Case 2:15-cv-00253-DB Document 2 Filed 04/13/15 Page 1 of 9

Joshua A. Block* ACLU LGBT Project 125 Broad Street, Floor 18 New York, New York, 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2593 Facsimile: (212) 549-2650 jblock@aclu.org

John Mejia (Bar No. 13965) Leah M. Farrell (Bar No. 13696) ACLU of Utah 355 North 300 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Telephone: (801) 521-9862 jmejia@acluutah.org lfarrell@acluutah.org

*Pro hac vice motion to follow

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

ANGELA LESLIE ROE and KAMI ROE,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
W. DAVID PATTON, in his official capacity as the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Health, and RICHARD OBORN, in his official capacity as the Director of Utah’s Office of Vital Records and Statistics,
Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case No. ______

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1. Plaintiffs Angela Leslie (“Angie”) and Kami Roe are a married same-sex couple. With Angie’s consent, Kami conceived a child with the assistance of donor sperm and gave birth to their daughter, L.R., in February 2015. Under Utah law governing assisted reproduction, if a man consents to his wife conceiving a child by donor sperm, he is the father of the resulting child. Utah Code Ann § 78B-15-701(“If a husband provides sperm for, or consents to, assisted reproduction by his wife . . . he is the father of a resulting child born to his wife.”). But because
1

Case 2:15-cv-00253-DB Document 2 Filed 04/13/15 Page 2 of 9
Angie is a woman, the Utah Office of Vital Records and Statistics (“Office”) refuses to acknowledge her as a legal parent to L.R. and will not issue a birth certificate listing Angie as L.R.’s parent unless Angie adopts L.R. through a step-parent adoption.
2. The Office’s refusal to recognize both spouses as legal parents pursuant to Utah’s assisted reproduction statutes violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A same-sex spouse and a different-sex spouse whose wife conceives through donor insemination are similarly situated in all relevant respects. The purpose of the statutes is to immediately establish parentage for a spouse who has consented to bringing a child into the world whether or not that spouse shares a genetic relationship with the child. Utah’s assisted reproduction statutes recognize that the different-sex spouses should not be forced to undergo a second-parent adoption in these circumstances to provide the protection of two legal parents for their children. Equal protection requires that same-sex spouses and their children be afforded the same protections.
PARTIES 3. Angie Roe and Kami Roe reside in West Jordan, Utah. 4. Angie and Kami’s daughter, L.R., was born at Jordan Valley Medical Center in West Jordan, Utah. 5. The Department of Health and the Office are both located in Salt Lake City, Utah. 6. Defendant W. David Patton is sued in his official capacity as the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Health (the “Department”). 7. Defendant Richard Oborn is sued in his official capacity as the Director of the Office, which is an office within the Department of Health.
2

Case 2:15-cv-00253-DB Document 2 Filed 04/13/15 Page 3 of 9
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This Court has federal-question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims arising under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jurisdiction is therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (general federal question jurisdiction) and § 1343 (civil rights actions). 9. This Court has jurisdiction to render the declaratory relief requested under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 10. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendants reside in this district and the action arose in this district and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district.
UTAH’S ASSISTED REPRODUCTION STATUTES 11. Under the Utah Uniform Parentage Act (“Utah’s assisted reproduction statutes”), Utah Code Ann § 78B-15-701, et seq.: “If a husband provides sperm for, or consents to, assisted reproduction by his wife . . . he is the father of a resulting child born to his wife.” Id. § 78B-15703. 12. The “consent to assisted reproduction by a married woman must be in a record signed by the woman and her husband.” Id. § 78B-15-704(a). 13. But “[f]ailure of the husband to sign a consent . . . before or after the birth of the child, does not preclude a finding that the husband is the father of a child born to his wife if the wife and husband openly treat the child as their own.” Id. § 78B-15-704(b).
3

Case 2:15-cv-00253-DB Document 2 Filed 04/13/15 Page 4 of 9
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 14. Angie and Kami have been together as a committed couple for five years. 15. Angie and Kami married on December 20, 2013, which was the first day it became legal for same-sex couples to marry in Utah pursuant to the injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah in Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS. 16. Marriages of same-sex couples entered into between December 20, 2013, and January 6, 2014, must be afforded all the protections, benefits, and responsibilities given to all other marriages under Utah law, pursuant to a permanent injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah in Evans v. Utah, No. 2:14-cv-55- DAK. 17. Angie and Kami jointly decided to have a child together with the assistance of sperm from an anonymous donor. 18. On May 21, 2014, with Angie’s knowledge and consent, Kami conceived through intrauterine insemination at the University of Utah School of Medicine. 19. In connection with the intrauterine insemination, Angie and Kami both signed a document titled “Donor Semen Storage Agreement,” which acknowledged that donor semen was being used for insemination of Kami and identified Angie as Kami’s wife. 20. Kami gave birth to L.R. in February of 2015, at Jordan Valley Medical Center (the “hospital”). 21. After L.R.’s birth, Angie and Kami signed an additional document memorializing, ratifying, and reaffirming Angie’s consent for Kami to conceive with the assistance of donor semen. 22. When hospital staff gave Angie and Kami paperwork to fill out for L.R.’s birth certificate, Angie wrote in her name as L.R.’s parent.
4

Case 2:15-cv-00253-DB Document 2 Filed 04/13/15 Page 5 of 9
23. The hospital staff would not accept the paperwork and instructed Angie to call the “Adoption/Court Order Specialist” at the Office.
24. The Adoption/Court Order Specialist, pursuant to an official policy, told Angie that because Angie and Kami are a same-sex couple, Angie could not be listed as a parent on L.R.’s birth certificate unless she adopted L.R. through a step-parent adoption.
25. Adopting L.R. through step-parent adoption would require various steps. First, Angie and Kami would have to file a Petition to Adopt a Minor Stepchild in Utah State Court and pay a filing fee of $360. Angie would then have to submit to a background check by the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification and the Utah Division of Child and Family Services. Once the adoption petition is submitted, Angie and Kami would have to wait until a judge schedules a hearing on their adoption petition. They would then have to appear in person at the hearing to a get a judge’s approval for Angie to adopt L.R.
26. If Angie were male instead of female, the Office would not require Angie to go through the step-parent adoption process, but would instead recognize Angi as L.R.’s parent pursuant to Utah’s assisted reproduction statutes and issue a birth certificate with both spouses listed as parents.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
27. Plaintiffs reincorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1 to 26 as this paragraph 27. 28. Plaintiffs state this cause of action against Defendants in their official capacities for purposes of seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. 29. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
5

Case 2:15-cv-00253-DB Document 2 Filed 04/13/15 Page 6 of 9
30. The Utah Vital Statistics Act, Utah Code Ann. § 26-2-1, et seq., requires the Department of Health to “establish a statewide vital records system for the registration, collection, preservation, amendment, and certification of vital records and other similar documents.” Utah Code Ann. § 26-2-3(1)(b). The Department must also “prescribe forms for certificates, certification, reports, and other documents and records necessary to establish and maintain a statewide system of vital records,” including birth certificates. Utah Code Ann. § 262-3(1)(c).
31. The Office, which is part of the Utah Department of Health, enforces Utah’s assisted reproduction statutes, Utah Code Ann § 78B-15-701, et seq., by determining whether the spouse of married woman who gives birth to a child conceived by donor sperm from a third party should be listed as the parent on the child’s birth certificate.
32. In his official capacity Executive Director of the Utah Department of Health, Defendant Patton has supervisory responsibility over the Office.
33. In his official capacity as Director of the Office, Defendant Oborn has supervisory responsibility over the Office.
34. A same-sex spouse and a different-sex spouse of a woman who conceives through donor insemination are similarly situated in all relevant respects for purposes of establishing parentage under Utah’s assisted reproduction statutes.
35. On its face and as applied to Angie and Kami Roe, the Office’s policy of refusing to recognize same-sex spouses for purposes of establishing parentage under Utah’s assisted reproduction statutes discriminates based on sex. The Office recognizes the male spouses of women who conceive through donor sperm as parents of the resulting children, but does not
6

Case 2:15-cv-00253-DB Document 2 Filed 04/13/15 Page 7 of 9
recognize the female spouses of women who conceive through donor sperm as parents of the resulting children.
36. On its face and as applied to Angie and Kami Roe, the Office’s policy of refusing to recognize same-sex spouses for purposes of establishing parentage under Utah’s assisted reproduction statutes also discriminates based on sexual orientation. The Office recognizes two parents for the children of married different-sex couples who conceive through donor sperm, but will recognize only one parent for the children of married same-sex couples who conceive through donor sperm
37. The Office requires married same-sex couples who conceive through donor sperm, but not married different-sex couples who conceive the same way. This policy forces same-sex couples to spend additional time and money to undergo a step-parent adoption for both spouses to be recognized as parents. It also imposes a dignitary harm by forcing same-sex couples, but not different-sex couples, to submit to background checks and seek court approval to provide two legal parents for their children.
38. The Office inflicts an additional dignitary harm on same-sex couples who conceive through assisted reproduction by requiring them to comply with the added burdens of a step-parent adoption process while not requiring that different-sex couples who conceive through assisted production comply with the same burdens. This differential treatment stigmatizes same sex couples and marks them as not worthy of equal treatment.
39. The Office’s policy of refusing to recognize same-sex spouses for purposes of establishing parentage under Utah’s assisted reproduction statutes harms those couples’ children by denying them a birth certificate reflecting two legal parents until the non-birth parent completes a step-parent adoption.
7

Case 2:15-cv-00253-DB Document 2 Filed 04/13/15 Page 8 of 9
40. The Office’s policy of refusing to recognize same-sex spouses for purposes of establishing parentage under Utah’s assisted reproduction statutes also harms those couples’ children by casting a cloud of uncertainty over whether they have a legal parent-child relationship with one of their parents.
41. On its face and as applied to Angie and Kami Roe, the Office’s policy of refusing to recognize same-sex spouses for purposes of establishing parentage under Utah’s assisted reproduction statutes violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
42. The Office has the statutory authority to apply Utah’s assisted reproduction statutes equally to male spouses and female spouses to comply with the requirements of equal protection. See Utah Code Ann. § 68-3-12(1)(c)(establishing general rule of construction that “[a] word used in one gender includes the other gender”); Utah Code Ann. § 78B-15-106 (establishing rule of construction that “[p]rovisions of this chapter relating to determination of paternity also apply to determinations of maternity”).
43. Even if the Office did not have the statutory authority to apply Utah’s assisted reproduction statutes to female spouses of women who conceive through assisted reproduction, this Court has the power to cure violations of equal protection by extending the benefit to the excluded class.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks the following relief: A. A declaration that female spouses of women who give birth through assisted reproduction may establish parentage under the Utah Uniform Parentage Act, subject to the same terms and conditions that apply to male spouses.
8

Case 2:15-cv-00253-DB Document 2 Filed 04/13/15 Page 9 of 9

B. A preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendants to issue a birth

certificate recognizing both Angie Roe and Kami Roe as legal parents of L.R. and requiring

Defendants to recognize Angie Roe and Kami Roe as the legal parents of L.R. for all purposes

under Utah law.

C. A preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendants to recognize the

female spouses of women who give birth through assisted reproduction as legal parents under the

Utah Uniform Parentage Act, subject to the same terms and conditions that apply to male

spouses.

D. Awarding Plaintiffs their costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant

to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable laws; and

E. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

F. The declaratory and injunctive relief requested in this action is sought against

each Defendant; against each Defendant’s officers, employees, and agents; and against all

persons acting in active concert or participation with any Defendant, or under any Defendant’s

supervision, direction, or control.

Dated: April 13, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

Joshua A. Block* ACLU LGBT Project 125 Broad Street, Floor 18 New York, New York, 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2593 Facsimile: (212) 549-2650 jblock@aclu.org
*Pro hac vice motion to follow

s/ John Mejia

__

John Mejia (Bar No. 13965) Leah M. Farrell (Bar No. 13696) ACLU of Utah 355 North 300 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Telephone: (801) 521-9862 jmejia@acluutah.org lfarrell@acluutah.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

9

 
 Joshua A. Block* ACLU LGBT Project 125 Broad Street, Floor 18 New York, New York, 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2593 Facsimile: (212) 549-2650 jblock@aclu.org
*Pro hac vice motion to follow

John Mejia (Bar No. 13965) Leah M. Farrell (Bar No. 13696) ACLU of Utah 355 North 300 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Telephone: (801) 521-9862 jmejia@acluutah.org lfarrell@acluutah.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

ANGIE ROE and KAMI ROE,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
W. DAVID PATTON, in his official capacity as the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Health, and RICHARD OBORN, in his official capacity as the Director of Utah’s Office of Vital Records and Statistics,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Case No. 2:15-cv-00253-DB

Before the court is a motion by Plaintiffs Angie Roe and Kami Roe (together, “Plaintiffs”) for a preliminary injunction against Executive Director W. David Patton in his official capacity as the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Health and Director Richard Oborn in his official capacity as the Director of Utah’s Office of Vital Records and Statistics (“Defendants”). Plaintiffs seek an order requiring Defendants to apply certain sections of Utah Uniform Parentage Act, Utah Code Ann §§ 78B-15-201(2)(e), 78B-15-703, 78B-15-704 (the “assisted-reproduction statutes”), to female spouses of women who give birth through
1

assisted reproduction involving the use of donor sperm in the same way that they apply the assisted-reproduction statutes to male spouses in the same situation. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek an order requiring Defendants to recognize Angie Roe as a legal parent of L.R. pursuant to the procedures set forth in the assisted-reproduction statutes and to issue a birth certificate for L.R. that identifies Angie Roe as a legal parent.
For the reasons specified at the hearing on this motion on July 15, 2015, and for the reasons herein, this motion is GRANTED.
FACTS
The Utah Uniform Parentage Act contains specific provisions for married couples who conceive through assisted reproduction with donor sperm. Under these provisions, the only preconditions necessary for a man to become a legal father of a child born to his wife through assisted reproduction are (a) for him to “consent[] to . . . assisted reproduction by his wife,” Utah Code Ann §§ 78B-15-703, and (b) for the consent to “be in a record signed by the woman and her husband, id. 78B-15-704(a). If a married man completes these steps, he is the legal father of the child. Id. at § 78B-15-201(2)(e). Plaintiffs argue that, under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, a woman who is married to another woman should be allowed to establish parentage by following the same procedures.
Plaintiffs Angie and Kami married on December 20, 2013, which was the first day it became legal for same-sex couples to marry in Utah pursuant to the injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah in Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS. Angie and Kami jointly decided to have a child together with the assistance of sperm from an anonymous donor. On May 21, 2014, with Angie’s knowledge and consent, Kami conceived through intrauterine insemination at the University of Utah, School of Medicine. In connection
2

with the intrauterine insemination, Angie and Kami both signed a document titled “Donor Semen Storage Agreement,” which acknowledged that donor semen was being used for insemination of Kami and identified Angie as Kami’s wife. Kami gave birth to L.R. on February 7, 2015, at Jordan Valley Medical Center. After L.R.’s birth, Angie and Kami signed an additional document memorializing, ratifying, and reaffirming Angie’s consent for Kami to conceive with the assistance of donor semen.
Defendants refuse to recognize Angie as a legal parent of L.R. or identify her as a parent on L.R.’s birth certificate unless Angie adopts L.R. through a step-parent adoption. To complete a step-parent adoption, Angie and Kami would have to file a Petition to Adopt a Minor Stepchild in Utah State Court and pay a filing fee of $360. Angie would also have to submit to a background check by the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification and the Utah Division of Child and Family Services. Once the adoption petition is submitted, Angie and Kami would have to wait for a judge to schedule a hearing on their adoption petition, and they would then have to appear in person at the hearing to a get the judge’s approval for Angie to adopt L.R.
Without a birth certificate showing that she is L.R.’s parent, Angie is unable to prove to third parties, such as daycares, schools, and hospitals, that L.R. is her daughter. This inability interferes with Angie’s ability to act as L.R.’s parent, and with L.R.’s ability to fully enjoy the protections and benefits of having Angie as her legally recognized parent.
Defendants have conceded that the Office recognizes male spouses in Angie’s identical situation as parents pursuant to Utah’s assisted-reproduction statutes and issues a birth certificate with both spouses listed as parents without requiring that the male spouses undergo a stepparent adoption process.
3

Plaintiffs brought this suit on April 13, 2015 alleging that Defendants’ enforcement of the

assisted-reproduction statutes for male spouses of women who give birth through assisted

reproduction involving the use of donor sperm but not for similarly situated female spouses

violates their rights under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth

Amendment. Plaintiffs filed the present motion for a preliminary injunction the same day.

ANALYSIS To secure a preliminary injunction, a movant “must establish the following elements: (1)

a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury will result if the injunction

does not issue; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs any damage the injunction may

cause the opposing party; and (4) issuance of the injunction would not be adverse to the public

interest.” N. Natural Gas. Co. v. L.D. Drilling, Inc., 697 F.3d 1259 (10th Cir. 2012) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted).

I.

Plaintiffs Have Made a Strong Showing They Are Likely to Succeed on the

Merits.

Plaintiffs have made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on a claim that

Defendants’ enforcement of the assisted-reproduction statutes violates the Equal Protection

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constiution. There is no dispute that

if Angie were a man, her parentage of L.R. would be established under Utah Code Ann §§ 78B-

15-201(2)(e), 78B-15-703, 78B-15-704. In short, the assisted-reproduction statutes enable the

spouse of a woman who conceives using donor sperm to establish parentage of the resulting

child by consenting to the procedure in writing. The assisted-reproduction statutes were enacted

in 2008, a time when Utah had a state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a man and a

woman. Consistent with the understanding that the only legal marriages in Utah would consist

of a man and a woman, the assisted-reproduction statues refer to the spouse of the birth mother

4

as “man” and “husband.” On their face, the plain terms of the statutes do not apply to Angie because she is not a male spouse.
However, now that the U.S. Supreme Court has established that States must allow samesex couples to marry “on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples,” Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556, 2015 WL 2473451, at *19 (U.S. June 26, 2015), the question becomes whether the statues as written comport with the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. May Defendants extend the benefits of the assisted-reproduction statutes to male spouses in opposite-sex couples but not for female spouses in same-sex couples? As discussed below, the court concludes that Plaintiffs are highly likely to succeed in their claim that such differential treatment is unconstitutional.
The court need not decide whether the statutes classify based on sex or sexual orientation and need not decide the applicable level of scrutiny for an Equal Protection analysis because Defendants have not offered a rational basis for the different treatment of male and female spouses of women who give birth through assisted reproduction involving the use of donor sperm. At the hearing on this motion, when asked for a reason explaining the statutes’ differential treatment, Defendants offered a concern over accuracy of vital statistic records for researchers. They could not, however, specify any tangible effect that recognizing a female spouse as a parent would have on the accuracy of those records. Defendants also cited a concern for making parentage clear as another potential reason for the distinction. They could not explain, however, how recognizing a female spouse as a parent and listing her as a parent on a birth certificate undermined the clarity of parentage. The court finds that neither is sufficient as a rational basis to satisfy the challenged distinctions under an Equal Protection analysis.
5

Because Defendants were unable to provide a rational basis for treating male spouse of women who give birth through assisted reproduction involving the use of donor sperm differently than identically situated female spouse, the court need not reach the question of which level of scrutiny applies, and the court concludes the statute violates Plaintiffs’ rights to Equal Protection.
II. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Injury If the Injunction Does Not Issue Because the statues, as currently enforced, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiffs are experiencing irreparable harm as a matter of law. In Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111, 1131 (10th Cir. 2012), the Court stated: “A plaintiff suffers irreparable injury when the court would be unable to grant an effective monetary remedy after a full trial because such damages would be inadequate or difficult to ascertain.” Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. v. EchoStar Satellite Corp., 269 F.3d 1149, 1156 (10th Cir. 2001). Furthermore, “[w]hen an alleged constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further showing of irreparable injury is necessary.” Kikumura v. Hurley, 242 F.3d 950, 963 (10th Cir. 2001) (quotations omitted). Additionally, Angie and L.R. are suffering immediate, irreparable harm because L.R. is denied the security of two legal parents each day that the State does not recognize Angie’s parental status. III. THE BALANCE OF HARMS FAVORS PLAINTIFFS. Defendants have offered no tangible harm that they would experience from applying the assisted-reproduction statutes to female spouses of women who conceive through donor sperm. Nor would any theoretical harm from applying the Statutes to female spouses tip the scale in Defendants’ favor. See Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d. 1114, 1145 (10th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (plurality) (“When [a] law…is likely unconstitutional, the [] interest [of those the government represents, such as voters] do not outweigh [a plaintiff’s interest] in having [its
6

constitutional rights protected.” (quoting Awad, 670 F.3d 1131-32 (alternations in Hobby Lobby)).
On the other hand, as noted above, Plaintiffs would continue to suffer both constitutional and irreparable harm without an injunction. The Plaintiffs thus carry the balance of harms.
IV. AN INJUNCTION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST It is clear from Awad that, “it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” 670 F.3d at 1132.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER For all these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and ORDERS as follows: Defendants are enjoined from enforcing Utah Code Ann §§ 78B-15-201(2)(e), 78B-15703 and § 78B-15-704 in a way that differentiates between male spouses of women who give birth through assisted reproduction with donor sperm and similarly situated female spouses of women who give birth through assisted reproduction with donor sperm. If Defendants continue to enforce Utah Code Ann §§ 78B-15-201(2)(e), 78B-15-703 and § 78B-15-704, with respect to male spouses of women who give birth through assisted reproduction with donor sperm, they must also apply the statute equally to female spouses of women who give birth through assisted reproduction with donor sperm. SIGNED this 22nd day of July, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
Dee Benson United States District Judge
7

 
 Case 2:15-cv-00253-DB Document 17-1 Filed 10/16/15 Page 1 of 3

JOSHUA A. BLOCK* ACLU LGBT Project 125 Broad Street, Floor 18 New York, New York, 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2593 Facsimile: (212) 549-2650 jblock@aclu.org JOHN MEJIA (13965) LEAH M. FARRELL (13696) ACLU of Utah 355 North 300 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Telephone: (801) 521-9862 jmejia@acluutah.org lfarrell@acluutah.org

PARKER DOUGLAS (8924) Utah Federal Solicitor OFFICE OF THE UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL 350 North State Street, Ste. 230 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2320 Telephone: (801) 538-9600 Facsimile: (801) 538-1121 E-mail: pdouglas@utah.gov
Counsel for Defendants

Attorneys for Plaintiffs *Admitted pro hac vice

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

ANGIE ROE and KAMI ROE,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
W. DAVID PATTON, in his official capacity as the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Health, and RICHARD OBORN, in his official capacity as the Director of Utah’s Office of Vital Records and Statistics,
Defendants.

[STIPULATED PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING INJUNCTION
Case No. 2:15-cv-00253-DB

1

Case 2:15-cv-00253-DB Document 17 Filed 10/16/15 Page 2 of 3
Plaintiffs, Angie Roe and Kami Roe and Defendants, W. David Patton and Richard Oborn, by and through their counsel, herby stipulate as follows:
1. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction in this case on April 13, 2015 seeking an order requiring Defendants to recognize Angie Roe as the parent of L.R. and to issue a birth certificate listing Angie Roe as such.
2. On July 22, 2015 this Court issued a Preliminary Injunction against the Defendants which enjoined Defendants from enforcing Utah Code Ann §§ 78B15-201(2)(e), 78B-15-703 and § 78B-15-704 in a way that differentiates between male spouses of women who give birth through assisted reproduction with donor sperm and similarly situated female spouses of women who give birth through assisted reproduction with donor sperm. The Court further ordered that if Defendants continue to enforce Utah Code Ann §§ 78B-15-201(2)(e), 78B-15-703 and § 78B-15-704, with respect to male spouses of women who give birth through assisted reproduction with donor sperm, they must also apply the statute equally to female spouses of women who give birth through assisted reproduction with donor sperm.
3. After the Court issued this injunction, the Defendants have been compliant, including issuing Angie Roe a birth certificate listing her as parent to L.R.
4. The parties agree, and jointly move the Court, to make the Preliminary Injunction entered by this Court on July 22, 2015, permanent.
5. Plaintiffs have not yet made a motion for attorney fees and costs, but have resolved their claim for such with Defendants. To resolve that potential claim,
2

Case 2:15-cv-00253-DB Document 17 Filed 10/16/15 Page 3 of 3

Defendants have agreed to pay, and the Plaintiffs have agreed to accept, the sum of twenty-four thousand three hundred and two dollars ($24,302). A Proposed Order and Permanent Injunction is filed herewith as Exhibit A. Signature lines.

/s/ John Mejia (with permission) John Mejia ACLU of Utah Attorneys for Plaintiffs

/s/Parker Douglas Parker Douglas Utah Federal Solicitor Counsel for Defendants

3

Case 2:15-cv-00253-DB Document 17 Filed 10/16/15 Page 1 of 3

JOSHUA A. BLOCK* ACLU LGBT Project 125 Broad Street, Floor 18 New York, New York, 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2593 Facsimile: (212) 549-2650 jblock@aclu.org JOHN MEJIA (13965) LEAH M. FARRELL (13696) ACLU of Utah 355 North 300 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Telephone: (801) 521-9862 jmejia@acluutah.org lfarrell@acluutah.org

PARKER DOUGLAS (8924) Utah Federal Solicitor OFFICE OF THE UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL 350 North State Street, Ste. 230 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2320 Telephone: (801) 538-9600 Facsimile: (801) 538-1121 E-mail: pdouglas@utah.gov
Counsel for Defendants

Attorneys for Plaintiffs *Admitted pro hac vice

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

ANGIE ROE and KAMI ROE,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
W. DAVID PATTON, in his official capacity as the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Health, and RICHARD OBORN, in his official capacity as the Director of Utah’s Office of Vital Records and Statistics,
Defendants.

Stipulation and Joint Motion to Enter Permanent Injunction
Case No. 2:15-cv-00253-DB

1

Case 2:15-cv-00253-DB Document 17-1 Filed 10/16/15 Page 2 of 3
Based on the Stipulation and Joint Motion submitted by the parties to convert the preliminary injunction entered July 22, 2015, to a permanent injunction, and good cause appearing thereon,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. On July 22, 2015, this Court issued a Preliminary Injunction against the Defendants
which enjoined Defendants from enforcing Utah Code Ann §§ 78B-15-201(2)(e), 78B15-703 and § 78B-15-704 in a way that differentiates between male spouses of women who give birth through assisted reproduction with donor sperm and similarly situated female spouses of women who give birth through assisted reproduction with donor sperm. The Court further ordered that if Defendants continue to enforce Utah Code Ann §§ 78B-15-201(2)(e), 78B-15-703 and § 78B-15-704, with respect to male spouses of women who give birth through assisted reproduction with donor sperm, they must also apply the statute equally to female spouses of women who give birth through assisted reproduction with donor sperm. 2. It is now the Order and Judgment of this Court that the preliminary injunction entered on July 22, 2015 is a permanent injunction. 3. Defendants are hereby ordered to pay Plaintiffs’ counsel the sum of XX dollars ($XX) in full settlement of Plaintiffs’ attorney fees and costs associated with this action. 4. The granting of the Permanent Injunction and the payment of attorneys’ fees and costs is hereby ordered, and resolves all claims raised in this case.
2

Case 2:15-cv-00253-DB Document 17-1 Filed 10/16/15 Page 3 of 3 DATED this ______ day of October, 2015. BY THE COURT:
3

 
 Case 2:15-cv-00253-DB Document 18 Filed 10/20/15 Page 1 of 3

JOSHUA A. BLOCK*

PARKER DOUGLAS (8924)

ACLU LGBT Project

Utah Federal Solicitor

125 Broad Street, Floor 18

F"IL.ED OFFICE OF THE UTAH ATTORNEY

New York, New York, 10004, , c.· n, ~ Tq! r. T r: nl!(l;lENERAL

Telephone: (212) 549-2593

· ·· ·· - · · . -350 North State Street, Ste. 230

zn·s Facsimile: (212) 549-2650
jblock@aclu.org

-~ 1

OCT ? O p
-

!.~; Sp\t Lake City, Utah 84114-2320 Telephone: (801) 538-9600

JOHN MEJIA (13965) LEAH M. FARRELL (13696)

1·- ·!r

t;tr,
1 \:f';..,,f

·

't·;r.·
.Ji

1~-·1.-i" }facsimile:
...... ·""·''

(801)

538-1121

E-mail: pdouglas@utah.gov

ACLU of Utah 355 North 300 West

. "'· ·.-.,··:-···-P·-~~-,·-··~v-·..~{:,--:,··:c:::-·f:-:)·;k·:;·-•· .- .. ' : · '' ' .. , ' "' Counsel for Defendants

Salt Lake City, Utah 84103

Telephone: (801) 521-9862

jmejia@acluutah.org

lfarrell@acluutah.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs *Admitted pro hac vice

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

ANGIE ROE and KAMI ROE,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
W. DAVID PATTON, in his official capacity as the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Health, and RICHARD OBORN, in his official capacity as the Director ofUtah's Office of Vital Records and Statistics,
Defendants.

r(jlilililil»Jd!TiiJ£ I KOI OOOH] ORDER GRANTING INJUNCTION
Case No. 2:15-cv-00253-DB

1

Case 2:15-cv-00253-DB Document 18 Filed 10/20/15 Page 2 of 3
Based on the Stipulation and Joint Motion submitted by the parties to convert the preliminary injunction entered July 22, 2015, to a permanent injunction, and good cause appearing thereon,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. On July 22, 2015, this Court issued a Preliminary Injunction against the Defendants
which enjoined Defendants from enforcing Utah Code Ann§§ 78B-15-201(2)(e), 78B15-703 and § 78B-15-704 in a way that differentiates between male spouses of women who give birth through assisted reproduction with donor sperm and similarly situated female spouses of women who give birth through assisted reproduction with donor sperm. The Court further ordered that if Defendants continue to enforce Utah Code Ann §§ 78B-15-201(2)(e), 78B-15-703 and § 78B-)5-704, with respect to male spouses of women who give birth through assisted reproduction with donor sperm, they must also apply the statute equally to female spouses of women who give birth through assisted reproduction with donor sperm. 2. It is now the Order and Judgment of this Court that the preliminary injunction entered on July 22, 2015 is a permanent injunction. 3. Defendants are hereby ordered to pay Plaintiffs' counsel the sum of twenty-four thousand three hundred and two dollars ($24,302) in full settlement of Plaintiffs' attorney fees and costs associated with this action. 4. The granting of the Permanent Injunction and the payment of attorneys' fees and costs is hereby ordered, and resolves all claims raised in this case.
2

Case 2:15-cv-00253-DB Document 18 Filed 10/20/15 Page 3 of 3
DATED this ~Oil!--day of October, 2015.
B~HECOURT:
VW ~~WUA~-----...7
3

 
 Case: 2:15-cv-253 As of: 10/25/2015 10:35 PM MDT 1 of 3
US District Court Electronic Case Filing System District of Utah (Central)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:15−cv−00253−DB

Roe et al v. Patton et al Assigned to: Judge Dee Benson Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Plaintiff Angela Leslie Roe
Plaintiff Kami Roe

Date Filed: 04/13/2015 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by John M. Mejia ACLU OF UTAH 355 N 300 W STE 1 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 (801)521−9862 x.108 Email: jmejia@acluutah.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua A. Block AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION (NY) 125 BROAD ST 18TH FL NEW YORK, NY 10004 (212)549−2593 Email: jblock@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leah M. Farrell ACLU OF UTAH 355 N 300 W STE 1 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 (801)521−9862 Email: lfarrell@acluutah.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John M. Mejia (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua A. Block (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leah M. Farrell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
W. David Patton in his official capacity as the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Health

represented by Parker Douglas UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE (160−6−140856) LITIGATION UNIT 160 E 300 S 6TH FL

Case: 2:15-cv-253 As of: 10/25/2015 10:35 PM MDT 2 of 3

PO BOX 140856 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114−0856 (801)366−0100 Email: pdouglas@utah.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Richard Oborn in his official capacity as the Director of Utah's Office of Vital Records and Statistics

represented by Parker Douglas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/13/2015
04/13/2015 04/13/2015
04/14/2015 04/14/2015 04/14/2015 04/21/2015 04/22/2015
04/27/2015 04/30/2015 05/11/2015

# Docket Text
1 Case has been indexed and assigned to Judge Dee Benson. Plaintiffs Angela Leslie Roe, Kami Roe is directed to E−File the com and cover sheet (found under Complaints and Other Initiating Documents) and pay the filing fee of $ 400.00 by the end of the business day. NOTE: The court will not have jurisdiction until the opening document is electronically filed and the filing fee paid in the CM/ECF system. Civil Summons may be issued electronically. Prepare the summons using the courts PDF version and email it to utdecf_clerk@utd.uscourts.gov for issuance. (mms) (Entered: 04/13/2015)
2 COMPLAINT against Richard Oborn, W. David Patton (Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 1088−2244452), filed by Kami Roe, Angela Leslie Roe. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet) Assigned to Judge Dee Benson (Farrell, Leah) (Entered: 04/13/2015)
3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs Angela Leslie Roe, Kami Roe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−A.R. Declaration, # 2 Exhibit B−K.R. Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Decl. Ex. A, # 4 Exhibit Decl. Ex. B, # 5 Exhibit Decl. Ex. C, # 6 Exhibit Decl. Ex. D)(Farrell, Leah) (Entered: 04/13/2015)
4 NOTICE OF REQUIREMENTS for appearance phv mailed to attorney Joshua A. Block, for Plaintiffs Angela Leslie Roe, Kami Roe (mms) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
5 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Joshua Block , Registration fee $ 15, receipt number 25KQC818, filed by Plaintiffs Angela Leslie Roe, Kami Roe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Application for Admission, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Farrell, Leah) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
6 NOTICE of Appearance by Parker Douglas on behalf of All Defendants (Douglas, Parker) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
7 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Kami Roe, Angela Leslie Roe as to All Defendants. (Farrell, Leah) (Entered: 04/21/2015)
9 ORDER granting 5 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Joshua A. Block for Angela Leslie Roe,Joshua A. Block for Kami Roe. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice may download a copy of the District of Utahs local rules from the courts web site at http://www.utd.uscourts.gov . Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 4/20/15. (jlw) (Entered: 04/28/2015)
8 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Richard Oborn, W. David Patton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Douglas, Parker) (Entered: 04/27/2015)
10 REPLY to Response to Motion re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs Angela Leslie Roe, Kami Roe. (Farrell, Leah) (Entered: 04/30/2015)
11 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support : (Notice generated by CHAMBERS)

Case: 2:15-cv-253 As of: 10/25/2015 10:35 PM MDT 3 of 3

06/26/2015 07/13/2015 07/13/2015 07/15/2015
07/22/2015 10/16/2015 10/20/2015

Motion Hearing set for 7/15/2015 at 01:00 PM in Rm 8.300 before Judge Dee Benson. (reb) (Entered: 05/11/2015)
12 ORDER Requesting Supplemental Briefing re: 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support filed by Kami Roe, Angela Leslie Roe. See order for further details. Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 6/26/15. (jlw) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
13 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support of Response to the Court's June 26, 2015 Order filed by Defendants Richard Oborn, W. David Patton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Douglas, Parker) (Entered: 07/13/2015)
14 Supplemental MEMORANDUM in Support re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs Angela Leslie Roe, Kami Roe. (Farrell, Leah) (Entered: 07/13/2015)
16 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Judge Dee Benson: After arguments were heard and discussion held, Court ruled GRANTING 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support. Court made findings on the record. Cnsl to prepare the order. Motion Hearing held on 7/15/2015 re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support filed by Kami Roe, Angela Leslie Roe. Attorney for Plaintiff: Joshau Block, John Mejia and Leah Farrell, Attorney for Defendant Parker Douglas. Court Reporter: Ed Young. (reb) (Entered: 07/23/2015)
15 MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. See order for details. Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 7/22/15. (jlw) (Entered: 07/22/2015)
17 Stipulated MOTION for Entry of Judgment and Memorandum in Support of judgment entering permanent injunction and attorneys fees filed by Defendants Richard Oborn, W. David Patton. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Douglas, Parker) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
18 ORDER GRANTING PERMANENT INJUNCTION. Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 10/20/15. (jlw) (Entered: 10/23/2015)