Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/30/14 Page: 1 of 16 PAGEID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Michelle Gibson and Deborah Meem C/O Gerhardstein & Branch, LPA 432 Walnut Street, Suite 400 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202,
And
Heather Apple and Mary K. Koehler C/O Gerhardstein & Branch, LPA 432 Walnut Street, Suite 400 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202,
And
Ronald Kastner Beck and Dave Beck C/O Gerhardstein & Branch, LPA 432 Walnut Street, Suite 400 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202,
And
Andrew Hickman and Ethan Fletcher C/O Gerhardstein & Branch, LPA 432 Walnut Street, Suite 400 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202,
And
Gary Goodman and Karl Rece, Jr. C/O Gerhardstein & Branch, LPA 432 Walnut Street, Suite 400 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202,
And
Rhonda Craig and Kendra Dukes, C/O Gerhardstein & Branch, LPA 432 Walnut Street, Suite 400 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202,
Plaintiffs,

: Case No. 1:14-cv-347 : : : : Judge : : : VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR : TEMPORARY RESTRAINING : ORDER AND DECLARATORY : AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/30/14 Page: 2 of 16 PAGEID #: 2

vs.

:

:

Lance Himes

:

246 N. High Street

:

Columbus, OH 43215

:

In his official capacity as the Director of

:

the Ohio Department of Health

:

:

and

:

:

James Cissell

:

Hamilton County Probate Court

:

230 East Ninth Street

:

Cincinnati, OH 45202

:

In his official capacity as Common Pleas :

Court Judge, Probate Division,

:

:

Defendants.

:

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This civil rights case seeks to secure for same-sex couples across Ohio the right to marry on an equal basis with opposite-sex couples. Plaintiffs include six same-sex couples who want to get married in their home state of Ohio. They are in love, but Ohio law denies them the right to get married and enjoy marriage’s many benefits and responsibilities. In Ohio, a marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman. OH Const. Art. XV, §11; Ohio Rev. Code § 3101.01(A) (collectively, the “marriage ban”). Any attempt by same-sex couples to enter into an Ohio marriage is treated as void ab initio and not recognized by the state. Id. at (C)(1). Plaintiffs challenge this unequal treatment of same-sex and opposite-sex couples as unconstitutional. 2. This Court recently held that Ohio’s marriage recognition bans violate the equal protection and substantive due process rights of same-sex couples legally married in other states who seek recognition of their marriages in Ohio. Henry v. Himes, No. 1:14-CV-129, 2014 WL
2

Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/30/14 Page: 3 of 16 PAGEID #: 3
1418395 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 14, 2014); Obergefell v. Wymyslo, No. 1:13-CV-501, 2013 WL
6726688 *1 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 23, 2013). Likewise, since the Supreme Court struck down the
federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in United States v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675 (June 26,
2013), federal courts in Indiana, Michigan, Tennessee, Texas, Illinois, Kentucky, Virginia,
Oklahoma, and Utah have required their states to recognize and/or allow the marriages of same-
sex couples.1 Federal courts are not alone in their interpretation of the Constitution. Eight
attorney generals have refused to defend of their marriage bans citing the changing legal
landscape.2 In fact, since Windsor, not a single defendant of marriage discrimination has
successfully argued that the government has a compelling interest or rational basis for refusing to
recognize or allow marriages between same-sex couples. A consensus is finally emerging: the
Constitution protects the right of consenting adults to love whoever they want. It is time for
Ohio to do the same.
3. Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging Article XV, § 11
of the Constitution of Ohio and the provisions of Ohio Rev. Code Ch. 3101 that exclude same-
1 See, e.g., Baskin v. Bogan, No 1:14-CV-355-RLY-TAB, 2014 WL 1568884 (S.D. Ind. Apr. 18, 2014) (temporarily enjoining Indiana’s marriage recognition ban); DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 12-CV-10285, 2014 WL 1100794, at *17 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2014) (permanently enjoining Michigan anti-celebration provisions on equal protection grounds); Tanco v. Haslam, No. 3:13-cv-01159, 2014 WL 997525, at *6, *9 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 14, 2014) (preliminarily enjoining enforcement of Tennessee anti-recognition provisions, on equal protection grounds); De Leon v. Perry, No. SA-13-CA-00982-OLG, 2014 WL 715741, at *1, *24 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2014) (preliminarily enjoining Texas anti-celebration and anti-recognition provisions on equal protection and due process grounds); Lee v. Orr, No. 13-CV-8719, 2014 WL 683680 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2014) (declaring Illinois celebration ban unconstitutional on equal protection grounds); Bourke v. Beshear, No. 3:13-CV-750-H, 2014 WL 556729, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 12, 2014) (declaring Kentucky’s anti-recognition provisions unconstitutional on equal protection grounds); Bostic v. Rainey, No. 2:13cv395, 2014 WL 561978, at *23 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2014) (finding Virginia’s anti-celebration and anti-recognition laws unconstitutional on due process and equal protection grounds, and preliminarily enjoining enforcement); Bishop v. United States ex rel. Holder, No. 04-CV-848-TCK-TLW, 2014 WL 116013, at *33-34 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 14, 2014) (permanently enjoining Oklahoma’s anti-celebration provisions on equal protection grounds); Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 2:13-cv-217, 2013 WL 6697874, at *30 (D. Utah Dec. 20, 2013) (permanently enjoining Utah anti-celebration provisions on due process and equal protection grounds). 2 Emma Margolin, Kentucky attorney general won’t appeal gay marriage ruling, MSNBC March 4, 2012, available at http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-bluest-red-state (“Conway is the eighth attorney general in the country to abandon such laws in the face of mounting legal victories for marriage equality.”).
3

Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/30/14 Page: 4 of 16 PAGEID #: 4
sex couples from marriage. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. Jurisdiction over the federal claims is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C.
§1331 and §1343(3) and (4). 5. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1).
III. PARTIES 6. Plaintiffs Michelle Gibson and Deborah Meem are a same-sex couple living in Hamilton County, Ohio. They bring this action individually. 7. Plaintiffs Heather Apple and Mary K. Koehler are a same-sex couple living in Hamilton County, Ohio. They bring this action individually. 8. Plaintiffs Ronny Kastner Beck and Dave Beck are a same-sex couple living in Hamilton County, Ohio. They bring this action individually. 9. Plaintiffs Andrew Hickman and Ethan Fletcher are a same-sex couple living in Hamilton County, Ohio. They bring this action individually. 10. Plaintiffs Gary Goodman and Karl Rece Jr. are a same-sex couple living in Clermont County, Ohio. They expect to solemnize their marriage in Hamilton County, Ohio. They bring this action individually. 11. Plaintiffs Rhonda Craig and Kendra Dukes are a same-sex couple living in Hamilton County, Ohio. They bring this action individually. 12. Defendant Lance Himes is the Interim Director of the Ohio Department of Health. In that capacity he is responsible for overseeing the administration of all statutes and regulations that relate to the State of Ohio’s system for recording vital statistics, including but not limited to
4

Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/30/14 Page: 5 of 16 PAGEID #: 5
the recording of marriage certificates. Defendant Himes is sued in his official capacity for injunctive relief only.
13. Defendant James Cissell is the judge of the Hamilton County, Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division. He is responsible for accepting marriage license applications, issuing marriage licenses and recording marriage licenses on a form prescribed by the Ohio Department of Health. Defendant Cissell is sued in his official capacity for injunctive relief only.
IV. FACTS A. Michelle Gibson and Deborah Meem
14. Michelle and Deborah began dating in 1995 and have had a loving and fulfilling relationship ever since. They are both professors at the University of Cincinnati, where they met.
15. They would like to be married in Ohio, where they live, as do their family and friends.
16. Michelle and Deborah have two grandchildren and they believe it is particularly important for their grandchildren to see their relationship treated equally with opposite-sex couples.
17. In October, 2008, Michelle was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. In 2011, she began using a wheelchair. For the past two years, she has used a wheel chair full time. She has recently had some health issues that required her to spend time in a rehabilitation facility. Although she has returned home, it is very likely that at some time in the future, she may need 24 hour home-care or even need to live in an extended care facility.
18. Because of Michelle’s illness, it is important that their relationship be legally recognized very soon. They have drafted documents so that Deborah can care for Michelle and make health care and financial decisions for her if she is unable, but they worry that those
5

Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/30/14 Page: 6 of 16 PAGEID #: 6
documents may not be honored. Given the wide range of health care staff and others who must refer to these wordy, technical documents, their fear is very reasonable.
19. Deborah and Michelle need the protections that a state-recognized marriage would provide. B. Heather Apple and Mary K. Koehler
20. Heather Apple and Mary K. Koehler (“Mary Kay”) began dating in 2004, soon fell in love, and moved in together in 2006.
21. They discussed raising children together but wanted to get married first, so they had a commitment ceremony in 2008. It was the best they could do because Ohio bans same-sex marriage.
22. In 2009, they began the fertility process, and in 2010 Heather gave birth to their first daughter. Mary Kay gave birth to their second daughter in 2012.
23. Heather and Mary Kay would like to be legally married. They want their family to have the same legal and financial stability that opposite-sex married couples enjoy. This is especially important because they are raising children together. C. Ronald Kastner Beck and David Beck
24. Ronald (“Ronny”) and David (“Dave”) met at a fitness gym, and began dating in March 2001.
25. In 2006, Ronny and Dave were on vacation in Hawaii with Dave’s parents and while admiring an amazing view, they were overwhelmed by the beautiful setting and the beauty of their relationship. They had previously talked about adopting children and how it was important that they be 100% committed to each other beforehand. At that overlook, they made the commitment to marry.
6

Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/30/14 Page: 7 of 16 PAGEID #: 7
26. They knew that Ohio would not allow them to legally wed, so they planned a commitment ceremony. Ronny and Dave were both raised as Catholics. To prepare for the lifelong commitment they were making, they participated in a three month marriage counseling process called Pre-Cana.
27. On June 9, 2006, Ronny and Dave exchanged vows before God, their family, and their friends. Their priest was not allowed to officiate because of the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality, but he attended as a guest.
28. They soon began foster-to-adopt certification and in December, 2007, a six month old little boy was placed in their care as an emergency placement after his birth mother tried to commit suicide. Because only one of them was allowed by Ohio law to be his adoptive parent, Ronny became his legal father through adoption. When he was almost three years old, their son was diagnosed with autism. He required extensive early intervention therapy that included 40 hours a week of tutoring for over two years. He has transitioned to full day kindergarten. He can speak and read but he will require an educational intervention plan throughout his education.
29. In March, 2009, another little boy was placed in Ronny and Dave’s care on an emergency basis. He came to them at six months old, directly from the hospital where he had undergone a double hernia surgery. His birth mother was homeless and unable to care for him.
30. Three or four months after they began fostering their second son and before the adoption process began, Ronny and Dave learned that their son would have multiple developmental delays. Ronny and Dave decided that they were just like any other parents who do not know beforehand the types of challenges their birth child may face. You love them anyway and you just figure it out. Giving him back was not an option because he was their son now. Dave became his adoptive parent.
7

Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/30/14 Page: 8 of 16 PAGEID #: 8
31. Although Ronny and Dave have drafted extensive paperwork to try to protect their family, they are always fearful of what would happen if one of them died. They worry about being separated from one of their children or having their sons separated from each other. They worry about their sons’ medical insurance and the disposition of the deceased’s social security benefits. These and many other uncertainties would be resolved if Ronny and Dave were legally married just like an opposite-sex couple in their situation.
32. Ronny has stopped working to stay at home and care for their sons with special needs. Ronny lost medical insurance coverage because Dave’s plan does not cover domestic partners, only spouses. They have had to purchase an individual health insurance plan for Ronny.
33. Ronny and Dave would like to marry in Ohio and have that marriage legally recognized. D. Andrew Hickam and Ethan Fletcher
34. Andrew and Ethan are both 29 years old and they are in love. 35. They first met when they lived across the street from each other in Over-theRhine. They would say hello when they bumped into each other walking around the neighborhood. In December, 2011, Andrew invited Ethan to dinner. 36. They soon discovered they have a lot in common. They are close to their families, treasure their friends, and love music. Ethan sang with the Cincinnati Men’s Chorus, and Andrew subsequently joined. 37. In the spring of 2013, Andrew and Ethan moved in together. 38. On New Year’s Eve 2013, Ethan told Andrew that he had planned a house party at the home of one of their friends. Before they left for the party, Ethan got down on one knee
8

Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/30/14 Page: 9 of 16 PAGEID #: 9
and asked Andrew to marry him. Of course Andrew said yes and they exchanged rings that Ethan had bought for both of them. The “house party” was really a “happy engagement party,” because their friends were in on the surprise.
39. Andrew and Ethan would like to marry soon. Both Andrew’s mother and Ethan’s grandmother are elderly. They all live close to each other and it is very important to Andrew and Ethan that they attend the wedding. Because of their age, it would be a significant hardship, if not impossible, for them to travel a great distance. If Andrew and Ethan could be married in Hamilton County, Andrew’s mother and Ethan’s grandmother could attend.
40. It is important to Andrew and Ethan that they get married and not just have a commitment ceremony. They want a marriage that is on equal terms with opposite-sex couples.
E. Gary Goodman and Karl Rece Jr. 41. Gary and Karl met in 2001 at King’s Island Pride Night. They fell in love
immediately. 42. Gary has twin boys and they soon embraced Karl as a father. 43. In 2011, on their ten-year anniversary they went back to Kings Island for Pride
Night and Gary proposed to Karl in front of many friends and family. 44. Soon after their engagement, they began planning their wedding. They have
created a guest list of 350 people. They have a date, theme, colors, and décor. They have even bought wedding favors for their guests. The only thing they don’t have is the right to be married at home, in Ohio.
45. Gary and Karl’s family and friends love and support them and want to attend their wedding, but will only be able to do that if they are married in Ohio. Gary and Karl’s friends and family are not wealthy and cannot afford to travel to a destination wedding. If they get
9

Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/30/14 Page: 10 of 16 PAGEID #: 10
married in Ohio, they expect to have over 300 guests. If they are married out of state, they would be lucky to have 10 guests attend. Gary and Karl want to celebrate their marriage at home, in front of all their family and friends. F. Rhonda Craig and Kendra Dukes
46. Rhonda is 44 years old and has lived in Cincinnati nearly her entire life. 47. Rhonda and Kendra met in 1997, started dating in 2003, and moved in together in 2004. 48. Rhonda and Kendra always wanted children. Together they now have two children, a son and a daughter. 49. Kendra, Rhonda, and their children have been discussing the importance of marriage. To them, marriage is a public expression of how they feel about their relationship and their family. 50. Kendra and Rhonda are African-American, and feel that marriage for same-sex couples is an issue comparable to voting rights. It is not that you have to vote or get married, but they should have the same right to vote and marry that other citizens have. 51. Kendra and Rhonda would like to get married. They believe it would be an important lesson for their children that you should not be judged by your color or by who you love. G. Ohio Prohibits Marriage of Same-sex Couples 52. Ohio law excludes lesbian and gay couples from marriage. Article XV Section 11 of the Ohio Constitution states that “only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions.” Ohio Rev. Code § 3101.01(A) states that “a marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman.”
10

Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/30/14 Page: 11 of 16 PAGEID #: 11
Section 3101.01(C)(1) declares that “any marriage between persons of the same-sex is against the strong public policy of this state.” Further, “any marriage between persons of the same-sex shall have no legal force or effect in this state and, if attempted to be entered into in this state, is void ab initio and shall not be recognized by this state.” Id. These provisions of Ohio law that individually and collectively exclude same-sex couples from marriage are referred to herein as the “marriage ban.”
53. The only marriages that may occur in Ohio are marriages between a man and a woman properly solemnized and licensed in compliance with Chapter 3101 of the Ohio Revised Code. Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.12(B)(1).
54. A couple seeking to get married in Hamilton County, Ohio must apply to Defendant Cissell as the Hamilton County Probate Judge for a marriage license. Ohio Rev. Code § 3101.05(A). If the court is satisfied that no legal impediment exists to the marriage then the court shall grant the marriage license. Id. That license will be recorded by Defendant Himes and recognized throughout the state and beyond.
55. Ohio’s marriage ban creates a legal impediment to marriage for same-sex couples and prevents probate courts from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
56. In fact it is a crime for the Plaintiffs to even apply for a marriage license together. The application requires the marriage applicants to swear under oath that “there is no legal impediment to their marriage.” Plaintiffs, knowing the prohibitions in Ohio law for same-sex couples to marry, cannot swear to this statement. If any were to, they would be subject to criminal prosecution for the crime of falsification under O.R.C. § 2921.13 and 3101.99. O.R.C. § 3101.05 (B).
11

Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/30/14 Page: 12 of 16 PAGEID #: 12
57. Once a couple is issued a license, their marriage must be solemnized by a person authorized under Ohio Rev. Code § 3101.08. That person then transmits a certificate of the solemnized marriage to the probate court of the county that issued the marriage license, where it is numbered and recorded. Ohio Rev. Code § 3101.13.
58. Plaintiffs cannot enter into a legally sanctioned civil marriage in Ohio without a marriage license. Common law marriages are not recognized in Ohio. Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.12(B)(1).
59. If the Plaintiffs in this case were to apply for marriage licenses they would all be denied by defendants because of the marriage ban.
60. If the Plaintiffs in this case were to apply for marriage licenses they would face a risk of criminal prosecution pursuant to O.R.C. § 3101.99 and 3101.05(B).
61. All the Plaintiffs want to marry in Ohio. Some of the Plaintiffs are engaged; one couple has been engaged for three years. They have an urgent need to affirm their commitment to one another before their children, their family, their friends, and their community. H. Need for Preliminary Injunction
62. Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if this Court does not grant preliminary relief.
63. Plaintiffs’ economic injuries are substantial and compound daily. Plaintiffs are denied local, state, and federal tax benefits available to opposite-sex couples. Plaintiffs also do not have access to employment benefits offered to spouses by public and most private employers. By denying Plaintiffs their constitutional right to marry, the State deprives them of their entitlement to these benefits.
12

Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/30/14 Page: 13 of 16 PAGEID #: 13
64. The Plaintiffs’ family security is tenuous. The State does not offer them a safety net - they are denied access to entitlement programs (welfare benefits, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.). In the event of serious injury they may be barred by hospital staff and/or relatives from their partners’ bedsides due to lack of legally-recognized relationship status. If they are injured through the acts of another, the uninjured partner would be denied any loss of consortium by the courts. A surviving partner could not bring a wrongful death claim, nor could she take through intestacy or by electing against her partner’s estate. In Ohio, like anywhere else, life can end in an instant, and after decades of love and commitment a surviving partner can be left with nothing.
65. There are thousands of benefits extended under federal and state law that are denied to these plaintiffs because they cannot marry but available to opposite-sex couples who are permitted to marry. This is unfair, unjust and a complete denial of the dignity to which samesex couples are entitled.
66. The status of marriage has unique social significance and recognition. Without access to the familiar language and label of marriage, Plaintiffs are unable instantly or adequately to communicate to others the depth or permanence of their commitment, or to obtain respect for that commitment as others do simply by invoking their married status.
67. Plaintiffs’ exclusion from marriage frustrates their life goals and dreams, their ability to fulfill their personal values, their happiness and self-determination. For Plaintiffs, marriage is a deeply held value. They want to be married in Ohio, their home state.
68. Without access to marriage these Plaintiffs and their children are treated as second class citizens. These Plaintiffs are denied the dignity readily extended to opposite-sex couples who are able to marry in Ohio.
13

Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/30/14 Page: 14 of 16 PAGEID #: 14
69. Plaintiffs have a high likelihood of success on the merits. The constitutional issues raised in this case have been decided in favor of same-sex couples by all courts hearing such issues since Windsor.
70. The “freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967).
71. This Court should take judicial notice of the factual record in the Obergefell case, including the expert declarations filed by the parties.
72. There is no adequate remedy at law. The Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm. There is no harm to the Defendants by granting a declaratory judgment and an injunction prohibiting Defendants’ enforcement of the marriage ban. The public interest is clearly served by this Court allowing Plaintiffs to get married. In fact, the State would benefit from placing the responsibilities of marriage upon the Plaintiffs who would be required to financially support each other and their shared minor children while married and in the event of a divorce. Only prompt action by this Federal Court ordering declaratory and injunctive relief will serve the public interest.
V. CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – United States Constitution 73. Ohio Rev. Code § 3101.01 and OH Const. Art. XV, §11 violate fundamental liberties that are protected by the Freedom of Association Clause of the First Amendment, and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment on their face. Through their enforcement and duty to comply with Ohio Rev. Code § 3101.01 and Art. XV, §11 of the Ohio Constitution, Defendants, acting under the color of law, are violating rights
14

Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/30/14 Page: 15 of 16 PAGEID #: 15

secured to Plaintiffs by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution

including the rights to freedom of association, due process of law, and the right to equal

protection under the law. Specifically, due to the marriage ban Defendants cannot issue or

record marriage certificates to Plaintiffs and extend to them all the rights and responsibilities of

legal marriage.

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court:

A. Issue a declaratory judgment that the statutory and Ohio Constitutional provisions

at issue in this case on their face violate the constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs;

B. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendants and all those

acting in concert requiring that they accept marriage license applications from same-sex couples,

issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and record the certified abstract of marriage for

same-sex married couples;

C. Award to Plaintiffs reasonable costs, expenses, and attorney fees;

D. Award such other and further relief as this Court shall deem just and reasonable.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa T. Meeks #0062074 NEWMAN & MEEKS Co., LPA 215 E. Ninth Street, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513.639.7000 Fax: 513.639.7011 lisameeks@newman-meeks.com

/s/Jennifer L. Branch Jennifer L. Branch #0038893 Trial Attorney for Plaintiffs Alphonse A. Gerhardstein # 0032053 Jacklyn Gonzales Martin #0090242 GERHARDSTEIN & BRANCH Co. LPA 432 Walnut Street, Suite 400 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Phone: 513.621.9100 Ext. 13 Fax: 513. 345-5543 jbranch@gbfirm.com agerhardstein@gbfirm.com jgmartin@gbfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs
15

Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/30/14 Page: 16 of 16 PAGEID #: 16 16

 
 Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 27 Filed: 05/27/16 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 624

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Michelle Gibson, et al.
Plaintiffs, v.
Lance Himes, et al.,
Defendants.

: Case No. 1:14-cv-347 : : Judge Michael R. Barrett : : : : :

FINAL JUDGMENT AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction

seeking a declaratory judgment declaring Ohio Rev. Code §3101.01(C) and Ohio Constitution

Art. XV, §11, on their face, violate rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

States Constitution in that same-sex couples are denied their fundamental right to marry without

due process of law and are treated differently than opposite-sex couples. (Doc.5). The parties

agreed to stay the proceedings until after the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135

S.Ct. 2584 (2015), (Doc. 22, 24). The Supreme Court held in Obergefell that the right to marry

is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal

Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived

of that right and that liberty. Id. at 2598, 2602-04. The Court held same-sex couples may

exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. Id. at 2607.

Consistent with the Supreme Court’s judgment and mandate in Obergefell, this court now

enters a final judgment and declaratory judgment in this case. Based on the pleadings and the

decision in Obergefell, the Court declares that Ohio Rev. Code §3101.01(C) and Art. XV, §11,

Ohio Constitution, on their face, violate rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the

1

Case: 1:14-cv-00347-MRB Doc #: 27 Filed: 05/27/16 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 625

United States Constitution in that same-sex couples are denied their fundamental right to marry

inherent in the liberty of a person and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the

Fourteenth Amendments.

THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant, Richard Hodges, who is sued in

his official capacity as Director of the Ohio Department of Health, and the Hamilton County

Probate Judge, who is sued in his official capacity, and their officers, agents, servants,

employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with defendants

who receive actual notice of this Order, are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing Ohio

Rev. Code § 3101.01(C) and Ohio Constitution Art. XV, §11. Defendant Hamilton County

Probate Court is further Ordered to continue its practice of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex

couples, as it has been doing since June 26, 2015, including Plaintiffs Michelle Gibson, Deborah

Meem, Ronald Kastner Beck, David Beck, Andrew Hickam, Ethan Fletcher, Rhonda Craig, and

Kendra Dukes, if he has not done so already, if they are otherwise qualified to obtain an Ohio

marriage license, and upon their application, duly record their marriages once properly

solemnized.

Plaintiff’s attorney fees were agreed to in a stipulated judgment entry in Obergefell v

Hodges, SDOH Case No. 1:13-cv-501 (Doc. 89 and 90), which Defendant Hodges satisfied in

full. Plaintiffs will not seek any additional fees related to this case against any Defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: __May 27, 2016________

__/s/ Michael R. Barrett_______________ Michael R. Barrett United States District Judge

2

 
 Case: 1:14-cv-347 As of: 11/06/2017 01:17 AM EST 1 of 9
U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio (Cincinnati) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:14−cv−00347−MRB

CLOSED

Gibson et al v. Himes et al Assigned to: Judge Michael R. Barrett Case in other court: Southern District of Ohio,
13−cv−501,14−cv−129 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
Michelle Gibson

Date Filed: 04/30/2014 Date Terminated: 05/27/2016 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Adam Gingold Gerhardstein Gerhardstein & Branch 432 Walnut Street Suite 400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−621−9100 Fax: 513−345−5543 Email: adamgerhardstein@gbfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA 441 Vine Street Suite 3400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−621−9100 Fax: 513−345−5543 Email: agerhardstein@gbfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacklyn Gonzales Martin Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA 432 Walnut St., Ste. 400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−621−9100 Fax: 513−345−5543 Email: jgmartin@gbfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Talmadge Meeks Newman & Meeks Co LPA 215 E. Ninth Street Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513/639−7000 X12 Fax: 513/639−7011 Email: lisameeks@newman−meeks.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lynn Branch Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA 441 Vine Street, Suite 3400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−621−9100 x13 Fax: 513−345−5543 Email: jbranch@gbfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-347 As of: 11/06/2017 01:17 AM EST 2 of 9

Plaintiff Deborah Meem
Plaintiff Heather Apple
Plaintiff Mary K. Koehler

represented by Adam Gingold Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacklyn Gonzales Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Talmadge Meeks (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Lynn Branch (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adam Gingold Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacklyn Gonzales Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Talmadge Meeks (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Lynn Branch (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adam Gingold Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacklyn Gonzales Martin

Case: 1:14-cv-347 As of: 11/06/2017 01:17 AM EST 3 of 9

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

Lisa Talmadge Meeks (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lynn Branch (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ronald Kastner Beck

represented by Adam Gingold Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacklyn Gonzales Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Talmadge Meeks (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lynn Branch (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Dave Beck

represented by Adam Gingold Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacklyn Gonzales Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Talmadge Meeks (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lynn Branch (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-347 As of: 11/06/2017 01:17 AM EST 4 of 9

Plaintiff Andrew Hickman

represented by Adam Gingold Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacklyn Gonzales Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Talmadge Meeks (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lynn Branch (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ethan Fletcher

represented by Adam Gingold Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacklyn Gonzales Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Talmadge Meeks (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lynn Branch (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Gary Goodman

represented by Adam Gingold Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacklyn Gonzales Martin (See above for address)

Case: 1:14-cv-347 As of: 11/06/2017 01:17 AM EST 5 of 9

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Talmadge Meeks (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lynn Branch (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Karl Rece, Jr.

represented by Adam Gingold Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacklyn Gonzales Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Talmadge Meeks (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lynn Branch (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rhonda Craig

represented by Adam Gingold Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacklyn Gonzales Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Talmadge Meeks (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lynn Branch (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 1:14-cv-347 As of: 11/06/2017 01:17 AM EST 6 of 9

Kendra Dukes

represented by Adam Gingold Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jacklyn Gonzales Martin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Talmadge Meeks (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lynn Branch (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Lance Himes In his official capacity as the Director of the Ohio Department of Health
Defendant James Cissell In his official capacity as Common Pleas Court Judge, Probate Division

represented by Bridget C Coontz Ohio Attorney General's Office Constitutional Offices 30 E. Broad St., 16th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614−466−2872 Fax: 614−728−7592 Email: bridget.coontz@ohioattorneygeneral.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zachery Paul Keller Ohio Attorney General Constitutional Offices 30 East Broad St., 16th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614−466−1853 Fax: 614−728−7592 Email: zachery.keller@ohioattorneygeneral.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Todd Stevenson Hamilton County Prosecutor Civil Unit 230 E Ninth Street Suite 4000 Cincinnati, OH 45202−2151 513−946−3120 Email: dave.stevenson@hcpros.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Warren Harper Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney 230 East Ninth Street

Case: 1:14-cv-347 As of: 11/06/2017 01:17 AM EST 7 of 9
Suite 7000 Cincinnati, OH 45202−2151 513−946−3159 Email: james.harper@hcpros.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/30/2014
04/30/2014 04/30/2014 04/30/2014 04/30/2014
04/30/2014 04/30/2014 05/01/2014 05/01/2014 05/02/2014
05/05/2014
05/19/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT for Temporary Restraining Order and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 paid − receipt number: 0648−4544302), filed by Dave Beck, Rhonda Craig, Heather Apple, Andrew Hickman, Gary Goodman, Deborah Meem, Kendra Dukes, Ethan Fletcher, Michelle Gibson, Mary K. Koehler, Karl Rece, Jr, Ronald Kastner Beck. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Branch, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
2 NOTICE of Appearance by Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein for Plaintiffs Heather Apple, Dave Beck, Ronald Kastner Beck, Rhonda Craig, Kendra Dukes, Ethan Fletcher, Michelle Gibson, Gary Goodman, Andrew Hickman, Mary K. Koehler, Deborah Meem, Karl Rece, Jr (Gerhardstein, Alphonse) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by Lisa Talmadge Meeks for Plaintiffs Heather Apple, Dave Beck, Ronald Kastner Beck, Rhonda Craig, Kendra Dukes, Ethan Fletcher, Michelle Gibson, Gary Goodman, Andrew Hickman, Mary K. Koehler, Deborah Meem, Karl Rece, Jr (Meeks, Lisa) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by Jacklyn Gonzales Martin for Plaintiffs Heather Apple, Dave Beck, Ronald Kastner Beck, Rhonda Craig, Kendra Dukes, Ethan Fletcher, Michelle Gibson, Gary Goodman, Andrew Hickman, Mary K. Koehler, Deborah Meem, Karl Rece, Jr (Martin, Jacklyn) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
5 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiffs Heather Apple, Dave Beck, Ronald Kastner Beck, Rhonda Craig, Kendra Dukes, Ethan Fletcher, Michelle Gibson, Gary Goodman, Andrew Hickman, Mary K. Koehler, Deborah Meem, Karl Rece, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 2 Sample Marriage Certificate, # 3 Affidavit Michelle Gibson, # 4 Affidavit Heather Apple, # 5 Affidavit Ronald Kastner Beck, # 6 Affidavit Andrew Hickam, # 7 Affidavit Gary Goodman, # 8 Affidavit Rhonda Craig) (Branch, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by Bridget C Coontz for Defendant Lance Himes (Coontz, Bridget) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Zachery Paul Keller for Defendant Lance Himes (Keller, Zachery) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by David Todd Stevenson for Defendant James Cissell (Stevenson, David) (Entered: 05/01/2014)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by James Warren Harper for Defendant James Cissell (Harper, James) (Entered: 05/01/2014)
NOTICE of Status Conference on Motion re 5 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order; Please be aware that a status conference pursuant to S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 65.1 is set for 5/5/2014 at 10:30 AM by teleconference before Judge Michael R. Barrett; parties shall initiate contact with the Court by calling 513−564−7660 five minutes prior to 10:30 am. (sct1) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael R. Barrett: Status Conference held on 5/5/2014 re 5 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Plaintiffs; Alphonse Gerhardstein and Jennifer Branch appeared for Plaintiff; Bridget Coontz and Zachery Keller appeared for Defendant Lance Himes; David Stevenson and James Harper appeared for Defendant James Cissell; parties to coordinate an agreed calendar order to be submitted to Barrett_Chambers@ohsd.uscourts.gov. (eh) (Entered: 05/05/2014)
10 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, filed by James Cissell. (Stevenson, David) (Entered: 05/19/2014)

Case: 1:14-cv-347 As of: 11/06/2017 01:17 AM EST 8 of 9

05/20/2014 05/21/2014 06/17/2014 06/18/2014
06/18/2014
06/18/2014 06/19/2014 07/10/2014 07/30/2014 07/31/2014 08/04/2014
11/20/2014

11 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Waiver sent to James Cissell on 4/30/2014, answer due 6/30/2014. (Gerhardstein, Alphonse) (Entered: 05/20/2014)
12 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, filed by Lance Himes. (Coontz, Bridget) Modified to clarify docket text on 5/22/2014 (jlw). (Entered: 05/21/2014)
13 REVISED AGREED CALENDAR ORDER; Answer due 5/21/14. Fact Stipulations and addition declarations due 6/18/14. Plaintiffs' Injunction Motion due by 6/18/2014. Defendants' Memorandum Contra due 8/14/14. Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum due 8/28/14; oral argument to be determined. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 6/17/14. (ba1) (Entered: 06/17/2014)
14 DECLARATION of Jennifer Branch in Support of 16 Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunctive Relief (part 1) by Plaintiffs Heather Apple, Dave Beck, Ronald Kastner Beck, Rhonda Craig, Kendra Dukes, Ethan Fletcher, Michelle Gibson, Gary Goodman, Andrew Hickman, Mary K. Koehler, Deborah Meem, Karl Rece, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Becker declaration) (Branch, Jennifer) Modified to clarify docket text on 6/19/2014 (jlw1). (Entered: 06/18/2014)
15 DECLARATION of Jennifer Branch in Support of 16 Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunctive Relief (part two) by Plaintiffs Heather Apple, Dave Beck, Ronald Kastner Beck, Rhonda Craig, Kendra Dukes, Ethan Fletcher, Michelle Gibson, Gary Goodman, Andrew Hickman, Mary K. Koehler, Deborah Meem, Karl Rece, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B Chauncey declaration, # 2 Exhibit C Fulcher declaration, # 3 Exhibit D Grossman declaration, # 4 Exhibit E McKay declaration, # 5 Exhibit F Peplau declaration, # 6 Exhibit G Segura declaration) (Branch, Jennifer) Modified to clarify docket text on 6/19/2014 (jlw1). (Entered: 06/18/2014)
16 MOTION for Permanent Injunction and Declaratory Relief by Plaintiffs Heather Apple, Dave Beck, Ronald Kastner Beck, Rhonda Craig, Kendra Dukes, Ethan Fletcher, Michelle Gibson, Gary Goodman, Andrew Hickman, Mary K. Koehler, Deborah Meem, Karl Rece, Jr. Responses due by 7/14/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Sampe marriage abstract) (Branch, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
17 MOTION for Declaratory Judgment And Permanent Injunctive Relief And Memorandum In Support by Plaintiffs Heather Apple, Dave Beck, Ronald Kastner Beck, Rhonda Craig, Kendra Dukes, Ethan Fletcher, Michelle Gibson, Gary Goodman, Andrew Hickman, Mary K. Koehler, Deborah Meem, Karl Rece, Jr. Responses due by 7/14/2014 (Branch, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
18 NOTICE of Appearance by Adam Gingold Gerhardstein for Plaintiffs Heather Apple, Dave Beck, Ronald Kastner Beck, Rhonda Craig, Kendra Dukes, Ethan Fletcher, Michelle Gibson, Gary Goodman, Andrew Hickman, Mary K. Koehler, Deborah Meem, Karl Rece, Jr (Gerhardstein, Adam) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
NOTICE of Hearing: Please be aware that a Status Conference is set for 7/31/2014 at 02:30 PM by teleconference before Judge Michael R. Barrett; parties shall initiate contact with the Court by calling 513−564−7660 five minutes prior to 2:30 pm. (ba1) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael R. Barrett: Status Conference held on 7/31/2014; Adam Gerhardstein, Jennifer Branch, and Lisa Meeks appeared for Plaintiff; Bridget Coontz, David Stevenson and Zachery Keller appeared for Defendant; order to follow. (ba1) (Entered: 07/31/2014)
19 ORDER re 13 Calendar Order and 17 MOTION for Declaratory Judgment And Permanent Injunctive Relief And Memorandum In Support filed by Dave Beck, Heather Apple, Karl Rece, Jr., Deborah Meem, Gary Goodman, Andrew Hickman, Rhonda Craig, Kendra Dukes, Michelle Gibson, Ethan Fletcher, Ronald Kastner Beck, Mary K. Koehler; the calendar is stayed; plaintiff has 2 weeks following the decision by the Court of Appeals re: DeBoer and Love to supplement their motion. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 8/4/14. (ba1) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
20 Joint MOTION to Extend Stay re 17 MOTION for Declaratory Judgment And Permanent Injunctive Relief And Memorandum In Support by Plaintiffs Heather Apple, Dave Beck, Ronald Kastner Beck, Rhonda Craig, Kendra Dukes, Ethan Fletcher, Michelle Gibson, Gary Goodman, Andrew Hickman, Mary K. Koehler,

Case: 1:14-cv-347 As of: 11/06/2017 01:17 AM EST 9 of 9

11/20/2014
12/18/2014 12/18/2014
02/18/2015 03/13/2015 08/24/2015 08/27/2015 08/28/2015 09/30/2015 05/27/2016

Deborah Meem, Karl Rece, Jr., Defendant Lance Himes. (Branch, Jennifer) Modified to include Defendant Himes as filer on 11/20/2014 (eh1). (Entered: 11/20/2014)
21 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 20 MOTION to Stay re 17 MOTION for Declaratory Judgment And Permanent Injunctive Relief And Memorandum In Support , 17 MOTION for Declaratory Judgment And Permanent Injunctive Relief And Memorandum In Support by Plaintiffs Heather Apple, Dave Beck, Ronald Kastner Beck, Rhonda Craig, Kendra Dukes, Ethan Fletcher, Michelle Gibson, Gary Goodman, Andrew Hickman, Mary K. Koehler, Deborah Meem, Karl Rece, Jr. (Branch, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/20/2014)
22 ORDER granting 20 Motion to Stay/ 21 Motion to Amend/Correct until a telephone status conference set 2/18/15 at 12:30 pm; a notice to follow. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 12/18/14. (ba1) (Entered: 12/18/2014)
23 NOTICE: Please be aware that a Status Conference is set for 2/18/2015 at 12:30 PM by teleconference before Judge Michael R. Barrett; YOU MUST ACCESS THIS DOCUMENT TO OBTAIN CONFERENCING INFORMATION. PLEASE BE AWARE THAT YOU MUST BE LOGGED INTO CM/ECF THROUGH THE COURTS WEBSITE (NOT PACER) AT WWW.OHSD.USCOURTS.GOV USING YOUR OWN PASSWORD BEFORE RETRIEVING THIS DOCUMENT THROUGH THE NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING. NOTE: You will be required to use this information each time the Court conducts a telephone conference. (ba1) (Entered: 12/18/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael R. Barrett: Status Conference held on 2/18/2015; Adam Gerhardstein and Jennifer Branch appeared for Plaintiff; Bridget Coontz, Zachery Keller and David Stevenson appeared for Defendants; the Court will set a follow up conference pursuant to the Supreme Court ruling related to this matter. (ba1) (Entered: 02/18/2015)
24 ORDER STAYING CASE. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 3/13/15. (ba1) (Entered: 03/13/2015)
25 ORDER LIFTING STAY; parties shall contact chambers to schedule a telephone status conference. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 8/24/15. (ba) (Entered: 08/24/2015)
NOTICE of Hearing: Please be aware that a Status Conference is set for 8/28/2015 at 03:00 PM by teleconference before Judge Michael R. Barrett; parties shall refer to 23 Notice of Telephone Conference for conferencing instructions. (ba) (Entered: 08/27/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael R. Barrett: Status Conference held on 8/28/2015; Jennifer Branch appeared for Plaintiff; David Stevenson appeared for Defendant Judge Winkler; Bridget Coontz and Zachery Keller appeared for Defendant Ohio Attorney General; plaintiff to draft and submit an order to the defendants within the next 30 days. (ba) (Entered: 08/28/2015)
26 ORDER denying as moot 5 Motion for TRO; denying as moot 16 Motion for Permanent Injunction; and denying as moot 17 Motion for Declaratory Judgment. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 9/30/2015. (eh) (Entered: 09/30/2015)
27 FINAL JUDGMENT AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 5/27/16. (ba) (Entered: 05/27/2016)