, 994 F. Supp. 2d at 1141. The court nonetheless proceeded to strike down Oregon’s same-sex marriage ban under rational basis review. Geiger, 994 F. Supp. 2d at 1147-48. The Court faces no similar quandary here as the mandate has issued in SmithKline. See SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 759 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2014) (denying rehearing en banc).
Defendants suggest that the Ninth Circuit misinterpreted Windsor in SmithKline. Defendants argue that the rational basis review required under High Tech Gays represents the appropriate level of scrutiny. Defendants maintain that Latta should have applied rational basis review pursuant to High Tech Gays rather than heightened scrutiny required under SmithKline. The decision in Latta to apply heightened scrutiny to classifications based on sexual orientation, as developed in SmithKline, represents binding precedent. Hart, 266 F.3d at 1170. This Court must evaluate Montana’s ban on same-sex marriage using the heightened scrutiny analysis.
The discriminatory means employed by a law must relate substantially to the achievement of important governmental objectives in order to survive heightened
11

Case 4:14-cv-00040-BMM Document 44 Filed 11/19/14 Page 12 of 18
scrutiny. United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533 (1996). This Court must examine the actual purpose of the law. SmithKline, 740 F.3d at 483. The Court also must consider carefully any inequality that may result from the law. SmithKline, 740 F.3d at 483. 3. Asserted Justifications
Defendants argue that the laws that ban same-sex marriage in Montana should survive rational basis review. As discussed above, however, heightened scrutiny represents the appropriate level of review for classifications based on sexual orientation. Latta, *4. Defendants fail to put forth any persuasive argument that the discriminatory means employed by these laws relate substantially to the achievement of any important governmental objectives.
Latta considered several arguments in support of the bans on same-sex marriage in Idaho and Nevada. The defendants in Latta argued that the laws help ensure that parents of different genders raise children. The court reasoned that the defendants really argued that same-sex couples do not make suitable parents. Latta, *8. The court noted that both Nevada and Idaho already allowed adoption by gays and lesbians. Latta, *8. The court determined that to allow same-sex couples to adopt children and then to “label their families as second-class” is “cruel as well as unconstitutional.” Latta, *9.
12

Case 4:14-cv-00040-BMM Document 44 Filed 11/19/14 Page 13 of 18
In a concurring opinion, Judge Berzon considered the defendants’ argument that parents of different genders should raise children. Judge Berzon dismissed this justification as being laden with the “baggage of sexual stereotypes” that the Supreme Court repeatedly has rejected. Latta, *24 (Berzon, J, concurring). Judge Berzon noted that the Supreme Court has struck down laws that make generalizations about “the way women are” or “the way men are” as justifications for the legislation. Latta, *24 (Berzon, J, concurring).
The defendants also argued that permitting same-sex marriage will encourage opposite-sex couples to opt-out of marriage. The defendants argued that a father who sees a child being raised by two women will decide that it is unnecessary for his children to have a father. The court disparaged this proposition as a “crass and callous view of parental love.” Latta, *5.
An expert presented data from Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has been permitted since 2004. No decrease in marriage rates or increase in divorce rates have occurred in the past decade. Latta, *5. This outcome follows the conclusion of other courts that “permitting same sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.” Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 972 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
13

Case 4:14-cv-00040-BMM Document 44 Filed 11/19/14 Page 14 of 18
The defendants in Latta next argued that the bans on same-sex marriage further the stability of family structures by targeting benefits at couples who possess biological procreative capacity. The court noted that “to say that marriage is simply about the capacity to procreate” demeans married couples, especially those who are childless. Latta, *7. The laws banning same-sex marriage also are “grossly over- and under-inclusive” of the purported goal of targeting benefits at families who may have children. Latta, *7. Opposite sex couples who lack reproductive capacity, or choose not to have children, are allowed to marry, but same-sex couples who already have children are not allowed to marry. Latta, *7.
The court concluded that laws that prevent same-sex couples with children from marrying “materially harm and demean same-sex couples and their children.” Latta, *8 (emphasis added). As the Court recognized in Windsor, prohibiting samesex couples from joining in marriage “humiliates” children being raised by samesex couples and makes it even more difficult for those children “to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2694.
Latta considered several other purported justifications for banning same-sex marriage. The court summarily rejected these justifications as being “unpersuasive.” Latta, *9. Defendants have put forth no persuasive arguments that the laws that ban same-sex marriage in Montana relate substantially to the
14

Case 4:14-cv-00040-BMM Document 44 Filed 11/19/14 Page 15 of 18
achievement of an important governmental objective. Defendants have failed to meet their burden under heightened scrutiny to justify the discrimination engendered by the Montana laws that ban same-sex marriage.
Plaintiffs who challenge these Montana laws that ban same-sex marriage come from diverse points across Montana. They hale from communities large and small – Butte, Great Falls, Helena, Bozeman, Billings, Charlo, and Philipsburg. Plaintiffs come from families that have lived in Montana for generations and from recently arrived families. They represent different walks of life that range from public employees, to military veterans, to retail managers, to marketers, to health care workers. They spend their free time engaged in activities that thousands of Montana families enjoy. These couples recreate in the beautiful outdoors that Montana offers. They cheer for their favorite teams at local sporting events. They practice their faiths freely as guaranteed by our Constitution.
And like many families in Montana, some of these same-sex couples raise children. Some of these children come to the families from previous relationships with opposite-sex partners. Others arrive to the families through the gift of adoption. Montana law allows, however, only one person from a same-sex couple to serve as the adoptive parent. See Mont. Code Ann. § 42-1-106; Kulstad v. Maniaci, 220 P.3d 595 (Mont. 2009). The available social science indicates that the children raised by these same-sex couples will “fare just as well as their peers
15

Case 4:14-cv-00040-BMM Document 44 Filed 11/19/14 Page 16 of 18
physically, psychologically, emotionally, cognitively, and socially.” Kulstad, 220 P.3d at 601; see also Perry, 704 F. Supp. 2d at 980-81 and DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E.D. Mich. 2014), rev’d on other grounds, 2014 WL 5748990 (6th Cir. 2014) (recognizing that the overwhelming scientific consensus demonstrates “no differences” in outcomes for children raised in opposite-sex households and children raised in same-sex households).
These families want for their children what all families in Montana want. They want to provide a safe and loving home in which their children have the chance to explore the world in which they live. They want their children to have the chance to discover their place in this world. And they want their children to have the chance to fulfill their highest dreams. These families, like all of us, want their children to adventure into the world without fear of violence; to achieve all that their talent and perseverance allows without fear of discrimination; and to love themselves so that they can love others. No family wants to deprive its precious children of the chance to marry the loves of their lives. Montana no longer can deprive Plaintiffs and other same-sex couples of the chance to marry their loves.
This Court recognizes that not everyone will celebrate this outcome. This decision overturns a Montana Constitutional amendment approved by the voters of Montana. Yet the United States Constitution exists to protect disfavored minorities from the will of the majority. Equal protection of the laws will not be achieved
16

Case 4:14-cv-00040-BMM Document 44 Filed 11/19/14 Page 17 of 18
through “indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 633. Our constitutional tradition does not permit laws to single out a certain class of citizens for “disfavored legal status.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 633.
Montana’s laws that ban same-sex marriage impose a “disfavored legal status” on same-sex couples. The time has come for Montana to follow all the other states within the Ninth Circuit and recognize that laws that ban same-sex marriage violate the constitutional right of same-sex couples to equal protection of the laws. Today Montana becomes the thirty-fourth state to permit same-sex marriage.
ORDER The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 35). The Court hereby DECLARES that Montana’s laws that ban same-sex marriage, including Article XIII, section 7 of the Montana Constitution, and Montana Code Annotated section 40-1-103 and section 40-1-401, violate Plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court PERMANENTLY ENJOINS the State of Montana and its officers, employees, agents, and political subdivisions from enforcing Article XIII, section 7 of the Montana Constitution, Montana Code Annotated section 40-1-103 and section 40-1-401, and any other laws or regulations, to the extent that they
17

Case 4:14-cv-00040-BMM Document 44 Filed 11/19/14 Page 18 of 18
prohibit otherwise qualified same-sex couples from marrying in Montana, and to the extent that they do not recognize same-sex marriages validly contracted outside Montana. This injunction shall take effect immediately.
DATED this 19th day of November, 2014.
18

 
 11/4/2017

CM/ECF - District of Montana LIVE

APPEAL,CLOSED

U.S. District Court District of Montana (Great Falls) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:14-cv-00040-BMM

Rolando et al v. Fox et al Assigned to: Judge Brian Morris Case in other court: Ninth Circuirt Court of Appeals, 14-35987 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 05/21/2014 Date Terminated: 11/20/2014 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Angela Rolando

represented by Benjamin Joseph Alke GOETZ, BALDWIN & GEDDES, P.C. 35 North Grand PO Box 6580 Bozeman, MT 59771-6580 406-587-0618 Fax: 406-587-5144 Email: balke@goetzlawﬁrm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James H. Goetz GOETZ, BALDWIN & GEDDES, P.C. 35 North Grand PO Box 6580 Bozeman, MT 59771-6580 406-587-0618 Fax: 587-5144 Email: jim@goetzlawﬁrm.com LEAD ATTORNEY

James Park Taylor ACLU OF MONTANA 241 E. Alder PO Box 9138 Missoula, MT 59807 406-549-6159 Fax: 406-549-5177 Email: jpt42@hotmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.mtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?731055439658546-L_1_0-1

Ariel F. Ruiz MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP - NEW YORK 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 212-336-4071 Fax: 212-468-7900
1/14

11/4/2017

CM/ECF - District of Montana LIVE
Email: aruiz@mofo.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth O. Gill AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION - SAN FRANCISO LGBT AND AIDS PROJECT 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 415-621-2493 ext 437 Fax: 415-255-8437 Email: egill@aclunc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily F. Regier MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP - SAN FRANCISCO 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 415-268-6804 Fax: 415-268-7522 Email: ymorales@mofo.com TERMINATED: 09/09/2015 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ruth N. Borenstein MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP - SAN FRANCISCO 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 415-268-7348 Fax: 415-268-7522 Email: RBorenstein@mofo.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tonya Rolando
https://ecf.mtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?731055439658546-L_1_0-1

Stuart C. Plunkett MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP - SAN FRANCISCO 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 415-268-6145 Fax: 415-268-7522 Email: SPlunkett@mofo.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin Joseph Alke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
2/14

11/4/2017

CM/ECF - District of Montana LIVE

James H. Goetz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

James Park Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ariel F. Ruiz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth O. Gill (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily F. Regier (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2015 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ruth N. Borenstein (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chase Weinhandl

Stuart C. Plunkett (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin Joseph Alke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James H. Goetz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

James Park Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.mtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?731055439658546-L_1_0-1

Ariel F. Ruiz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
3/14

11/4/2017

CM/ECF - District of Montana LIVE

Elizabeth O. Gill (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily F. Regier (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2015 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ruth N. Borenstein (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Benjamin Milano

Stuart C. Plunkett (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin Joseph Alke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James H. Goetz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

James Park Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ariel F. Ruiz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth O. Gill (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily F. Regier (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2015 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.mtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?731055439658546-L_1_0-1

Ruth N. Borenstein (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
4/14

11/4/2017

CM/ECF - District of Montana LIVE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Susan Hawthorne

Stuart C. Plunkett (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin Joseph Alke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James H. Goetz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

James Park Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ariel F. Ruiz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth O. Gill (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily F. Regier (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2015 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ruth N. Borenstein (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Adel Johnson

Stuart C. Plunkett (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin Joseph Alke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James H. Goetz

https://ecf.mtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?731055439658546-L_1_0-1

5/14

11/4/2017

CM/ECF - District of MontanaJLaIVmE es H. Goetz
(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

James Park Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ariel F. Ruiz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth O. Gill (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily F. Regier (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2015 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ruth N. Borenstein (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Shauna Goubeaux

Stuart C. Plunkett (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin Joseph Alke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James H. Goetz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

James Park Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ariel F. Ruiz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth O. Gill

https://ecf.mtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?731055439658546-L_1_0-1

6/14

11/4/2017
Plaintiff Nicole Goubeaux

CM/ECF - District of Montana LIVE
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily F. Regier (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2015 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruth N. Borenstein (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stuart C. Plunkett (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin Joseph Alke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James H. Goetz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
James Park Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ariel F. Ruiz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth O. Gill (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily F. Regier (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2015 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ruth N. Borenstein (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.mtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?731055439658546-L_1_0-1

7/14

11/4/2017

CM/ECF - District of Montana LIVE
Stuart C. Plunkett (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Tim Fox in his ofﬁcial capacity as Attorney General of the State of Montana
Defendant Michael Kadas in his ofﬁcial capacity as the Director of the Montana Department of Revenue

represented by Mark W. Mattioli OFFICE OF THE MONTANA ATTORNEY GENERAL PO Box 201401 Helena, MT 59620-1401 406-444-2026 Fax: 444-3549 Email: mmattioli@mt.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dale M. Schowengerdt MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 215 North Sanders PO Box 201401 Helena, MT 59620-1401 406-444-2026 Fax: 406-444-3549 Email: dales@mt.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan W. Bennion MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 215 North Sanders PO Box 201401 Helena, MT 59620-1401 406-444-5880 Fax: 406-444-3549 Email: jonbennion@mt.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark W. Mattioli (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dale M. Schowengerdt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan W. Bennion (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.mtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?731055439658546-L_1_0-1

8/14

11/4/2017
Defendant
Faye McWilliams in her ofﬁcial capacity as Clerk of Court of Cascade County

CM/ECF - District of Montana LIVE
represented by Mark W. Mattioli (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dale M. Schowengerdt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan W. Bennion (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/21/2014
05/21/2014 05/21/2014 06/03/2014
06/09/2014
06/09/2014
06/17/2014 06/17/2014
07/17/2014 07/18/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against All Defendants, ﬁled by All Plaintiffs. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0977-1411655.) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Blank Summons - AG, # 3 Blank Summons McWilliams, # 4 Blank Summons - DOR) (SLR, ) (Entered: 05/21/2014)
2 Summons Issued as to All Defendants. Original issued Summonses mailed to Counsel Alke. (SLR, ) (Entered: 05/21/2014)
3 NOTICE by Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl (Alke, Benjamin) (Entered: 05/21/2014)
4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Adel Johnson, Chase Weinhandl, Shauna Goubeaux, Tonya Rolando, Nicole Goubeaux, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Susan Hawthorne. Faye McWilliams served on 5/28/2014, answer due 6/18/2014. (Alke, Benjamin) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Adel Johnson, Chase Weinhandl, Shauna Goubeaux, Tonya Rolando, Nicole Goubeaux, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Susan Hawthorne. Tim Fox served on 5/28/2014, answer due 6/18/2014. (Alke, Benjamin) (Entered: 06/09/2014)
6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Adel Johnson, Chase Weinhandl, Shauna Goubeaux, Tonya Rolando, Nicole Goubeaux, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Susan Hawthorne. Michael Kadas served on 5/28/2014, answer due 6/18/2014. (Alke, Benjamin) (Entered: 06/09/2014)
7 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer Mark W. Mattioli appearing for Defendants Tim Fox, Michael Kadas, Faye McWilliams (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order) (Mattioli, Mark) (Entered: 06/17/2014)
8 ORDER granting 7 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. IT IS ORDERED that Defendants shall have up to and including July 17, 2014, to respond to Plaintiffs' Veriﬁed Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Doc. No. 1). Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 6/17/2014. (SLL, ) (Entered: 06/17/2014)
9 Defendants' ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Tim Fox, Michael Kadas, Faye McWilliams. (Mattioli, Mark) (Entered: 07/17/2014)
10 Letter from Tyler P. Gilman, Clerk of Court, to Counsel Jonathan W. Bennion re CM/ECF

https://ecf.mtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?731055439658546-L_1_0-1

9/14

11/4/2017

CM/ECF - District of Montana LIVE
registration. Letter mailed to Counsel Bennion. (SLR, ) (Entered: 07/18/2014)

07/22/2014

11 PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: The Preliminary Pretrial Statement is due by 8/13/2014. Joint Discovery Plan is due by 8/13/2014. Statement of Stipulated Facts is due by 8/13/2014. Pretrial Conference set for 8/20/2014 at 01:30 PM in Great Falls, MT before Judge Brian Morris. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 7/22/2014. (SLL, ) (Entered: 07/22/2014)

07/24/2014

12 MOTION Ariel Ruiz to Appear Pro Hac Vice Unopposed Motion for Admission of Ariel Ruiz Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0977-1442009.) Benjamin Joseph Alke appearing for Plaintiffs Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A) (Alke, Benjamin) (Entered: 07/24/2014)

07/24/2014

13 MOTION Elizabeth Gill to Appear Pro Hac Vice Unopposed Motion for Admission of Elizabeth Gill ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0977-1442015.) Benjamin Joseph Alke appearing for Plaintiffs Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A) (Alke, Benjamin) (Entered: 07/24/2014)

07/24/2014

14 MOTION Emily Regier to Appear Pro Hac Vice Unopposed Motion for Admission of Emily Regier Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0977-1442020.) Benjamin Joseph Alke appearing for Plaintiffs Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A) (Alke, Benjamin) (Entered: 07/24/2014)

07/24/2014

15 MOTION Ruth Borenstein to Appear Pro Hac Vice Unopposed Motion for Admission of Ruth Borenstein Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0977-1442023.), MOTION to Appoint Counsel Benjamin Joseph Alke appearing for Plaintiffs Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A) (Alke, Benjamin) (Entered: 07/24/2014)

07/24/2014

16 MOTION Stuart Plunkett to Appear Pro Hac Vice Unopposed Motion for Admission of Stuart Plunkett Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0977-1442028.) Benjamin Joseph Alke appearing for Plaintiffs Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A) (Alke, Benjamin) (Entered: 07/24/2014)

08/01/2014

17 WITHDRAWAL of Motion re 13 MOTION Elizabeth Gill to Appear Pro Hac Vice Unopposed Motion for Admission of Elizabeth Gill ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 09771442015.) ﬁled by Tonya Rolando, Angela Rolando, Susan Hawthorne, Shauna Goubeaux, Chase Weinhandl, Benjamin Milano, Nicole Goubeaux, Adel Johnson, 15 MOTION Ruth Borenstein to Appear Pro Hac Vice Unopposed Motion for Admission of Ruth Borenstein Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0977-1442023.) MOTION to Appoint Counsel ﬁled by Tonya Rolando, Angela Rolando, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Chase Weinhandl, Nicole Goubeaux, Benjamin Milano, Adel Johnson, 12 MOTION Ariel Ruiz to Appear Pro Hac Vice Unopposed Motion for Admission of Ariel Ruiz Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0977-1442009.) ﬁled by Tonya Rolando, Angela Rolando, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Chase Weinhandl, Nicole Goubeaux, Benjamin Milano, Adel Johnson, 14 MOTION Emily Regier to Appear Pro Hac Vice Unopposed Motion for Admission of Emily Regier Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0977-1442020.) ﬁled by Tonya Rolando, Angela Rolando, Shauna Goubeaux,

https://ecf.mtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?731055439658546-L_1_0-1

10/14

11/4/2017

CM/ECF - District of Montana LIVE
Susan Hawthorne, Chase Weinhandl, Nicole Goubeaux, Benjamin Milano, Adel Johnson, 16 MOTION Stuart Plunkett to Appear Pro Hac Vice Unopposed Motion for Admission of Stuart Plunkett Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0977-1442028.) ﬁled by Tonya Rolando, Angela Rolando, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Chase Weinhandl, Nicole Goubeaux, Benjamin Milano, Adel Johnson . (Alke, Benjamin) (Entered: 08/01/2014)

08/12/2014

18 UNOPPOSED MOTION Ruth Borenstein to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0977-1442023.) Benjamin Joseph Alke appearing for Plaintiffs Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order) (Alke, Benjamin) Modiﬁed on 8/13/2014 to add word "unopposed". (SLR, ). (Entered: 08/12/2014)

08/12/2014

19 UNOPPOSED MOTION Elizabeth Gill to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0977-1442015.) Benjamin Joseph Alke appearing for Plaintiffs Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order) (Alke, Benjamin) Modiﬁed on 8/13/2014 to add word "unopposed". (SLR, ). (Entered: 08/12/2014)

08/12/2014

20 UNOPPOSED MOTION Stuart Plunkett to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0977-1442028.) Benjamin Joseph Alke appearing for Plaintiffs Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order) (Alke, Benjamin) Modiﬁed on 8/13/2014 to add word "unopposed". (SLR, ). (Entered: 08/12/2014)

08/12/2014

21 UNOPPOSED MOTION Emily Regier to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0977-1442020.) Benjamin Joseph Alke appearing for Plaintiffs Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order) (Alke, Benjamin) Modiﬁed on 8/13/2014 to add word "unopposed". (SLR, ). (Entered: 08/12/2014)

08/12/2014

22 UNOPPOSED MOTION Ariel Ruiz to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0977-14420009.) Benjamin Joseph Alke appearing for Plaintiffs Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order) (Alke, Benjamin) Modiﬁed on 8/13/2014 to add word "unopposed". (SLR, ). (Entered: 08/12/2014)

08/13/2014

23 JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN by Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl. (Alke, Benjamin) (Entered: 08/13/2014)

08/13/2014

24 STATEMENT OF STIPULATED FACTS by Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl. (Alke, Benjamin) (Entered: 08/13/2014)

08/13/2014

25 PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL STATEMENT by Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl. (Alke, Benjamin) (Entered: 08/13/2014)

08/13/2014 26 STATEMENT Preliminary Pretrial Statement by Tim Fox, Michael Kadas, Faye McWilliams. (Mattioli, Mark) (Entered: 08/13/2014)

08/20/2014 27 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Brian Morris: Preliminary Pretrial

https://ecf.mtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?731055439658546-L_1_0-1

11/14

11/4/2017
08/21/2014 08/21/2014
09/05/2014 09/05/2014 09/05/2014 09/05/2014 09/09/2014 10/15/2014 10/15/2014 10/15/2014
10/15/2014
10/20/2014 11/05/2014

CM/ECF - District of Montana LIVE
Conference held on 8/20/2014. (SLL, ) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
28 SCHEDULING ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: A Status Conference set for 6/29/2015 at 01:30 PM in Great Falls, MT before Judge Brian Morris. Amended Pleadings due by 10/31/2014. Discovery due by 2/27/2015. Joinder of Parties due by 10/31/2014. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 8/21/2014. (SLL, ) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
29 ORDER granting 18 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice - Ruth Borenstein; granting 19 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice - Elizabeth Gill; granting 20 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice - Stuart Plunkett; granting 21 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice - Emily Regier; and, granting 22 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice - Ariel Ruiz. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 8/21/2014. (SLL, ) Modiﬁed on 9/4/2014 to clean up text. (SLR, ). (Entered: 08/21/2014)
30 NOTICE of Acknowledgment of Pro Hac Vice Order by Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl (Plunkett, Stuart) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
31 NOTICE of Acknowledgment of Pro Hac Vice Order by Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl (Borenstein, Ruth) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
32 NOTICE of Acknowledgment of Pro Hac Vice Order by Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl (Ruiz, Ariel) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
33 NOTICE of Acknowledgment of Pro Hac Vice Order by Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl (Regier, Emily) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
34 NOTICE of Acknowledgment of Pro Hac Vice Order by Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl (Gill, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
35 MOTION for Summary Judgment Benjamin Joseph Alke appearing for Plaintiffs Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl (Alke, Benjamin) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
36 Statement of Undisputed Fact re: 35 MOTION for Summary Judgment . (Alke, Benjamin) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
37 Brief/Memorandum in Support re 35 MOTION for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D) (Alke, Benjamin) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
38 Brief/Memorandum in Support re 35 MOTION for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D) (Alke, Benjamin) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
39 Text ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 35 MOTION for Summary Judgment : Motion Hearing set for 11/20/2014 at 01:30 PM in Great Falls, MT before Judge Brian Morris. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 10/20/2014. (SLL, ) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
40 RESPONSE to Motion re 35 MOTION for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Tim Fox, Michael Kadas, Faye McWilliams. (Mattioli, Mark) (Entered: 11/05/2014)

https://ecf.mtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?731055439658546-L_1_0-1

12/14

11/4/2017
11/06/2014 11/07/2014 11/13/2014 11/19/2014 11/19/2014 11/20/2014 11/20/2014 12/01/2014 02/09/2015
08/31/2015
09/08/2015 09/08/2015 09/09/2015
09/23/2015 09/24/2015

CM/ECF - District of Montana LIVE
41 Brief/Memorandum in Support re 35 MOTION for Summary Judgment ﬁled by Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl. (Borenstein, Ruth) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
42 NOTICE by Tim Fox, Michael Kadas, Faye McWilliams re 40 Response to Motion NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 6th Cir DeBoer Opinion) (Mattioli, Mark) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
43 TEXT ORDER Vacating Hearing on Motion 35 MOTION for Summary Judgment : Motion Hearing set for 11/20/2014 at 01:30 PM is Vacated. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 11/13/2014. (SLL, ) (Entered: 2014-11-13) (Entered: 11/13/2014)
44 ORDER granting 35 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 11/19/2014. (SLL, ) (Entered: 11/19/2014)
45 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 44 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment by Tim Fox, Michael Kadas, Faye McWilliams. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0977-1498662. (Mattioli, Mark) (Entered: 11/19/2014)
46 CLERK'S JUDGMENT in favor of Adel Johnson, Angela Rolando, Benjamin Milano, Chase Weinhandl, Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Tonya Rolando against Faye McWilliams, Michael Kadas, Tim Fox. (MMS, ) (Entered: 11/20/2014)
47 USCA Case Number 14-35987 and Time Schedule Order for 45 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Faye McWilliams, Michael Kadas, Tim Fox. (SLR, ) (Entered: 11/20/2014)
48 STIPULATION REGARDING SCHEDULE FOR RULE 54 FILINGS by Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl. (Borenstein, Ruth) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
49 ORDER of USCA as to 45 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Faye McWilliams, Michael Kadas, Tim Fox. The appellants' unopposed motion to stay appellate proceedings pending the United States Supreme Court's decision in DeBoer v. Snyder, is granted. This appeal is stayed until August 28, 2015. (MMS, ) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
50 ORDER of USCA as to 45 Notice of Appeal ﬁled by Faye McWilliams, Michael Kadas, Tim Fox. The Appellants' motion for voluntary dismissal is granted. This appeal is dismissed. Fed.R.App.P. 42(b). A copy of this Order sent to the District Court shall act as and for the Mandate of this Court. (SLR, ) (Entered: 08/31/2015)
51 Notice of Undeliverable Electronic Notice: re 50 USCA Order,. Name of attorney whose NEF was undeliverable: Regier. (Cuthbert, Michael) (Entered: 09/08/2015)
52 Notice of Undeliverable Electronic Notice: re 51 Notice of Undeliverable Electronic Notice, 50 USCA Order,. Name of attorney whose NEF was undeliverable: Regier. (Cuthbert, Michael) (Entered: 09/08/2015)
53 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Counsel: Emily F. Regier withdrawing from the case, ﬁled by Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl (Alke, Benjamin) (Entered: 09/09/2015)
54 NOTICE of Appearance by Dale M. Schowengerdt on behalf of All Defendants (Schowengerdt, Dale) (Entered: 09/23/2015)
55 STIPULATION Regarding Schedule of Rule 54 Filings by Nicole Goubeaux, Shauna Goubeaux, Susan Hawthorne, Adel Johnson, Benjamin Milano, Angela Rolando, Tonya Rolando, Chase Weinhandl. (Attachments: # 1 Order) (Alke, Benjamin) Modiﬁed on 9/25/2015 to change event to "stipulated motion". (SLR, ). (Entered: 09/24/2015)

https://ecf.mtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?731055439658546-L_1_0-1

13/14

11/4/2017
09/28/2015
09/28/2015 10/28/2015

CM/ECF - District of Montana LIVE
56 ORDER granting 55 Stipulated Motion. The deadline for parties to either provide notice to the Court that a written settlement agreement has been executed on the issue of fees and costs, or for the Plaintiffs to ﬁle a bill of costs and a motion for fees under Rule 54, is delayed until October 28, 2015. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 9/28/2015. (SLL, ) Modiﬁed on 9/28/2015 to add text (MMS, ). (Entered: 09/28/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Brief in Response to Order 56 due by 10/28/2015. (MMS, ) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
57 NOTICE by Chase Weinhandl Joint Notice Regarding Rule 54 Motion (Alke, Benjamin) (Entered: 10/28/2015)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

11/04/2017 15:41:47

hs0328:2563377:0 Client Code:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

14

Cost:

4:14-cv-00040BMM
1.40

https://ecf.mtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?731055439658546-L_1_0-1

14/14