Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 75 Filed 09/12/14 Page 1 of 14

1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9

Nelda Majors, et al.,

)

10

)

Plaintiffs,

)

11

)

12

vs.

)

)

13 Michael K. Jeanes, in his official capacity )

as Clerk of the Superior Court of

)

14 Maricopa County, Arizona, et al.,

)

15

)

Defendants.

)

16

)

2:14-cv-00518 JWS ORDER AND OPINION [Re: Motion at Docket 64]

17

18

I. MOTION PRESENTED

19

At docket 64, plaintiff Fred McQuire (”McQuire”) asks for a temporary restraining

20 order which would require defendants to recognize the legitimacy of his California
21 marriage to his recently deceased partner George Martinez (“Martinez”), require
22 defendant Will Humble (“Humble”) to prepare and issue a death certificate showing that
23 Martinez was married to McQuire when he died, and require Humble to issue any
24
25 necessary directives to health departments, funeral homes, physicians, medical

26 examiners, and anyone else involved in preparing the death certificate to comply with

27 the requirement to show that Martinez was married to McQuire at the time of his death. 28

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 75 Filed 09/12/14 Page 2 of 14

1 Defendants’ response is at docket 70. McQuire replies at docket 73. Oral arg ument
2 was heard on September 12, 2014. 3
II. BACKGROUND 4
McQuire and Martinez were a gay couple who lived together for many years in 5
6 Green Valley, Arizona, until the time of Martinez’s death. They are among the nineteen

7 plaintiffs who filed the case at bar to challenge Arizona’s constitutional and statutory

8 provisions which ban same-sex marriage in Arizona and prevent Arizona from
9 recognizing same-sex marriages lawfully entered in other states.1 The defendants 10
named in the current complaint2 are Michael K. Jeanes, sued in his official capacity as 11
Clerk of the Superior Court of Maricopa County; Will Humble, sued in his official 12
13 capacity as Director of Arizona’s Department of Health Services; and David Raber,

14 sued in his official capacity as Director of the Arizona Department of Revenue.

15

Plaintiffs contend—and defendants deny—that the challenged provisions of

16 Arizona law deny them the equal protection of the laws required by the Fourteenth
17
Amendment. In addition, plaintiffs contend—and defendants deny—that the challenged 18

19 laws deny plaintiffs the substantive due process of law required by the Fourteenth

20 Amendment.

21

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

22

McQuire asks the court to issue an injunction commanding defendant Humble

23 and his agents to prepare, issue, and accept a death certif icate for Martinez stating he
24

25

26

1ARIZ. CONST. art. XXX, § 1; A.R.S. §§ 25-101(C), 25-112(A), and 25-125(A).

27

2Second Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief at doc. 50.

28

-2-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 75 Filed 09/12/14 Page 3 of 14

1 was married and naming McQuire as his spouse.3 Injunctive relief is an extraordinary
2 remedy4 which is not routinely granted.5 The Ninth Circuit has explained that to obtain 3
injunctive relief a plaintiff must show four things: First, he is likely to succeed on the 4
merits; second, he is likely to suffer irreparable harm without the relief sought; third, a 5
6 balancing of the equities tips toward him; and fourth, the public interest favors issuance
7 of an injunction.6

8

IV. DISCUSSION

9 A. Preliminary Consideration
10 Defendants contend that the Supreme Court’s decision in Baker v. Nelson7
11
12 effectively decided the claim upon which McQuire’s motion rests—that a state violates

13 the United States Constitution when it refuses to sanction same-sex marriages.8

14 Defendants misapprehend the current significance of Baker. There, 42 years ago the

15 Court said that a challenge to a Minnesota law defining marriage as between a man
16 and a woman did not raise a substantial federal question. Even such a terse
17
pronouncement binds the lower federal courts unless subsequent developments in the 18

19
3Requests for temporary restraining orders are governed by the same standards that
20 govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Brown Jordan Int’l, Inc. v. Mind’s Eye Interiors,
Inc., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1154 (D. Haw. 2002); Lockheed Missile & Space Co. v. Hughes
21 Aircraft Co., 887 F.Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995).

22

4See United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Co-op, 532 U.S. 483, 496 (2001).

23

5Martin v. O’Grady, 783 F.Supp. 1191, 1195 (N.D. Ill. 1990).

24

6League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Connaughton,

25 752 F.3d 755, 759 (9th Cir. 2014).

26

7409 U.S. 810 (1972).

27

8Doc. 70 at 3.

28

-3-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 75 Filed 09/12/14 Page 4 of 14

1 Supreme Court’s own jurisprudence establish that the pronouncement no longer
2 comports with the Supreme Court’s view of an issue.9 3
The Supreme Court’s decisions in Romer v. Evans,10 and Lawrence v. Texas,11 4
cast doubt on the proposition that Baker commands lower courts to treat challenges to 5
6 same-sex marriage prohibitions as matters not raising a substantial federal question.
7 The Court’s more recent decision in United States v. Windsor12 eliminates any

8 uncertainty. The majority opinion striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act
9 (“DOMA”) holds that DOMA’s definition of marriage as between members of different
10 genders for purposes of all federal laws required the Supreme Court “to address
11 whether the resulting injury and indignity (to same-sex couples) is a deprivation of an
12
13 essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment.”13 Less than two weeks

14 ago the Seventh Circuit joined numerous other federal courts in recognizing that Baker

15 does not foreclose consideration of claims challenging the constitutionality of state laws
16 forbidding same-sex marriages.14 Baker is not an impediment to consideration of
17 McQuire’s claim.
18

19

20
9See, Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975) (recognizing that the Court’s “doctrinal
21 development” may vitiate the binding nature of a decision like Baker.)

22

10517 U.S. 620 (1996).

23

11539 U.S. 558 (2003).

24

12133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013).

25
13Id. at 2692.
26
14Baskin v. Bogan, F.3d , Nos. 14–2386, 14–2387, 14–2388, 14–2526, 2014 WL
27 4359059, at *7 (7th Cir. Sept. 4, 2014).

28

-4-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 75 Filed 09/12/14 Page 5 of 14

1 B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
2 Within the past year, many federal courts have held that state laws forbidding
3 same-sex marriage violate the United States Constitution. The most recent circuit court
4 decision is the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Baskin v. Bogan,15 which held that the
5
6 prohibitions on same-sex marriages in Indiana and Wisconsin violated the Equal

7 Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Just weeks prior to Baskin, the Fourth

8 Circuit held in Bostic v. Schaefer16 that Virginia’s prohibition on same-sex marriages
9 violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth
10 Amendment. Prior to that, the Tenth Circuit held in Kitchen v. Herbert17 that Utah’s
11
12 prohibition of same-sex marriages violated the Constitution. No other circuit courts
13 have yet addressed the issue. Numerous district courts have also held that state

14 prohibitions on same-sex marriage violate the Constitution.18

15

16

17

18
15Id. at *21 (holding Indiana and Wisconsin prohibitions on same-sex marriage violated
19 equal protection).

20

16 F. 3d , Nos. 14–1167, 14–1169, 14–1173, 2014 WL 3702493, at *16 (4th Cir.

July 28, 2014).
21

17755 F.3d 1193, 1229–30 (10th Cir. 2014).
22

18Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 994 F. Supp. 2d 1128, 1147–48 (D. Or. 2014); Whitewood v.
23 Wolf, 992 F. Supp. 2d 410, 431 (M.D. Pa. 2014); Love v. Beshear, 989 F. Supp. 2d 536, 550

24 (W.D. Ky. 2014); Baskin v. Bogan, F. Supp. 2d , Nos. 1:14–cv–00355–RLY–TAB,
1:14–cv–00404–RLY–TAB, 1:14–cv–00406–RLY–MJD, 2014 WL 2884868, at *14 (S.D. Ind.

25 June 25, 2014); Wolf v. Walker, 986 F. Supp. 2d 982, 1026–28 (W.D. Wisc. 2014); Latta v.
Otter, F. Supp. 2d , No. 1:13–cv–00482–CWD, 2014 WL 1909999, at *28 (D. Idaho May

26 13, 2014); DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F. Supp. 2d 757, 775 (E.D. Mich. 2014); DeLeon v. Perry,
975 F. Supp. 2d 632, 665–66 (W.D. Tex. 2014) (granting preliminary injunction, but staying

27 same pending appeal).

28

-5-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 75 Filed 09/12/14 Page 6 of 14

1

Only a Nevada district court and two Louisiana district courts have upheld state

2 bans.19 None of these decisions are persuasive. The judges in Nevada and the more
3 recent Louisiana case applied rational basis review to the plaintiffs’ equal protection
4 challenges. However, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in SmithKline Beecham v. Abbott
5
6 Laboratories,20 holds that discrimination based on sexual orientation must be evaluated

7 using a heightened standard of review.21 Defendants contend that SmithKline Beecham

8 is inapposite for four reasons.
9 First, defendants argue Arizona’s man/woman marriage laws do not discriminate
10 on the basis of sexual orientation.22 Yet, the reason why couples such as McQuire and
11 Martinez may not marry is precisely because of their sexual orientation. This argument
12
13 lacks merit.

14

Second, defendants contend Arizona’s man/woman marriage laws were not

15 intended to discriminate against same-sex couples.23 Accepting that as true, it does not
16 alter the fact that the laws do discriminate. Evidence of malignant intent might support
17 a higher standard of review, but defendants do not explain why its absence necessarily
18
19 forecloses use of a higher standard.

20
19Robicheaux v. Caldwell, F. Supp. 2d , Nos. 13-5090, 14-97, 14-327, 2014 WL
21 4347099, at *12 (E.D. La. Sept. 3, 2014) (applying rational basis review standard); Sevcik v.
Sandoval, 911 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1018 (D. Nev. 2012) (applying rational basis review standard);
22 Merritt v. Attorney General, No. 13-00215-BAJ-SCR, 2013 WL 6044329, at *1 (M.D. La.
23 Nov. 14, 2013) (district court adopted recommendation of a magistrate judge).

24

20740 F.3d 471 (9th Cir. 2014).

25

21Id. at 484.

26

22Doc. 70 at 4.

27

23Id.

28

-6-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 75 Filed 09/12/14 Page 7 of 14

1

Third, defendants argue that because the marriage laws in question are based

2 upon a biological difference which reflects society’s interest in the capacity to create
3 children, a higher standard of review should not apply.24 This argument is
4 circular—there is a rational basis for the distinction, ergo rational basis review applies.
5
6 Whether marriage laws which discriminate between heterosexuals and homosexuals

7 should be subject to a higher level of scrutiny depends on whether a fundamental right

8 or a suspect classification is involved,25 not whether the state can offer a rational basis

9 for the distinction.26 Moreover, there is circuit court authority for the proposition that
10 marriage laws which discriminate between heterosexual couples and homosexual
11 couples infringe a fundamental right.27
12

13

Fourth, defendants argue that SmithKline Beecham does not reach so far as the

14 circumstances before this court because it relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in

15 Windsor, which did not explicitly establish a heightened standard of review for all cases
16 involving laws with a disparate impact on same-sex couples.28 The argument is not
17 persuasive. To begin with, the issue here was not before the court in Windsor, so the
18 19 Court did not need to explain how far its analysis might reach. Second, if one is to infer
20 the reach of the Windsor analysis, it is at least as reasonable to infer that Windsor does

21

22

24Id.

23

25Am. Tower Corp. v. City of San Diego, F.3d , Nos. 11–56766, 11–56767,

24 11–56861, and 11–56862, 2014 WL 3953765, at *17 (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2014).

25

26See Kitchen, 755 F.3d at 1218.

26

27Bostic, 2014 WL 3702493 at *8–10; Kitchen, 755 F.3d at 1218.

27

28Doc. 70 at 11–12.

28

-7-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 75 Filed 09/12/14 Page 8 of 14

1 imply use of a heightened standard of review in the case before this court as it is to
2 infer the opposite. Finally, it is important to note that SmithKline Beecham relied on 3
Windsor to reverse Ninth Circuit precedent which had held that rational basis review 4
applied, and broadly declared, “there can no longer be any question that gays and 5
6 lesbians are no longer a group or class of individuals normally subject to rational basis
7 review.”29

8

The court now turns to the other Louisiana district court case which upheld a

9 state law forbidding same-sex marriage. As relevant to the issue at hand, the court
10 relied on a single proposition—that Baker v. Nelson was controlling.30 As explained in
11
the previous subsection of this order, Baker is no longer controlling. 12

13

The remainder of defendants’ opposition essentially details its arguments on the

14 merits. While the court is not presently passing on the merits of those arguments, for

15 present purposes it suffices to say that in the persuasive decisions by other federal
16 courts set out above, they have all been found wanting. Given the wealth of case law
17 holding that state prohibitions on same-sex marriage violate the Constitution, and the
18
19 absence of any persuasive case law to the contrary, the court concludes that McQuire

20 is likely to prevail on the merits.

21 C. Likelihood of Irreparable Harm
22 McQuire identifies three types of irreparable harm he will suffer absent injunctive
23 relief: (1) he will lose the dignity associated with his marriage and suffer that loss in the
24

25
29SmithKline Beecham, 740 F.3d at 484 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
26 J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel T.B., 511 U.S. 114, 143 (1994) .

27

30Merritt, 2013 WL 6044329 at *2.

28

-8-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 75 Filed 09/12/14 Page 9 of 14

1 midst of his grieving; (2) he will lose significant financial benefits; and (3) he will suffer a
2 violation of his constitutional rights. 3
1. Emotional harm caused by the loss of dignity and status 4
McQuire argues that if he is not listed as a spouse on Martinez’s death 5
6 certificate, he will lose the dignity associated with their marriage and suffer that loss in

7 the midst of his grieving. The Supreme Court has recognized that the right to marry

8 confers on the individuals able to exercise the right “a dignity and a status of immense
9 import.”31 McQuire likely faces irreparable emotional harm by being denied this dignity 10
and status as he grieves Martinez’s death. 11
Defendants deny McQuire’s allegation that the marriage laws deprive him of the 12
13 dignity and status conferred by his marriage to Martinez. Defendants rely on the fact

14 that the Supreme Court stayed the effect of three lower court decisions in Herbert v.

15 Kitchen,32 Herbert v. Evans,33 and McQuigg v. Bostic.34 The cases subject to these
16 stays involve lengthy opinions. The Court’s stays shed no light on what issue, if any,
17 will deserve review in the Supreme Court. In sum, it is not possible to say that the stays
18
19 disclose anything about the legitimacy of McQuire’s claim for loss of dignity. On the

20 other hand, the Court’s decision in Windsor expressly recognizes that where it is

21 permitted, the marital state of same-sex couples is invested with “a dignity and status of 22

23

24

31Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2692

25

32134 S.Ct. 893 (2014).

26

33No. 14A65, 2014 WL 3557112 (U.S. July 18, 2014).

27

34No. 14A196, 2014 WL 4096232 (U.S. Aug. 20, 2014).

28

-9-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 75 Filed 09/12/14 Page 10 of 14

1 immense import.”35 Further, the stays suspended the effect of lower court decisions
2 that affected the general populations of Utah and Virginia. The Court was not
3 presented with particularized showings of irreparable harm, as is the case here.
4 Defendants’ argument based on the three stays issued by the Supreme Court is not
5
6 persuasive.

7

2. Financial harm

8

At a more prosaic level, McQuire argues that if his marriage is not recognized

9 now he will lose significant financial benefits. In particular, if his name does not appear
10 on Martinez’s death certificate, McQuire will be unable to succeed to Martinez’s much
11 more substantial social security and Veteran’s benefits.36 McQuire is in poor health and
12

13 unable to work. By succeeding to Martinez’s benefits, McQuire would have a monthly

14 income in excess of $4,000. Without those benefits, his income would be only a bit

15 over $1,300. Given that McQuire’s monthly mortgage payment is about $725, the court
16 accepts as true that without Martinez’s benefits, McQuire will be unable to keep his
17 home. Defendants contend that the monetary harm urged by McQuire is illusory
18
19 because federal law would not allow him to succeed to either Martinez’s social security
20 benefits or his Veterans benefits.37 The court agrees.

21

22

35Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2692.
23

24

36Doc. 66 at 5 ¶ 14. The substantial roadblocks standing between McQuire and the

enhanced benefits to which he would be entitled if recognized as Martinez’s spouse are

25 explained in the memorandum supporting his motion. Doc. 64 at pp. 13–15. See also Baskin,
2014 WL 4359059 at *6 (describing the catalog of benefits denied to same-sex couples whose

26 marriages are not officially recognized).

27

37Doc. 70 at 4–5.

28

-10-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 75 Filed 09/12/14 Page 11 of 14

1

Defendants cite 20 C.F.R. § 404.335(a)(1) to support the arg ument that because

2 the McQuire/Martinez marriage license was obtained (and therefore the marriage was
3 performed) less than nine months prior to Martinez’s death, McQuire is not entitled to
4 succeed to Martinez’s social security benefits. The marriage took place July of 2014.38
5
6 Martinez died on August 28, 2014.39 While the regulation includes four situations in

7 which a widow married less than 9 months prior to the death may still receive benefits,40

8 none of those exceptions applies here. The court concludes that regardless of what is
9 said on Martinez’s death certificate, McQuire will be unable to succeed to his social
10 security benefits.
11 Defendants cite 38 U.S.C. § 1304 to support their argument that McQuire cannot
12
13 obtain enhanced Veterans benefits as a result of Martinez’s death. As pertinent here,

14 the provision which controls provides that to obtain benefits, the surviving spouse must

15 have been married to the deceased veteran for a period of “one year or more.”41
16 McQuire was married to Martinez for less than a year, so he is not qualified to obtain
17 any Veteran’s benefits as a result of Martinez’s death.
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

38Doc. 66 at 2–3 ¶ 5.

25

39Id. at 3 ¶ 9.

26

4020 C.F.C. § 404.335(a)(2).

27

4138 U.S.C. § 1304(2).

28

-11-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 75 Filed 09/12/14 Page 12 of 14

1

3. Harm caused by the deprivation of a constitutional right

2 Finally, McQuire argues that because the harm of which he complains flows from
3 a violation of his constitutional rights, that fact alone suffices to show irreparable harm.
4 The Ninth Circuit has said that “[t]he deprivation of constitutional rights ‘unquestionably
5
6 constitutes irreparable injury.’”42

7

Defendants do not dispute that deprivation of a constitutional right is in-and-of-

8 itself an irreparable harm. Instead, they contend that the Arizona marriage laws do not

9 violate the Fourteenth Amendment. However, as discussed above, for purpose of the
10 pending motion that contention fails in light of the substantial case law which
11 contravenes defendants’ position.43
12

13

In summary, the court agrees with defendants that McQuire has not shown

14 irreparable harm based on the financial consequences of not recognizing his marriage

15 to Martinez. Nevertheless, on the basis of the loss of dignity and status coming in the
16 midst of an elderly man’s personal grief and on the fact that deprivation of a
17 constitutional right constitutes irreparable harm, the court holds that McQuire has
18
19 shown the requisite irreparable harm.

20 D. Balance of the Equities

21

On one side of the scale rest McQuire’s loss of dignity and the irreparable harm

22 to him caused by denial of his constitutional rights. On the other side, there is the fact
23 recognized by the Ninth Circuit that whenever a state law is enjoined, the state and its
24

25
42Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Humble, 753 F.3d 905, 911 (9th Cir. 2014)
26 (quoting Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir.2012)).

27

43Doc. 70 at 14–15.

28

-12-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 75 Filed 09/12/14 Page 13 of 14

1 people also suffer an irreparable injury.44 It is to be noted that McQuire seeks relief that
2 would apply only to him and not to the other plaintiffs. This limitation substantially
3 reduces the reach and impact of the injunctive relief he seeks. Because McQuire’s
4 irreparable harm inheres in a claimed violation of the Constitution—a violation which he
5
6 is very likely to establish for the reasons set out in subsection B. above—and because

7 the injunctive relief sought is limited to a single individual, it cannot be said that the

8 balance of the equities favors defendants. In these circumstances, the court concludes

9 that the balance of equities is consistent with issuance of an injunction limited in scope
10 to McQuire’s situation.
11
E. Public Interest 12

13

The public has an important interest in the faithful discharge of duties imposed

14 on Arizona’s public officials by Arizona law. The public also has an important interest in

15 those same officials’ compliance with the highest law of the land, the United States

16 Constitution. Where discharging state law runs afoul of the United States Constitution,
17
the interest of the public necessarily lies in compliance with the higher law. 18

19

The court has not yet decided whether there is a conflict between Arizona law

20 and the Constitution, but the court has decided that it is probable that there is such a

21 conflict so that Arizona will be required to permit same-sex marriages. Thus, it is

22 probable that the public interest would be advanced if the requested narrowly-limited
23 injunctive relief is awarded. Conversely, it is probable that the public interest would be
24
harmed if no such relief were provided. 25

26

27

44Coalition for Econ. Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 718, 719 (9th Cir. 1997).

28

-13-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 75 Filed 09/12/14 Page 14 of 14

1

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

2 For the reasons above, McQuire’s motion at docket 64 is GRANTED, and
3 IT IS ORDERED:
4
1. As to plaintiff Fred McQuire only, Arizona officials receiving notice of this 5

6 order are TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED from enforcing § 1 of Article 30 of the Arizona

7 Constitution, A.R.S. § 25-101(C), A.R.S. § 25-112(A), and any other Arizona law

8 against recognition of the marriage of Fred McQuire to George Martinez; and
9 2. Defendant Will Humble, in his capacity as Director of the Arizona Department
10 of Health Services, and his agents shall promptly prepare, issue, and accept a death
11
12 certificate for George Martinez which records his marital status as “married” and his

13 surviving spouse as Fred McQuire.

14

DATED this 12th day of September 2014.

15

16 /S/

17

JOHN W. SEDWICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-14-

 
 Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 1 of 42

1 Jennifer C. Pizer (Pro hac vice to be filed) Carmina Ocampo (Pro hac vice to be filed)
2 Joshua J. Johnson (Pro hac vice to be filed) LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND
3 EDUCATION FUND, INC. 4221 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 280
4 Los Angeles, California 90010 Telephone: 213.382.7600
5 Facsimile: 213.351.6050 Email: jpizer@lambdalegal.org
6 cocam po@lambdalegal.org jjohnson@l ambdalegal.org
7 Paul F. Eckstein (Bar No. 001822)
8 Daniel C. Barr (Bar No. 010149) Kirstin T. Eidenbach (Bar No. 027341)
9 Barry G. Stratford (Bar No. 029923) Alexis E. Danneman (Bar No. 030478)
10 PERKINS COIE LLP 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
11 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788 Telephone: 602.351.8000
12 Facsimile: 602.648.7000 Email: PEckstein@perkinscoie.com
13 DBarr@perkinscoie.com KEi denbach@perkinscoie.com
14 BStratford@perkinscoie.com ADa nneman@perkinscoie.com
15 DocketPHX@perkinscoie.com

16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Nelda Majors, Karen Bailey, David Larance, Kevin Patterson,
17 Michelle Teichner, Barbara Morrissey, Kathy Young, Jessica Young, Kelli Olson, Jennifer
18 Hoefle Olson, Kent Burbank, Vicente Talanquer, C.J. Castro-Byrd, Jesús Castro-Byrd, Patrick
19 Ralph, and Josefina Ahumada

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

22 Nelda Majors; Karen Bailey; David Larance; Kevin Patterson; Michelle Teichner; Barbara
23 Morrissey; Kathy Young; Jessica Young; Kelli Olson; Jennifer Hoefle Olson; Kent
24 Burbank; Vicente Talanquer; C.J. CastroByrd; Jesús Castro-Byrd; Patrick Ralph; and
25 Josefina Ahumada,

No. COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

26

Plaintiffs,

27

v.

28 Tom Horne, in his official capacity as Attorney

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 2 of 42

1 General of the State of Arizona; Will Humble, in his official capacity as Director of the
2 Department of Health Services; and Michael K. Jeanes, in his official capacity as
3 Clerk of the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona,
4 Defendants.
5

6

7

Plaintiffs Nelda Majors and Ka ren Bailey, David La rance and Kevi n Patterson,

8 Michelle Teichner and Barbara Morrissey, Kathy Young and Jessi ca Young, Kelli Olson

9 and Jennifer Hoefle O lson, Ke nt Bur bank a nd Vicente Talanquer, C.J. Castro-Byrd a nd

10 Jesús Castr o-Byrd, Patrick Ralph, and Josefi na Ahumada (collectively “Plaintiffs”) file

11 this Complaint against Defendants Tom Horn e, Will Humble, and Michael K. Jeanes

12 (collectively “Defendants”), and allege as follows:

13

INTRODUCTION

14

1. Plaintiffs are loving, committed same-s ex couples who reside in Arizona,

15 individual Arizona re sidents who ha d a sa me-sex spouse, and an orga nization that

16 represents same-sex couples in Arizona. Plai ntiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

17 § 1983 se eking declaratory and prelim inary and permanent injunctive relief for

18 Defendants’ violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourteenth Am endment to the United

19 States Constitution caused by the discriminato ry exclusion of same -sex couples from the

20 freedom to m arry and the discrim inatory de nial of recognition of m arriages lawfully

21 entered by same-sex couples in other juris dictions pursuant to the laws of the State of

22 Arizona (“State”).

23

2. Marriage plays a unique ro le in society as the un iversally recognized and

24 celebrated hallmark of a couple’s commitment to build family life together. It confers

25 upon couples a dignity and status of immense import. Plaintiffs have formed committed ,

26 enduring bonds equally worthy of the respect afforded by the State to different-sex

27 couples through marri age. Yet, the State, without any adequate justification, has enacted

28 statutory and constitutional ame ndments and otherwis e interpreted and enforced its laws

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-2-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 3 of 42

1 in ways that single out lesbian and gay Arizonans by excluding them from the freedom to

2 marry and by refusing to recognize and resp ect their lawful m arriages from other

3 jurisdictions, based solely on their sexual orientation and their sex.

4

3. Through the State’s constitutional and statutory marriage bans and through

5 Defendants’ enforcement of them and their in terpretation and enforcement of the State’s

6 other laws to preclude same-sex couples from marrying or having their marriages lawfully

7 entered in other juris dictions recognized in Arizona, th e State and Defendants send a

8 purposeful message that they view lesbians, gay m en, and their children as second-class

9 citizens who are unde serving of the legal sanction, res pect, protections, and support t hat

10 heterosexuals and their families are able to enjoy through marriage. This discrim ination

11 (referred to herein as the State’s “marriage ban” ) is enshrined both in the State’s statutes

12 and in Article 30, sect ion 1 of the Arizona C onstitution, which prevents same-sex couples

13 from entering into a civil marr iage in the State and prohi bits the State fro m honoring a

14 civil marriage validly entered by a same-sex couple in another jurisdiction.

15

4. The marriage ban inflicts serious and irreparable harm on same-sex couples

16 and their children. Nelda Majors and K aren Bailey an d Da vid Lara nce and Ke vin

17 Patterson are not m arried, and e ach couple wi shes to marry for the same reasons as

18 different-sex couples: to publicly declare th eir love and commitment before their family,

19 friends, and com munity, and to give one anot her and the children they are raising the

20 security and protections that m arriage pr ovides. Michelle Teichner and Barbara

21 Morrissey, Kathy Young and Jessica Young, Ke lli Olson and Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kent

22 Burbank and Vicente Talanquer, and C.J. C astro-Byrd and Jesús Castro-Byr d all m arried

23 in other jurisdictions, but are treated as le gal strangers in the state they call home—a

24 hurtful invalidation of their relations hips, w hich depri ves them of the pr otections that a

25 legally recognized marriage mo st securely provides. Patr ick Ralph m arried his hus band

26 Gary Hurst in California; but when Gary passed away in August 2013 after a lengthy

27 disability needing around-the-clock care by Patrick, the Stat e would not permit Patrick to

28 be listed as Gary’s husba nd on Gary’s death certificate. Josefina Ahum ada and Helen

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-3-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 4 of 42

1 Battiste married in New Mexico ; but when Helen died on Ja nuary 31, 2014, J osefina was

2 not e ven perm itted to appl y for Helen’s deat h certificate, let alone be listed on it as

3 Helen’s spouse. For bot h Patrick and J osefina, the State’s refusal to identify them

4 properly as spouses on the official docum ent recording their belove ds’ end of life was a

5 shocking denial of their relationships at the time of most intense loss and grief, and

6 remains a source of pain and deep sadness.

7

5. Our courts and our society have discarded, one by one , marriage laws that

8 violated the U.S. Constitution’s mandate of equality. These have included anti-

9 miscegenation laws and laws that syst

ematically denied m arried wom en legal

10 independence and the right to own prope rty and to m ake decisions for themselves.

11 History has taught us that the vitality of ma rriage does not depe nd on maintaining suc h

12 discriminatory laws. To the contrary, elim inating thes e unconstitutional marriage rules

13 has allowed the institution to retain its re levance and resulting ability to support and

14 sustain American couples and the families they build toget her. Endi ng the exclusion of

15 lesbian and gay couples from marriage is no different. Indeed, in 17 states and the District

16 of Columbia, same-sex couple s are marrying and the institutio n of marriage continues to

17 thrive.

18

6. Plaintiffs seek equal access to marriag e as the only mean s to secure their

19 rights to equal protection of the law and due pr ocess, and to elimin ate the myriad serious

20 harms inflicted on t hem by the m arriage ba n and Defenda nts’ enforcem ent of it.

21 Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this suit pursu ant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory

22 and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on the gr ounds that Defenda nts’

23 enforcement of the m arriage ban excluding same-sex couples from marriage and refusing

24 to recogniz e their valid m arriages from other jurisdictions violat es the equal protection

25 and due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States.

26

27

28

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-4-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 5 of 42

1

PARTIES

2

A. Plaintiffs

3

7. Plaintiffs Nelda Majors and Karen Ba iley are lesbian indivi duals who are a

4 committed same-sex couple residing in Scottsdale, Arizona.

5

8. Plaintiffs David Larance and Kevin Pa tterson are gay m ale individuals who

6 are a committed same-sex couple residing in Phoenix, Arizona.

7

9. Plaintiffs Michelle Teichner and Bar bara Morrissey are lesbian indi viduals

8 who are a committed same-sex couple residing in Phoenix, Arizona.

9

10. Plaintiffs Kathy Young and Jessi ca Young are lesbian individuals who are a

10 committed same-sex couple residing in Phoenix, Arizona.

11

11. Plaintiffs Kelli Olson and Jennifer Hoefle Olson are lesbian individuals who

12 are a committed same-sex couple residing in Tucson, Arizona.

13

12. Plaintiffs Kent B urbank a nd V icente Talanquer are gay m ale indi viduals

14 who are a committed same-sex couple residing in Tucson, Arizona.

15

13. Plaintiffs C.J. Castro-Byrd and Jesús Castro-Byrd are gay m ale individuals

16 who are a committed same-sex couple residing in Tempe, Arizona.

17

14. Plaintiff Patrick Ralph is a gay m ale indi vidual residing in Phoe nix,

18 Arizona.

19

15. Plaintiff Josefina A humada is a lesbian indi vidual r esiding i n Tucs on,

20 Arizona.

21

B. Defendants

22

16. Defendant Tom Horne is sued in his official capacity as Attorney General of

23 the State. Defendant Horne is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was

24 acting under color of state law at all times relevant to this complaint. As Attorney

25 General, Defendant Horne serves as the chie f legal officer of the State. His office

26 represents and pr ovides lega l advice to many State agenci es, includi ng C hild Protective

27 Services (“CPS”) and Child Support Enforcement.

28

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-5-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 6 of 42

1

17. Defendant Will Hum ble is sued in his o fficial capacity as Director of the

2 Department of Health Services. Defenda nt Humble is a person with in the meaning of 42

3 U.S.C. § 1983 and w as acting under col or of state law at all times relevant to this

4 complaint. In his official capacity, Defendant Humble serves as the State Registrar of

5 Vital Records, which appoints and supervises local regist rars w ho are responsible for

6 filing death certificates and ensuring that the pe rsonal information on a death certificate is

7 accurate.

8

18. Defendant Michael K. Jeanes is sued in his official capacity as Clerk of the

9 Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, an office authorized by Article 6,

10 Section 23 of the Arizona Constitution. Defendant Jeanes’s duties include, among others,

11 issuing marriage lice nses. Defendant Jeanes must ensure com pliance in all of these

12 functions with the relevant State laws, including those that exclude same-sex couples from

13 marriage. Defendant Jeanes is a person wit hin the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was

14 acting under color of state law at all times relevant to this complaint.

15

19. Each Defenda nt inte ntionally perform ed, participated in, aided, and/ or

16 abetted in some manner the acts averred here in, pr oximately caused the harm averred

17 herein, and will injure Plaintiffs irreparably if not enjoined.

18

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

19

20. Plaintiffs bring this acti on under 42 U. S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 to redress the

20 deprivation under color of state law of rights secured by the United States Constitution.

21

21. This Court has original jurisdiction ov er the subject matter of this action

22 pursuant to 28 U.S. C. §§ 1331 a nd 1343 be cause the m atters in contr oversy arise unde r

23 the Constitution and laws of the United States.

24

22. Venue is proper in this Court

under 28 U.S. C. § 1391(b) becaus e

25 Defendants reside within the Dis trict of Arizona and a substantial part of the events that

26 gave rise to Plaintiffs’ claims took place within the District of Arizona.

27

28

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-6-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 7 of 42

1

23. This Court has the authority to enter a declaratory judgm ent and to provide

2 preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pur suant t o Rules 57 and 65 of t he Fe deral

3 Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

4

24. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant s because they are

5 residents of the State.

6

FACTS

7

25. Plaintiffs all are residents of Arizona w ho experience the sam e joys and

8 shoulder the same challenges of family life as their hetero sexual neighbors, c o-workers,

9 and ot her com munity m embers who are free to marry. Plaintiffs are productive,

10 contributing members of society who support th eir committed partners and nurture thei r

11 children, but must do so without the same dign ity and respect afford ed by the State to

12 other families through access to the uni versally understood a nd celebrated status o f

13 marriage. The State’s exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, and from recognition

14 of their lawful out-of-state marriages, subjects Plaintiffs to legal vulnerability and related

15 stress, while depriving them an d their children of equal dignity and security. Through its

16 constitutional and statutory marriage bans, the State sends a purpos eful message that the

17 State views lesbians and gay m en and t heir children as second-class m embers of society

18 who are undeserving of the legal sanction, re spect, and support tha t different-sex spouses

19 and their families enjoy.

20

A. Plaintiffs’ Attempts to Marry and Marriages in Other Jurisdictions.

21

26. But for the fact that they are of th e same-sex, each unmarried Plaintiff

22 couple is legally qualified to marry under the laws of Ar izona and wishes to marry in the

23 State. Each Plaintiff is over the requis ite age of 18, no Plaint iff is preclude d from

24 marriage due to bei ng closely related to his or her life partner, and no Plaintiff is

25 recognized by the State as having another spouse.

26

27. On March 4, 2014, N elda Major s and Karen Bailey a ppeared in person at

27 the Maricopa County Superior Court Clerk’ s Office, North East Facility to seek a

28 marriage license. When the couple requested a marriage lic ense, they were denied by an

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-7-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 8 of 42

1 employee of Defenda nt who t old them, “You kn ow we can’t give you a m arriage license

2 in Arizona right now.”

3

28. On March 10, 2014, Davi d Larance and Kevin Patterson appeared in person

4 at the Maricopa C ounty Superior Court Clerk’ s Office to seek a ma rriage license. When

5 the couple requested a marriag e license, they were denied. The i ndividual who refuse d

6 their request told the m, “Gentlemen, we can’ t issue you a m arriage license at this tim e.”

7 Kevin is an ordai ned m inister and has pr eviously solem nized the marriages of two

8 different-sex couples. He cannot , however, legally marry the m an he loves in his hom e

9 state of Arizona.

10

29. Michelle Teichner and Barbara Morri ssey were validly married in New

11 York and seek through this su it to end the State’s current de nial of recognition of their

12 marriage on the ground that it is a marriage entered by two individuals of the same sex.

13

30. Kathy Young a nd Jessica Young were validly married in New York and

14 seek through this suit to end the State’s current denial of recognition of their marriage on

15 the ground that it is a marriage entered by two individuals of the same sex.

16

31. Kelli Olson and Jennifer Hoefle Olson were validly marri ed in Minnesota

17 and seek through this suit to en d the State’s current denial of recognition of their marriage

18 on the ground that it is a marriage entered by two individuals of the same sex.

19

32. Kent Burbank and Vicente Talanquer were validly married in Iowa and seek

20 through this suit to end the State’s current denial of recognition of their marriage on the

21 ground that it is a marriage entered by two individuals of the same sex.

22

33. C.J. Castro-Byrd and Jesús Castro-Byrd were validly married in Washington

23 and seek through this suit to en d the State’s current denial of recognition of their marriage

24 on the ground that it is a marriage entered by two individuals of the same sex.

25

34. Patrick Ralph and Gary Hurst (deceased) were validly married in California

26 and Patrick seeks through this su it to end t he State’s current de nial of recognition of their

27 marriage on the ground that it was a marriage entered by two individuals of the same sex.

28

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-8-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 9 of 42

1

35. Josefina Ahumada and Helen Battiste (d eceased) were validly married in

2 New Mexi co and Jos efina seeks through t his suit to end the St ate’s current denial of

3 recognition of their marriage on the ground that it was a marriage entered by two

4 individuals of the same sex.

5

B. Arizona’s Marriage Ban Singles Out Same-Sex Couples and Excludes

6

Them From Marriage.

7

36. Arizona has enacted statutory and c onstitutional bans de signed to exclude

8 same-sex couples from marriage and has interpre ted and enforced the State’s law to do s o

9 as well. The State’s m arriage ban cannot be explained by reference to legit imate public

10 policies that could j ustify the disadva ntages the m arriage ban im poses on sam e-sex

11 couples and their family members.

12

37. In 1996, shortly after the passage of the federal Defense of Marriage Act

13 (codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 a nd 28 U.S.C. § 1738C), Arizona en acted a statutory provision

14 specifically to exclude same-s ex couples from marri age. That statute, Arizona Revis ed

15 Statute (“A.R.S.”) § 25-101(C), provides that , “[m]arriage between persons of the same

16 sex is void and prohibited.” The Arizona legislature also banne d recognition of the

17 marriages same-sex couples lawfully celebrated in other states. See A.R.S. § 25-112(A).

18

38. In 1999, t he legislature went f urther to reinforce that same-sex couples

19 should not have access to the state-regulated , preferred status of marriage by further

20 amending the marriage statutes to add a provis ion specifying that a valid m arriage is one

21 “contracted by a m ale person and a fem ale person with a proper m arriage license.” See

22 A.R.S. § 25-125(A).

23

39. In 2006, Arizona voters consider ed Proposition 107, an initiated

24 constitutional amendment which proposed to amend the Ariz ona Constitution to provide

25 that, to “protect” marriage, onl y marriages of different-sex couples would be considered

26 valid and would be recognized under Arizona law, and that the State and municipalities in

27 Arizona “shall not cre ate or recognize a legal status for unm arried persons that is similar

28 to marriage.” This proposa l was described duri ng t he ballot cam paign as likely to

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-9-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 10 of 42

1 preclude civil unions, comprehensive domestic partnerships, and other broad, non-marital

2 legal prote ctions for unm arried different-sex couples as we ll as for same-sex couples.

3 Arizona voters rejected this proposal.

4

40. Two years later in 2008, the Arizona le gislature referred another proposal to

5 amend the Arizona Constitution to reinforce the State’s excl usion of same-sex couples

6 from marriage. The resolu tion that became Proposition 102, called the “Marriage

7 Protection Am endment,” provi ded: “Onl y a uni on of one m an a nd one wom an shall be

8 valid or recognized as a marri age in this state.” Arizona voters approved Proposition 102

9 on November 4, 2008. This amendment placed into the State’s constitution, as Article 30,

10 Section 1, the m andate of Arizona’s statutes providi ng that sam e-sex couple s m ay not

11 enter into a civil ma rriage in the State and that the State may not honor the lawful

12 marriages same-sex couples celebrate in other jurisdictions.

13 C. The State’s Exclusion of Same-Sex Couples from Marriage Inflicts

14

Profound Harms on Plaintiffs.

15

41. Barring same-sex couples from marriage disqualifies them from the simple,

16 direct rout e through whic h diff erent-sex co uples access critically important rights and

17 responsibilities that allow them to secure their commitment to each other and to safeguard

18 their families. As to many of these right s and responsibilities, marriage is th e only access

19 route; as to others, marriage is far simpler and less expensive than other options. By way

20 of example only, same-sex couples are denied the ability offered to different-sex couples

21 through marriage:

22

a. To solem nize their relationships t hrough a st ate-sanctioned

23

ceremony. See A.R.S. § 25- 111. The deni al of state sanction or

24

recognition deprives same-sex co uples of important legal protections

25

that automatically come with state-sanctioned marriage.

26

b. To safegua rd fam ily resources under an array of laws that protect

27

spousal finances, includi ng, for ex ample, the exem ption of taxes on

28

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-10-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 11 of 42

1

the propert y of widows and wi dowers. See Id. § 42-11111; Ariz .

2

Const. art. 9, §§ 2-2.3.

3

c. To secure legal recognition for parent-child b onds through the

4

mechanisms afforded to spouses, including joint adopti on, A. R.S.

5

§ 8-103(A); adoption of a spouse’s child as a stepparent, see, e.g., id.

6

§ 8-105(N)(1); and t he presum ption of pare ntage for c hildren bor n

7

into a marriage, id. § 25-814(A)(1).

8

d. To receive benefits for families of veterans of the armed forces who

9

have made some of the greatest sa crifices for our country, including

10

educational benefits, id. § 15-1808.

11

e. To make caretaking decisions in tim es of death or disaster, includi ng

12

priority to m ake m edical decisi ons for an incapacitated spous e,

13

A.R.S. § 36-3231; and the aut omatic right and priority to make

14

anatomical gifts of a decedent’s body, id. § 36-848(A)(2).

15

f. To inherit under the laws of intestacy, id. § 14-2102; and rights in the

16

family residence pending final determinatio n of the estate, id. § 14-

17

2402.

18

g. In the event that a couple separates, to access an orderly dissoluti on

19

process for term inating the relations hip a nd assuring an e quitable

20

division of the couple’s assets and debts. See id. §§ 25-301 - 381.01.

21

h. To assume a range of important responsibilities that, like rights,

22

enhance the dignity a nd inte grity of the person. As one exam ple,

23

same-sex couples are denied th e ability to be made formally

24

accountable to each other through obligations of spousal support, id.

25

§ 25-319, and child support, id. § 25-320.

26

i. To assert the pri vilege not to testify against one another as to m atters

27

protected by spousal privilege. See id. § 13-4062(1).

28

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-11-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 12 of 42

1

j. To access a host of federal rights and responsibilities that span the

2

entire United States Code and the wh ole realm of federal regulations.

3

Unmarried couples are denied recognition for most pur poses

4

throughout the m ore than 1, 000 provisions of federal law relating t o

5

marriage, including laws and re gulations pertaining t o S ocial

6

Security, housing, immigration, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright,

7

and veterans’ benefits. Sam e-sex couples validly married in anot her

8

jurisdiction and living in the Stat e are likely to qualify for many

9

federal benefits and pr otections, but to be de nied others, such as

10

Social Security survivor benefits and prot ections under the Fam ily

11

Medical Leave Act. These depriv ations ca n drain fa mily econom ic

12

resources, causing financial harm not only to same-sex couples but to

13

their children and other dependents as well. In addition, some same-

14

sex couples are unable to travel out of state to marry due to, for

15

example, illness or other physical limitations, child care or other

16

family responsi bilities, or cost. Moreover, many same-sex coupl es

17

wish to marry at home in Arizona , in the company of family and

18

friends, who may not be able to travel out of state to attend a wedding

19

for financial or other reasons.

20

42. In addition to the tangib le harm s listed above, Plai ntiffs are denied the

21 unique social recognition that marriage conveys. Without ac cess to the familiar language

22 and legal label of m arriage, Plaintiffs are una ble instantly or adequa tely to communicate

23 to others t he de pth a nd perm anence of the ir commitment, or to obtain res pect for that

24 commitment as others do simply by invoking their married status.

25

43. The s ubstantive and dignitary inequ ities imposed on committed same-sex

26 couples include particular harms to same-sex couples’ children, who are equally deserving

27 of the stability, permanence, social recognition, and financial supports that are enjoyed by

28 children of different-sex couples who marry. Civil marriage a ffords official sanctuary to

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-12-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 13 of 42

1 the family unit, offering parent s and children critical means to secure parent-child legal

2 bonds, and a f amiliar, public way of demonstr ating those bonds to third parties. By

3 denying same-sex couples m arriage, the State re inforces the view held by som e that the

4 family ties binding sam e-sex parents and thei r children are less consequential, enduring,

5 and meaningful than those of dif ferent-sex parents and their children. Same-sex couples

6 and their children accordingly must live with the vulnerab ility and stress inflicted by a

7 lack of access to the same mechanisms for s ecuring their legal relationships, and the ever-

8 present possibility that others may question their familial re lationships—in social, legal,

9 educational, and m edical settings and i n m oments of crisis—in ways that spouses can

10 avoid by simple reference to being married.

11

44. Children fr om a young age unde rstand that marriage signi fies an enduring

12 family unit, and likewise understand whe n the State has deemed a class of families less

13 worthy than other families, undeserving of marri age, and not entitled to the same societal

14 recognition and support as other families. The State has no ad equate interest to justi fy

15 marking the children of same-sex couples, in cluding the children of Plaintiffs, with a

16 badge of inferiority that often invites disrespect in school, on the playground, and in many

17 other spheres of their lives.

18

45. The government is a powerful teacher of discrim ination to ot hers. By

19 decreeing t hat the rela tionships of sam e-sex couples shoul d be ignore d in the State and

20 enforcing that policy, the Stat e and Defendants instruct all persons with whom same-sex

21 couples interact, including thos e couples’ own children, that their relationships are less

22 worthy than others. Bearing the imprimatur of the government, the State’s marriage b an,

23 and Defendants’ enforcement of it, com municates a view that same-sex couples and their

24 children are unfit for the dignity, respect, and stature afforded to different-sex couples and

25 their children, and this encourages others to follow the govern ment’s example in

26 discriminating against same-sex couples, their children, and all lesbian and gay people.

27

46. Many private entities defer to the St ate’s and Defendants’ conferral of

28 marital status in defining “fam ily” for pur poses of an array of importa nt benefits, often

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-13-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 14 of 42

1 resulting in the exclusion of sam e-sex coupl es and their children from im portant safety

2 nets such a s private em ployer-provided health insurance for family members. T he State

3 and Defendants also encourage disrespect of committed same-sex couples and their

4 children by others in wor kplaces, schools, busi nesses, and other m ajor arenas of life, in

5 ways that would be l ess likel y to occ ur and m ore readily corrected if marriage were

6 available to same-sex couples.

7

D. Plaintiffs are Similarly Situated to Different-Sex Couples in All

Relevant Respects and are Injured By The State’s Denial to Them of

8

the Freedom to Marry.

9

47. Plaintiffs are loving a nd devoted same-sex couples who have ple dged their

10 commitment to love, cherish, and care for one another, but the State denies them the

11 ability to make the binding le gal commitments to each other that spouses do through civil

12 marriage.

13

Plaintiffs Nelda Majors and Karen Bailey

14

48. Plaintiffs Nelda Majors, age 75, and Karen Bailey, age 74, are a lesbian

15 couple residing in Scottsdale, Arizona. Neld a and Karen m et in college in Texas in 1957

16 and they have been in a loving, committed re lationship for fifty-six years. Nelda ran a

17 successful physical therapy business in Ho uston for m any years and Karen wor ked f or

18 Nelda’s company. They retired in the 1990’s and moved from Texas to Arizona in 2005.

19

49. When Nelda and Kare n bega n their rela tionship in the late 1950s they did

20 not dream that they m ight som eday identi fy ope nly as a coupl e. They worried about

21 facing the discrimination and hos tility commonly directed towards lesbians and gay men,

22 and they kept their relationshi p a secret from their friends, family, and co-workers for a

23 long time. Karen worked for an oil com pany in H ouston for 13 years and she pretende d

24 that she had a boyfriend. Although Nelda and Karen have bee n in a loving, com mitted

25 relationship for decades, they only told their friends and family about their relationship six

26 years ago, shortly after their 50th anniversary.

27

50. Nelda and Karen are proud pare nts to Karen’s great grand- nieces, Sharla,

28 age 21, and Marissa, age 15. Nelda and Karen raised the girls since Sharla was four and

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-14-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 15 of 42

1 Marissa was three. The girls’ mother, Karen’ s great-niece, had substance abuse problems

2 and was not provi ding a safe living environm ent for the girls. Sharla’s father was going

3 through di fficult life circum stances and Mari ssa’s father also had subst ance abuse

4 problems and a bandoned her. Ne lda and Karen raised the two girls as if th ey were the

5 couple’s own daughte rs. In 200 8, they finally told Sharla and Marissa that they are ga y

6 and a couple. Both girls expressed their en thusiastic support and happiness for them.

7 They told Nelda and Karen that they are the “best moms in the whole world.”

8

51. As women in their m id-70s, Nelda and Karen worry that one or the other of

9 them will be turned aw ay by hospital staff and prevented from being th ere for the other if

10 either becomes ill and is hospita lized. Once in H ouston, Texas, in the late 1990s, Nelda

11 was in the hospital having surgery and Karen was asked to leave by an anesthesiologist

12 even though she had proper legal documents establishing her right to be there. They fear

13 that som ething sim ilar could ha ppen agai n. Nelda and Karen belie ve that the State’s

14 refusal to allow sam e-sex coupl es to marry fosters stigm a and disrespect for sam e-sex

15 couples. They w ould be m ore secure if th eir relationship was respected and recognized

16 like other couples’ relationships, and believe it would make a significant difference if they

17 could tell hos pital staff that th ey are marri ed. Having always to bring their legal

18 documents to the hospital is demeaning because different- sex couples do not have to

19 present legal documents attesting to their relationship to accompany each other to the

20 hospital.

21

52. Nelda and Karen also want to get m arried as further evid ence of the family

22 ties between Nelda and Marissa. Karen is a court-appointe d legal guardia n for bot h

23 Sharla and Marissa, b ut Nelda has no legal re lationship to them. Nelda and Karen fear

24 that if something were to happ en to Karen, other relatives might be in a stronger position

25 than Nelda to seek ap pointment as guardian for Marissa, w ho is only fifteen years old. I f

26 they were married, Nelda and Karen’s status woul d help c onfirm for the court t hat

27 Marissa would have greater stability and support if Nelda were appointed as her guardian.

28

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-15-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 16 of 42

1

53. Nelda and Karen are recipients of Soci al Security and if the State allowed

2 them to marry, they bot h w ould become eligible for a Soci al Security surviving spous e

3 benefit in the event that either of them were to pass away. Under current federal law and

4 agency pra ctice, such benefits require that the married couple’s state of residence

5 recognizes their marriage.

6

54. Nelda and Karen want to marry each other. They have been together longer

7 than most couples, regardless of sexual orienta tion, and they have a large circle of friends

8 with whom they share social time and community activities. The opportunity to marry is

9 important not just to them, but also to thei r daughters and many friends. After so many

10 years of building a life and social network t ogether, the couple w ishes to marry at hom e,

11 in Arizona, so they can have a big celebrati on in whic h their dau ghters and friends can

12 participate.

13

Plaintiffs David Larance and Kevin Patterson

14

55. Plaintiffs David Larance, age 35, an d Kevin Patterson, age 30, are a gay

15 male couple residing in Phoenix, Arizona. David is a Training Manager and specializes in

16 training fa culty in or ganizational developm ent and diversity at Western International

17 University. Kevin is a Director of Exec utive Developm ent and trains m anagers for a

18 hospital. Both David and Kevin are pursuing their doctorates in education.

19

56. David and Kevi n ha ve been in a lovi ng, c ommitted relationship f or seven

20 years. They met when they both wor ked for Apollo Grou p. Davi d and Kevin we re

21 friends and got to know each other after they went bowling with a group of friends. David

22 jokes that Kevi n fell in love wit h him whe n he saw what a great bowler he is. David

23 invited Kevin to see a m ovie with him and his friends. None of the other friends showe d

24 up, so they saw the movie together. They both were unimpressed by the movie they saw,

25 “Fantastic 4: The Rise of the Silver Surfer,” but they were impressed with each other and

26 started dating. The y have been t ogether ever since. David and K evin pledged their love

27 and commitment to each other in a commitment ceremony in 20 09, with a big celebration

28 attended by many friends and family.

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-16-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 17 of 42

1

57. In May 2013, Davi d and Kevin welcomed two little girls, ages four and

2 seven, into their family through adoption. Although they are a couple, they were told that

3 only one of them would be perm itted to adopt the girls. Kevin became the girls’ leg al

4 father. David also wa nted to adopt the girls, but he was to ld the S tate would not perm it

5 the men to adopt the girl s jointly. Thus, although he is a father in practical and emotional

6 terms, David has no l egal parent al rights or responsibilities with respect to either of hi s

7 daughters-in-fact. He fears that if something were to happen t o Kevi n, his role as the

8 girls’ other father would be vulnerable to challenges by others, such as the girls’ existing-

9 but-absent blood relatives. W ithout pare ntal rights, Davi d cannot m ake m edical and

10 educational decisions for the girls and, if something ha ppened to Kevi n, the girls agai n

11 would be legally adrift, as David would not have the right to retain their custody. If David

12 and Kevin could marry in Arizona, David would be able to petition to adopt the girls as a

13 stepparent. As it is, the vulnerability of David’ s legal status as a pa rent to the couple’s

14 two daughters is a source of ongoing stress and anxiety for both men.

15

Plaintiffs Michelle Teichner and Barbara Morrissey

16

58. Michelle “Mish” Teichner, age 49, an d Barbara “Barb” Morrissey, age 59,

17 are a lesbian couple residing in P hoenix, Arizona. Mish and Barb m et at a support gr oup

18 meeting in 2004. One day after a m eeting, Mish’s car broke dow n and Barb gave her a

19 ride home. They have been together as a couple ever since. Mish and Barb have been in

20 a loving, committed relationship for more than ten years and share all their finances. In

21 2006 the y had a religious co mmitment ceremony that their fri ends and fam ily attende d.

22 They were legally married in New York on July 23, 2013.

23

59. Mish formerly worked as a high school m ath teacher, tutor, and librarian

24 and Barb previ ously taught sp ecial education as wel l as after-school tut oring. Mis h

25 stopped w orking w hen she started ha ving seri ous ki dney pr oblems in June 2012. Ba rb

26 stopped working the same year so that she could take care of Mish.

27

60. Mish and Barb both have ongoi ng he alth problem s and their pa rtnership

28 involves significant caretaking of each other. Barb has diabetes and struggles with obesity

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-17-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 18 of 42

1 and mobility issues. Mish ha s high cholesterol a nd high blood pressure . In 1994, Mish

2 experienced kidney failure and underwent a kidney transplant. She has been hospitalized

3 multiple times over the years for various hea lth problems. Recen tly, in January 2014,

4 Mish underwent a second ki dney transplant a nd then was hospitalized again shortly after

5 having been released from surgery.

6

61. Mish and Barb’s gre atest fear is be ing prevented from seeing each ot her if

7 one of them is hospitalized. Being able to care for each other in a medical emergency is

8 of primary concern to them especially becaus e Mish’s health is pr ecarious. Mish needs

9 Barb to advocate for her when she is incapacitated. Mi sh worries constantly that

10 something may happen to her and Barb will be kept from her side. In fact, Barb has been

11 prevented by hospital staff in the State from being with Mish on multiple occasions

12 because the staff did not consider Barb to be a legally recognized family member to Mish.

13

62. For example, seven years ago, Mish wa s in a hospital in Peoria and hospital

14 staff prevented Barb from seeing her even though she was carrying proper legal

15 documents. A hospital staff me mber told her, “You’re not a family memb er, you can’t

16 come in.” Barb was not allo wed to receive any information about Mish’s condition. This

17 situation was immensely stressful and distressing for both Barb and Mish . Then again, in

18 2012, Barb accompanied Mish to an eye doctor appointment, and the eye doctor looked at

19 Barb and a sked, “What are you, her house keeper?” Barb again experienced difficulty

20 seeing Mish in the hospital as recently as January 2014. Wh ile Mish was recovering at

21 the hospital after her kidney trans plant surgery, Barb asked a nurse to take her to Mis h’s

22 room to vis it. The nurse told her that they only allow immediate family members in the

23 room. Barb said that she had legal docum ents and the nurse said, “That doe sn’t matter,

24 but I’ll try to sneak you in anyway.”

25

63. Given the distressing experiences that they have ha d with m edical staff,

26 Mish and Barb want to marry at least in part so they will put an end to the confusion,

27 disrespect, and hostility from medical professi onals. Their personal experiences confirm

28 that the State’s refusal to recogni ze the marriages of same-sex couples perpetuates stigma

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-18-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 19 of 42

1 towards lesbian and gay couples and encourages disrespect towards them. Having always

2 to bring their documents to the hospital with them is demeaning to Mish and Barb because

3 different-sex couples do not ha ve to present s uch documents to accompany each other in

4 the hospital. If same-sex co uples’ marriages from other states were recognized in

5 Arizona, hospital staff would be required to respect Barb and Mish’s marriage.

6

64. Mish and Barb are active in their co mmunity. The y have vol unteered for

7 Aunt Rita’ s Foundation, t he H IV AID S Awarenes s Foundation, a nd One Voic e

8 community center, and they are active in their local church. They also sing in the Phoenix

9 Women’s Chorus, love to go dancing, and have three dogs. They strongly wish for an end

10 to the anti-gay message and social stigma im posed by Arizona’s laws denying lesbian and

11 gay couples the opportunity to marry in this state, and forbidding recogni tion of the

12 marriages they validly celebrate elsewhere.

13

Plaintiffs Kathy Young and Jessica Young

14

65. Plaintiffs Kathy Y oung, a ge 41, and Jessica “Jess” Young, age 29, are a

15 lesbian couple residing in P hoenix, Arizona. Kathy is Vice President of the yout h market

16 for the American Heart Association and Jess is a senior customer service rep resentative

17 with Blue Cross Blue Shield. Their daily lives revolve around their 7-year old son, Ian.

18

66. Kathy and Jess have been in a loving , committed relationship for almost ten

19 years. Kathy first met Jess when she owne d a martial arts stu dio where Jess was a

20 taekwondo student and em ployee. Both w omen have achieved the black belt level in

21 taekwondo. After bei ng friends for five ye ars, Kathy and Jess starte d dating in 2004. In

22 2005 they pledged their love and com mitment to each other in a large commitment

23 ceremony attended by friends and family. In 2009, on their anniversary, they registered as

24 domestic partners in Phoenix. On June 11, 2013, they married in New York.

25

67. Kathy and Jess have a particul ar se nse of urge ncy about havi ng their

26 marriage recognized fo r the sake of their son. Kat hy and Jess have expe rienced and

27 continue t o experienc e stress and conf usion in identifying to others that they both are

28 parents to Ian becaus e school f orms only r ecognize different-sex married parents. For

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-19-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 20 of 42

1 example, Kathy is listed as an em ergency contact on Ian’s school f orms, but not as a

2 parent. All of Ian’s school fo rms state that Ian is being ra ised by a single-pare nt, despite

3 the fact that Ian actually has two parents—his two mothers.

4

68. Kathy and Jess planned for their son togethe r and Jess gave birt h to him .

5 Although Kathy has been an active parent to him his entire life, their parent-child

6 relationship has no legal recognition or support in Arizona. And, although Jess and Kathy

7 lawfully married outside Arizona, the fact th at the State does not recognize their marriag e

8 precludes Kathy from securing her parent-child relationship with Ian through a stepparent

9 adoption.

10

69. Jess has been hospitalized for mental he alth issues on multiple occasions in

11 the past, and som etimes has had to remain in the hospital for as long as a week. Kathy

12 and Jess worry that if Jess ever has to be ho spitalized again in the future, Kathy will not

13 have any legal authorit y to take care of Ia n and m ake educational and medical decisions

14 for him. If the State recognized Kathy and Jess’s mar riage as it would a di fferent-sex

15 couple’s marriage, then parentage presum ptions woul d apply and, if the couple wished,

16 Kathy also coul d secure her parental role th rough adoption as Jess’s spouse. Currentl y,

17 same-sex couples are ineligible for stepparent adoption in Arizona . Kathy and Jess want

18 the State to recognize their ma rriage so they can pursue the full range of legal protections

19 for their family and be secure in the knowledge that, if some thing were to happen to Jess,

20 Kathy would be able to function fully as a legal parent and as a recognized spouse.

21

Plaintiffs Kelli Olson and Jennifer Hoefle Olson

22

70. Kelli Olson, age 36, and Jennifer “Jen” Hoefle Olson, age 38, are a lesbian

23 couple residing in Tucson, Arizona. Kelli is an attorney and Jen is a Program Director of

24 a student center at the University of Arizona. Kelli and Jen met in 2004 through their best

25 friends who were dating each other. Although Kelli and Jen’s friends eventually broke

26 up, Kelli and Jen ended up pursuing their own relationship. They fell in love, bonding

27 over their love of yoga, intellectual conversa tions, dogs, laughte r, and silly jokes. O n

28 December 31, 2009, they pledged their love and commitment to each other in a ceremo ny

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-20-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 21 of 42

1 attended by m any friends a nd family. From that day on, New Y ear’s Eve would al ways

2 be their anniversary.

3

71. Kelli and Jen’s close relationships with their families led them to want to

4 start their own family. In 2012, they became the proud parents of two fraternal twin girls,

5 E. and S. On August 7, 20 13, Kelli and Jen married in Minn esota in a ceremony attended

6 by their two daughters.

7

72. Jen is the birth mother of the twins. Although Jen and Kelli planned for

8 their daughters together, Kelli has no legal pare ntal rights. Consequently, Kelli carrie s

9 power of attorney forms confirming her right to take certain actions for the girls. But, she

10 fears what could happen if there is an emergency or if something happens to Jen and Kelli

11 does not have her documents, or someone refu ses to honor them, just when Kelli needs to

12 act on behalf of one or both of her daughters.

13

73. The twins have health insurance th rough Jen’s employe r, and Kelli worries

14 that in some medical settings, she will be questioned about her relationship to the girls and

15 not recognized as their parent. For example, when one of the girls had a sim ple skin rash,

16 Kelli and J en decided that Jen, not Kelli, shoul d be the one t o take their daughter to t he

17 hospital because Kelli could not go alone if they wanted to get prompt care for their

18 daughter. Kelli fears that she may not be able to claim the twins as dependents for health

19 insurance purposes if such insurance is need ed and she is working for an employer that

20 only provides insurance for family members recognized as such under state law.

21

74. Kelli and Jen fear that as the girls gr ow older and eventually start attending

22 school, Kelli’s lack of parental rights will cause yet more co nfusion and problems.

23 Without parental rights, Kelli does not have the ability to make medical and educational

24 decisions for the girls. Moreover, if someth ing happens to Jen, th ere will be no one with

25 the legal right to come forward to protect the couple’s children. If Kelli and Jen’s

26 marriage were recognized in Arizona, Kelli would be r ecognized as a legal parent of bot h

27 girls due to parentage presumptions. She also would be able to formalize her relationship

28 with each of the girls through stepparent adoption.

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-21-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 22 of 42

1

75. Kelli and Jen’s twins call Jen “Mommy ” and Kelli “Mamma.” The girls

2 were present at Kelli and Jen’s wedding and clearly understand that Kelli and Jen are

3 married. It pains Kelli and Jen to think that their daughters ar e growing up in a state that

4 does not respect or recognize their lawful marri age. They worry that as their twins grow

5 older, they will feel distress and confusion wh en they realize that their image of their

6 mothers as being in a loving, binding m arriage does not match the State’s official

7 disregard for their mothers’ marital status.

8

Plaintiffs Kent Burbank and Vicente Talanquer

9

76. Plaintiffs Kent Burbank, age 45, an d Vicente Talanquer, a ge 51, are a ga y

10 male coupl e living in Tucson, Arizona. Kent is the Direct or of the Victim Services

11 Division at the Pima County A ttorney’s office. Vicente is an Associate Professor in the

12 Department of C hemistry and Bi ochemistry at the University of Ar izona. Vicente is a

13 citizen of Mexico and Spain, and is a permanent legal resident of the United States.

14

77. Kent and Vicente have been a couple for almost twenty years. They met

15 while they were both studying at the University of Chic ago in 1994. Vicente was a

16 postdoctoral student and Kent was completing dual master’s degrees. They first met each

17 other at an LGBT s ocial club meeting but did not talk to ea ch other much there. Awhile

18 later, they ran into each other when they were both studying by a lake in Hyde Park on a

19 beautiful day in May. They began dating after their f ortuitous run-in at the park. Soon

20 after, they decided to build a life together. They lived in Mexi co City from 1997-1999

21 and then, in 2000, when Vicente received a j ob offer in Tucs on, they moved to Arizona.

22 They registered as dom estic partners afte r the Tucson Dom estic Partnership Ordina nce

23 became effective in December 2003, and married on June 30, 2013 in Iowa right after the

24 Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Windsor.

25

78. Kent and Vicente are loving fathers to two adopted sons, Daniel, age 12, and

26 Martín, age 14. Their sons spent their early years being shuffled among foster care homes

27 and were at risk of not being adopted because they were older children. Kent and Vicente

28 welcomed the boys into their home in 2008, w hen t hey were six and eight years old,

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-22-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 23 of 42

1 committed to providing them love, stability and a permanent family. Their sons ’

2 adoptions were finalized in 2009.

3

79. Although Kent and Vicente decided to adopt children together, went

4 through the lengthy and complicated adoption process together, and have raised their sons

5 together, they were not permitted to adopt th eir sons jointly because Arizona permits only

6 one person to adopt a child or children if a couple is unm arried. They understood that

7 Arizona law readily would permit them both to become legal parents of Martín and Daniel

8 if they could marry and have their marriage recognized in Arizona. But, Kent and Vicente

9 did not m arry in anot her jurisdiction beca use they knew their ma rriage would not be

10 honored in Arizona, i ncluding for purposes of jointly adopting their ch ildren. They were

11 forced to m ake the stressful, awkward de cision about which of them woul d be the sole

12 parent wit h legal right s, and by a decision a s arbitrary as a coin t oss, they decided that

13 Vicente would be the parent w ith legal rights. Kent has no legal rights or bi nding legal

14 responsibilities with respect to his sons.

15

80. Vicente and Kent married in Iowa right after the U.S. Supreme Court issued

16 its Windsor decision last year, with hopes that the decision w ould lead t o the legal

17 recognition of their marriage. Th ey were disappointed to learn that their marriage in fact

18 would not be respected by the State of Arizona, and that Kent’s path to legal parenthood

19 remains blocked.

20

81. Kent and Vicente share parenting res ponsibilities and everything they do as

21 parents is impacted by the fact that only one of them is a legal parent to their sons. Kent

22 feels chronic stress, anxiety and vulnerability because he is not legally recognized as a

23 parent to his children. Kent is the parent th at most frequently takes Martín and Daniel to

24 their doctors’ appointments and to school activitie s. Kent fears constantly t hat his status

25 as a parent will be que stioned by school and medical prof essionals. For example, he was

26 told by his sons’ school that he could not sign any parental-permission forms for activities

27 like field trips. Vicente and K ent even gave their sons the very long last name o f

28 “Burbank-Talanquer” so that there would be some acknowledgement of Kent’s tie to their

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-23-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 24 of 42

1 children. Whe n Kent travels with their sons to other count ries without Vi cente, he is

2 questioned for long periods of tim e by imm igration officials about his relationshi p to

3 Daniel and Martín. Vicente always has to wr ite letters that Kent brings with him that

4 explain Kent’s relationship to his own sons.

5

82. Kent and Vicente know that the ir ch ildren are vulnerable and unprotected

6 because only one of their parents has a leg al bond with them. If something were to

7 happen to Vicente, Daniel and Martín would receive social security benefits based on their

8 relationship with him, but Kent would be denied any social se curity benefits as Vicente’s

9 lawful spouse. And if something were to ha ppen to Kent, neither Vicente nor Martín and

10 Daniel would be eligi ble to receive the social security benefits to whic h they shoul d be

11 entitled as Kent’s hus band and sons, respectively. Similarly, if Vice nte were to lose his

12 job, Ke nt would not be able switch the couple’s sons onto his health insurance plan.

13 Martín and Daniel participated in Vicente a nd Kent’s marriage cerem ony last year. They

14 love, depend upon, and understand both men to be their fathers. It is extremely painful to

15 Kent that the State refuses to acknowledge his marri age and de prives him of t he right to

16 be recognized legally as a “forever father” to hi s sons. Kent sa ys that in the eyes of the

17 State, “I’m nothing to them.”

18

Plaintiffs C.J. Castro-Byrd and Jesús Castro-Byrd

19

83. Plaintiffs Clayton J ohn “C.J.” Castro-B yrd, age 23, and Jesús Castro-B yrd,

20 age 27, are a gay male couple residing in Tem pe, Arizona. C.J. is a m edical equipment

21 sales representative and Jesús works at a call ce nter for the public transit system. C.J. and

22 Jesús have associate’ s degrees. C.J. is completing a bachelor’s degree in business

23 management and hopes to com plete an MBA in health adm inistration. Jesús is earning a

24 second associate’s degree in interior design.

25

84. C.J. and Jesús have been in a lo ving, committed relations hip for two years.

26 In April 2012, they met each ot her through a dating website. When they first met, they

27 liked each other so much that they deleted their online pr ofiles the same day. They knew

28 right away that they were meant for each othe r and have been insepa rable ever since.

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-24-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 25 of 42

1 They enjoy spendi ng tim e outdoors and biki ng together, and are the proud owners of a

2 tandem bicycle. C.J. and Jesús got married in Seattle, Washington, C.J.’s home state, o n

3 December 14, 2012. They woul d have preferred to marry in Arizona, with friends and

4 family to share the speci al event. Instead, a year later on their anniversary, they hel d a

5 ceremony in Arizona that was attende d by their friends and family who had not been able

6 to travel to Seattle for th eir wedding. But that ceremony c onveyed no legal rights or

7 status under Arizona law.

8

85. Under federal law, however, C.J. a nd Jesús’ m arriage has ope ned up a

9 pathway for Jesús to appl y to becom e a pe rmanent resident. Jesús, who was bor n in

10 Sonora, México, immigrated to Arizona with his family in 2001 whe n he w as 14 year s

11 old. Jesús lived as an undoc umented immigrant in the United States for the years since

12 then. He obtaine d te mporary a uthorization to remain in the count ry and a work permit

13 after he successfully applied for deferred action under the DACA (“Deferred Action f or

14 Childhood Arrivals”) program, which was authorized by President Obama in 2012.

15

86. Even though he was granted defe rred action, Jesús still was not eligible to

16 adjust his status because a grant of deferre d action does not provide a path to lawful

17 permanent resident status or U.S. citizen ship. However, as a result of the Supreme

18 Court’s 2013 ruli ng s triking down the cor e pr ovision of the Defense of Marriage Act,

19 same-sex couples who are able to marry fina lly are eligible for many federal protections

20 and benefits available to hete rosexual spouses, including the right of a U.S. citizen to

21 sponsor a spouse to adjust status and remain in the United States. As a result of the

22 Windsor decision, Jesús was able to apply for a green card to remain with his husband just

23 like other immigrants married to U.S. citizens.

24

87. Jesús is particularly vul nerable a nd stigmatized as a gay formerly

25 undocumented immigrant living in Arizona. When Arizona ’s restrictive immigration bill,

26 SB 1070, was signed into law in 2010, Jesú s was undocumented. SB 1070’s passage and

27 the State’s subseque nt hars h treatment of immigrants made Jesús fe el targeted ,

28 stigmatized, and vul nerable as a Latino im migrant. He was cons tantly afraid that he and

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-25-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 26 of 42

1 his family would be stopped, harassed and deported. Ariz ona’s discriminatory marriage

2 law compounds the stigma and discrimination that Jesús has experienced as a gay Latino

3 man living in the state.

4

88. C.J. and Jesús would very m uch like to have children in the next two to

5 three years. They wor ry, however, about rais ing children in a state that does not respect

6 their marriage. They are concerned that th e State’s refusal to honor their marriage will

7 prevent them both from being legal parents to the children they hope to bring into their

8 family sometime soon.

9

89. In addition, since getting married, C.J. and Jesús are finding it confusing and

10 stressful to file their federal income tax retu rns as a married couple, and then to have to

11 file their separate state income tax returns as unmarried individuals. They are young a nd

12 in love and want their m arriage to be honored by the State to which they pa y taxes and in

13 which they make their home and are building their life together.

14

Plaintiff Patrick Ralph

15

90. Longtime Phoeni x residents, Patrick Ra lph, age 59, a nd Gary H urst, who

16 would be age 73, met and fell in love in 1974. Patrick a nd Gary were bot h working for

17 different airlines as sales representatives wh en they met at the An chorage International

18 Airport in Alaska. Patrick was at the airport dropping a friend off and he parked in Gary’s

19 reserved parking space. When Patrick returned to his car, he saw Gary standing in front

20 of his parking space looki ng very irate. Gary got over his anger at Patrick for parki ng in

21 his space, and the two men chatted and exchange d contact information. They then dated

22 for five months and decided they were meant for each other. Thus began a loving,

23 committed relationship that last ed thirty-nine year s. They divided their time between

24 Anchorage and Seattle, and after Gary retired th ey moved to Arizona in 1995. They first

25 built a house in Chandler and later moved to Phoenix.

26

91. In 2008, Gary suffered a massive brain bleed and became severely disabled.

27 He could not swallow or walk , had a trach placed in his throat and a pegline in his

28 stomach, and needed intensive physical therapy and care. Patrick became Gary’s full-time

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-26-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 27 of 42

1 caregiver and dedicated his life to taking care of him . He fed, bathed, a nd dressed Gary

2 every day, helped him use the bathroom, and took him to his medical appointments.

3

92. Later that same year, Gary was watchi ng the “Ellen” talk show a nd learned

4 that it had become legal for same -sex couples to marry in Calif ornia. Patrick recalls that

5 Gary said to him , “We should get married” and that he answered, “That’s impossible, w e

6 can’t get married.” G ary then said, “Yes we can. Ellen and Porti a are getting m arried.”

7 They traveled with Gary’s nurse, wheelch airs, and oxyge n tanks to P alm Springs,

8 California and m arried on October 31, 2008, afte r thirty-four year s of bei ng together and

9 just three weeks before California voter s passed P roposition 8, w hich t emporarily

10 prevented same-sex couples from marrying but did not affect the validity of Patrick and

11 Gary’s marriage.

12

93. On July 25, 2013, Gar y fell and broke his hip. He ha d an adverse reaction

13 to medication and suff ered respiratory failure. He was taken off life support and die d on

14 August 8, 2013.

15

94. Gary had been an army veteran and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

16 sent Patrick a bronze attachm ent for Gary’s headstone recognizing his service for the

17 country. During Gary’s funeral, a Color Gu ard unfolded the American flag and presented

18 it to Patrick, who was sitting next to Gary’s family, saying that it was, “In honor of Gary’s

19 service to the country and on behalf of the President.”

20

95. Patrick requested Gar y’s death cer tificate from the National Cremation

21 Society and asked to be listed as Gary’s husband. The clerk said that she would try listing

22 Patrick as Gary’s husband on his application for the death certificate. But, it was rejected

23 by the Maricopa County Office of Vital Records. When Patrick called the Office of Vital

24 Records to ask why hi s application had been rejected, he was told they could not list him

25 as Gary’s husband because Arizona does not recognize sa me-sex couples’ marriage s.

26 Patrick recalls that he said, “I’m not asking Arizona to re cognize sam e-sex m arriage. I

27 want Gary’s death certificate to show that I and t he man I was with for thirty-nine years

28 were married.” Patrick received a letter from the Arizona Department of Health Services

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-27-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 28 of 42

1 saying that the State coul d not honor his request to be liste d as Gary’s hus band on his

2 death certificate because the State does not recognize same-sex couples’ m arriages from

3 other states.

4

96. Patrick has been deva stated by the loss of his husba nd. The State’s refusal

5 to acknowledge his and Gary’s marriage on the State’s official record of the end of Gary’s

6 life expresses the State’s disrespect of this couple’s love and shared life together. It

7 officially negates their deep mutual commitment and exacerbates Patrick’s grief.

8

97. Moreover, because Arizona refuses to recognize Gary and Patrick’s

9 marriage on Gary’s death certificate and in othe r records, the emotional injury to Patrick

10 is com pounded by the fact that he is not eligible to rece ive Social Security surviving

11 spouse’s benefits based on Ga ry’s Social Security pe nsion rights under current federal

12 agency policy and practice because eligibility depends on the law of the decedent’s

13 domicile.

14

Plaintiff Josefina Ahumada

15

98. Josefina Ahumada, age 68, was married to her beloved wi fe Helen Battiste,

16 who would be 77 i n June of this year, for 20 years. Josefina is a social worker and Helen

17 worked as a registered nurse for fifty year s. The two women me t in 1991 when Helen

18 moved i nto an a dobe house in Josefina’s neighborhood. Jose fina adm ired Helen’s

19 beautiful garden and asked fo r garde ning t ips. Helen explaine d that she had taken a

20 gardening class and gave Josefina the name and contact information of her instructor, and

21 also slipped in her ow n phone num ber. Hele n and Jose fina developed a warm friendship

22 that evolved into a loving, committed relationship. They enjoyed going on long walks and

23 bike rides together, and were intensely involved in their Presbyterian church. They shared

24 a home in Tucs on for twenty ye ars. Toget her with H elen’s grown son Jack, they wer e a

25 tight-knit family. In all their years together they never had one bitter argument.

26

99. Josefina and Helen pledge d their lif elong com mitment to each other in a

27 religious commitment ceremony in July 1994. On October 22, 2013, they celebrated their

28

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-28-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 29 of 42

1 beautiful relationship by marrying legally in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The pastor from

2 their church in Tucson flew to New Mexico to attend and officiate their wedding.

3

100. In January 2014, Hele n had heart surgery. To show love and support for

4 Helen, Josefina arran ged for their church’s choir to come to the hospital and sing for

5 Helen in her room in the Intensive Care Un it after the surgery. Ten days after the

6 operation, Helen passed away on January 31, 2014. Josefina was heartbroken.

7

101. Helen’s memorial service at the church was packe d full of m embers of the

8 community that love d and supporte d the co uple. Family members, friends, nurses,

9 neighbors, churc h m embers, and social work ers all came to pay respect to Helen and

10 express condolences to Josefina.

11

102. The f uneral director spoke t o Jos efina about Helen’s death certificate. He

12 was from California and he said he was not sure whether Josefina could legally apply for a

13 death certificate as Helen’s wife. He sugges ted that Jack also subm it an application in

14 case Josefina’s application was rejected beca use Helen’s son’s s tatus as a recognized

15 family member was not in doubt. Josefina subsequently was informed that her application

16 indeed had been rejected becaus e the State would not recognize her m arriage to Helen.

17 Upon learning this, Josefina w as in a state of shoc k and trem endous grief. It was

18 incredibly painful for her to hear that her application for a death certificate for her wife

19 was rejected because their relationship was not recognized. She described the rejection as

20 “an official negation” of w hat was m ost important to her. Josefina and Hele n had been

21 committed to each other for 20 years, and

it seemed as if the State’s official

22 pronouncement was that their relationship had been worth nothing.

23

103. Moreover, because Arizona refuses to acknowle dge Josefina and Helen’ s

24 marriage on Helen’s death certificate and in ot her records, Josefina is ineligible under

25 current federal law to receive a Social Secu rity death benefit and sur viving spouse’s

26 pension benefits based on Helen’s Social Security pension account.

27

28

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-29-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 30 of 42

1

E. The State’s Exclusion of Same-Sex Couples from Marriage is Not Even

2

Rationally Related to a Legitimate Governmental Purpose, Let Alone Substantially Related to an Important Government Purpose or Narrowly

3

Tailored to a Compelling Governmental Purpose.

4

104. No legitimate, let alo ne important or co mpelling, interest exists to exclude

5 same-sex couples from the historic and highl y venerated institution of marriage. An

6 individual’s capacity to establish a loving and enduring relationship does not depend upon

7 that person’s sexual orientation or sex in rel ation t o his or her life partner, nor is there

8 even a legitimate interest in justifying same-sex couples’ exclusion from marriage and the

9 spousal protections it provides on such bases.

10

105. Neither history nor tradition can legally justify the State’s discriminatory

11 exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. Marriage has remained vital and enduring

12 because of, not despite, its re siliency in response to a dynamic society, for example as

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

14 The State is not confined to historic notions of equality, and no excuse for the State’s

15 discriminatory restriction can be found in the pedigree of such discrimination.

16

106. As the Supreme Court has made clear, the law cannot, directly or indirectly,

17 give effect to private biases. Liberty an d equality, not moral disa pproval, must be the

18 guiding framework for a state’s treatment of its citizens.

19

107. Excluding sam e-sex couples from m arriage does nothi ng to protect or

20 enhance the rights of different-sex couples. Different-sex spouses will continue to enjoy

21 the same rights and status conferred by m arriage regardless of whether same-sex couples

22 may m arry, unim paired by the acknowle dgment that this freedom belongs equally to

23 lesbians and gay men.

24

108. Although the State has a valid interest in protecting the public fisc, it may

25 not pursue that interest by m aking invi dious distinctions be tween classes of its citizens

26 without adequate justification. Moreover , the State not onl y lacks any such fiscal

27 justification but rather would generate additional revenues by allowing same-sex couples

28 to marry and be recognized as married.

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-30-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 31 of 42

1

109. The State’s interest in ch ild welfare is affirmativ ely harmed rather than

2 furthered by the e xclusion of sam e-sex couples from m arriage. That e xclusion inj ures

3 same-sex couples’ children without offering any conceivable benefit to other children.

4

110. Barring same-sex couples from marriage does not affect which couples raise

5 children together. Many same-sex couples in Arizona can and do bear children through

6 medically assisted reproductio n in wa ys available to bot h sam e-sex and different -sex

7 couples. Same-sex co uples also bring childre n into their families th rough foster care and

8 adoption. Marriage has never been the provinc e solely of couples who are, who seek to

9 be, or who are capable of bec oming parents. Neither Arizona nor any other state in this

10 country has ever restricted marriage to those capable of, or intending to, procreate.

11

111. There is no valid basis for Arizona to assert a preference for parenting by

12 different-sex couples over same-sex couples. Based on m ore than 30 years of research,

13 the scientific community has reached an emphatic consensus that children raised by same-

14 sex couple s are just as well-adjusted as ch ildren raised by different -sex couples. This

15 consensus has been recogni zed by e very m ajor prof essional or ganization dedicated t o

16 children’s health and welfar e including the American Ac ademy of Pe diatrics, the

17 American Psychological Associ ation, the American Medica l Association, the National

18 Association of Social Workers, and the Child Welfare League of America.

19

112. Other courts have found, after considering expert testimony, that there is no

20 rational basis for favoring parent ing by hete rosexual couples over parenting by gay a nd

21 lesbian couples. See, e.g., Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 980 (N.D. Cal.

22 2010) (finding that the research supporting the conclusion that “[c]hildren raised by gay or

23 lesbian parents are as likely as children rais ed by he terosexual pare nts to be healthy,

24 successful and well-adjusted” is “accep ted beyond serious debate in the field of

25 developmental psychology”), aff’d sub nom. Perry v. Brow n, 671 F.3d 1052 ( 9th Ci r.

26 2012), vacated f or lack of standing sub nom. Hollingsworth v. Perry , 133 S. Ct. 2652

27 (2013); In re Adoption of Doe , 2008 W L 5006172, at *20 (F la. Cir. Ct. Nov. 25, 2008)

28 (“[B]ased on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-31-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 32 of 42

1 that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best

2 interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption.”), Fla. Dep’t

3 of Children & Families v. Adoption of X.X.G. , 45 S o. 3d 79 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010) ;

4 Howard v. Child Welfar e Agency Review Bd. , Nos. 1999-9881, 2004 W L 3154530, at *9

5 and 2004 WL 3200916, at *3 -4 (Ark. Cir. Ct. Dec. 29, 20 04) (holding based on factual

6 findings re garding t he well-being of c hildren of ga y parents that “there was no rational

7 relationship between the [exclu sion of gay people from becoming foster parents] and the

8 health, safety, and welfare of the foster children.”), aff’d sub nom. Dep’t of Human Servs.

9 v. Howard, 238 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. 2006).

10

113. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage harms their children, including

11 by branding their families as inferior and less deserving of respect, and by encouraging

12 private bias and discrimination. Denying same-sex couples the equal dignity and status of

13 marriage humiliates the children now being rais ed by same-sex couples, and makes it

14 more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their ow n

15 family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.

16

114. Excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage will not make the children

17 of different-sex spous es more secure. Diff erent-sex spouses’ children will continue t o

18 enjoy the benefits that flow from their parent s’ marriage regardless of whether same-sex

19 couples are permitted to marry. The marri age ban has no conceivable effect on th e

20 choices dif ferent-sex couples m ake about su ch prof ound issues as whether to marry,

21 whether to have children, and whether to raise their children within marriage.

22

115. The State’s interest in the welfare of children raised by s ame-sex couples is

23 as great as its interest in the welfare of any other children. The family security that comes

24 from the State’s official recognition a nd support is no less important for same-sex parents

25 and their children than it is for different-sex parents and their children.

26

27

28

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-32-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 33 of 42

1

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

Equal Protection on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Sex

3

U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

4

116. Plaintiffs incorporate by referenc e and r eallege paragraphs 1 to 115 of t his

5 complaint.

6

117. Plaintiffs state this cause of action against Defendants in their official

7 capacities for purposes of seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

8

118. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Un ited States Constitution, enforceable

9 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, pr ovides that no state shall deny t o any pers on t he equal

10 protection of the laws. Defenda nts’ conduct violates Plaintiffs’ r ight to equal protection

11 of the laws, and specifically Plaintiffs’ right not to be denied equal protection on the basis

12 of sexual orientation or sex.

13

119. Article 30, § 1 of the Arizona Constitution, Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 25-

14 101(C) a nd 25-125( A), and all ot her sources of Arizona law that preclude m arriage of

15 same-sex couples or prevent in-state reco gnition of same-sex couples’ out-of-state

16 marriages violate the equal pr otection guar antee of the Fourteen th Amendment both

17 facially and as applied to Plaintiffs. More over, by ens hrining discrimination in the form

18 of a constitutional amendment, Arizona Constitution article 30, § 1, deprives lesbian and

19 gay Arizonans of equal protection of the la ws by l ocking them out of state and local

20 political processes an d making it uniquely more difficult to secure legislation on their

21 behalf. The conduct of Defenda nts in enforcing these laws violates the right of Plaintiffs

22 to equal protection by discriminating impermissibly on the basis of sexual orientation and

23 sex.

24

120. As the State’s Attorney General, Defendant Tom Horne’s enforcement

25 under color of state law of the State’s discriminatory m arriage ban—i ncluding t hose

26 actions taken purs uant to his responsibility to provide legal ad vice to state agencies

27 including Child Protective Services and concerning vital records, tax obligations, and state

28 employee benefits programs—violates Plainti ffs’ constitutional rights to equal treatment,

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-33-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 34 of 42

1 without re gard t o sexual orient ation or se x, under the F ourteenth Amendment to the

2 United States Constitution.

3

121. As the Di rector of t he De partment of Health Services and the State’s

4 Registrar of Vital Records, De fendant Will Humble’s ensuring , under color of state law,

5 compliance with the State’s di scriminatory marriage b an by, for example, not allowing

6 men to be listed as husbands on the death ce rtificates of m ale individuals, nor wom en to

7 be listed as wives on the death certificates of female individuals, and licensing health care

8 institutions that discriminate against same-sex couples, violates the constitutional rights of

9 Plaintiffs to equal treatment regardless of sexual orientation and sex.

10

122. As Clerk of the Super ior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, D efendant

11 Jeanes’s ensuring, under color of stat e l aw, compliance with the St ate’s discriminatory

12 marriage ban by, for exam ple, denying sam e-sex couples marriage licenses, violates the

13 constitutional right to equal treatment of the unmarried Plaintiffs.

14

123. The State’s m arriage ban and Def endants’ actions to enforce it deny same-

15 sex couples equal dignity and respect, and deprives their families of a critical safety net of

16 rights and responsibilities. The State’s marriage ban and Defendants’ actions to enforce it

17 reflect disappr oval, oppr obrium, calum ny, a nd antipathy toward le sbians and gay m en

18 based in particular notions of morality and tradition. The State’ s marriage ban brands

19 lesbians and ga y m en and their children as second-class citizens through a m essage of

20 government-imposed stigma and fosters privat e bias and discrim ination by instructing all

21 persons wi th w hom sam e-sex couples inter act, including t heir own c hildren, that their

22 relationship is less worthy than others.

23

124. Same-sex couples such as the plaintiff couples are id entical to different-sex

24 couples in all of the characte ristics relevant to marriage. S ame-sex co uples mak e th e

25 same commitment to one another as different -sex couples. Like different-sex couples,

26 same-sex couples fall in love, build their lives together, plan their futures together, and

27 hope to gr ow ol d together. Like different -sex couples, sa me-sex couples support one

28 another emotionally and fina ncially and take care of one anot her physically whe n faced

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-34-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 35 of 42

1 with injury or illness, as for example Plaintiff Barbara Morrissey did for her wife Michelle

2 Teichner w hen Mish had a ki dney transplant earlier this year, and as Plaintiff Patrick

3 Ralph did for his husband Gary Hurst during Gary’s lengthy illness.

4

125. Plaintiffs seek to marry for the sam e em otional, rom antic, and dignitary

5 reasons, and to provide the same legal shelter to their families, as different-sex spouses.

6

126. Like some different-sex couples, som e same-sex couples are parents raising

7 children together. Several of the Plaintiffs ar e raising children jointly with their same-sex

8 partners or unrec ognized spouses. Those Pla intiffs and their childr en are equa lly worthy

9 of the tangible rights and responsibilities, as well as the respect, dignity, and concrete

10 protections that access to marriage confers on different-sex coupl es and their children.

11 For t he m any c hildren bei ng ra ised by sa me-sex couples, the ta ngible re sources and

12 societal esteem that access to marriage confers is no less pr ecious than for children of

13 different-sex couples.

14

A. Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation.

15

127. The State’s marriage ban targets lesbia n and gay Arizona ns as a class for

16 exclusion from m arriage and dis criminates ag ainst each Plaintiff based on his or her

17 sexual orientation both facially and as applied.

18

128. The exclusion of Plaintiffs from marri age based on the ir sexual or ientation

19 subjects Defendants’ conduct to s trict or at least heightened scrutiny, which Defendants’

20 conduct cannot withstand beca use the exclusion does not even serve any legitimate

21 governmental interests, let al one any im portant or com pelling interests, nor does it serve

22 any such interests in an adequately tailored manner.

23

129. Lesbians a nd ga y m en ha ve s uffered a long a nd painf ul his tory of

24 discrimination in the State and across the United States.

25

130. Sexual orientation bears no relation to an individual’s ab ility to perform in

26 or contribute to society.

27

28

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-35-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 36 of 42

1

131. Sexual orientation is a core, defining trait that is so fundamental to one’s

2 identity and conscience that a person may not legitimately be required to abandon it (even

3 if that were possible) as a condition of obtaining equal treatment by the government.

4

132. Sexual orientation generally is fixed at an early age and highly resistant to

5 change through interv ention. No credible evidence supports the notion that su ch

6 interventions are either effec tive or safe; in deed, they ofte n are harm ful and dam aging.

7 No m ainstream m ental health professiona l organization approves interventions that

8 attempt to change sexual orient ation, and vi rtually all of them have adopte d poli cy

9 statements cautioning professionals and the public about these treatments.

10

133. Lesbians a nd ga y m en are a di screte and insular m inority, a nd ongoing

11 prejudice against them continues seriously to curtail the opera tion of those political

12 processes that might ordinar ily be relied upon to protect minorities. Gay people have

13 fewer civil rights protections at the state and federal level than racial minorities and

14 women had when race- and sex-based classifica tions were determined to be suspect a nd

15 quasi-suspect, respectively.

16

134. Lesbians and ga y m en lack expr ess statutory protection agains t

17 discrimination in em ployment, public acco mmodations, and hous ing at the federal level

18 and in more than half the states, including Arizona; are systematically underrepresented in

19 federal, state, and l ocal dem ocratic bodies ; have bee n strippe d of the ri ght to m arry

20 through 30 state constitutional amendments and are currently not perm itted to marry in a

21 total of 33 states; and have been targeted across the nation through the voter initiativ e

22 process more than any other group.

23

135. The se xual orientation classification in A rizona’s m arriage ban, w hich

24 permits heterosexual couples to marry and be recognized as ma rried, and excludes

25 Plaintiffs and other lesbian and gay couples from marriage, imposes inequality on lesbians

26 and gay men, sends a m essage of second-class status, and cannot survive the heightene d

27 scrutiny required for such classifications, or even any form of review, because it

28

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-36-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 37 of 42

1 perpetuates discrim ination and stigm a agains t lesbian and ga y indivi duals, couples and

2 their families without being justified by any legitimate purpose.

3

B. Discrimination Based on Sex.

4

136. The State’s marriage ban discriminates ag ainst Plaintiffs on the basis of sex,

5 both facially and as a pplied, barring Plaintiffs from marriage or from being recognized a s

6 validly married, solely because ea ch of the Plaintiffs wishes to marry a life partner of th e

7 same sex as themselves. The sex-based restri ction is plain on the face of the State’s laws,

8 which restrict marriage to “a union of one man and one woman,” and prohibit marriage or

9 recognition of a marriage from another jurisdiction validly entered by a “committed same-

10 sex couple.” Ariz. Const. art. 30, § 1.

11

137. Because of these sex-based classifica tions, Nelda Majors is precluded from

12 marrying the woman to w hom she is de voted because Nelda is a woman and not a m an;

13 were Nelda a m an, she coul d m arry Karen Ba iley. Similarly, Michelle Teichner is

14 precluded from having her marriage to Barbara Morrisse y recognized as valid becaus e

15 Mish is a wom an and not a m an; were Mish a man, her validly-ent ered marriage to Barb

16 would be recognized as such under Arizona law.

17

138. The State’s marriage ban also serves the impermissible purpose of enforcing

18 and per petuating sex stereot ypes by excluding Plaintif fs fro m marriage, or from being

19 recognized as validly married, because th ey have failed to c onform to sex-based

20 stereotypes that men should marry women, and women should marry men.

21

139. Given that there are no l onger legal distinctions between the duties of

22 husbands and wives in Arizona law, there is no basis for the sex-based eligibility

23 requirements for marriage in this state.

24

140. The e xclusion of Pla intiffs from m arriage based on their sex and the

25 enforcement of gender -based stereotypes cannot survive the heighten ed scrutiny required

26 for sex-based discrimination.

27

28

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-37-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 38 of 42

1

C. Discrimination With Respect to Fundamental Rights and Liberty

2

Interests Secured by the Due Process Clause.

3

141. The m arriage ba n discrim inates agai nst Plaintiffs based on sexual

4 orientation and se x wi th respec t to the exercise of the fu ndamental right to marry, and

5 their liberty interests in dignity, autonomy , and family integrity and association.

6 Differential treatment with respect to the exercise of fundam ental right s and liber ty

7 interests, based on Pla intiffs’ sexual orientat ion and sex, subjects Defenda nts’ conduct t o

8 strict or at least heightened scrutiny, which Defendants’ conduct cannot withstand.

9 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

10

Substantive Due Process

11

U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

12

142. Plaintiffs incorporate by referenc e and re allege paragraphs 1 to 141 of t his

13 complaint.

14

143. Plaintiffs state this cause of action against Defendants in their official

15 capacities for purposes of seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

16

144. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Un ited States Constitution, enforceable

17 pursuant to 42 U.S. C. § 1983, pr ovides that no state shall deprive any person of life,

18 liberty, or property without du e process of law (the “Due Process Clause”). The above-

19 described conduct by Defenda nts infringes upon P laintiffs’ fundam ental rights and

20 protected liberty interests, a nd in so doing violates their right not to be depri ved of

21 substantive due process.

22

145. The Due Process Clause has a substant ive component that protects against

23 government interference with fundam ental right s and protected liberty interests. Each

24 individual Plaintiff has a protected, fundam ental right and liberty interest in his or her

25 private intimate conduct and family relationshi p with his or her com mitted same-sex life

26 partner.

27

146. Arizona Constitution article 30, § 1, Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 25-101(C)

28 and 25-125(A), and all other sources of stat e law that preclude marriage for sa me-sex

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-38-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 39 of 42

1 couples or prevent recognition of their marriages violate the due process guarantee of the

2 Fourteenth Amendment both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs.

3

147. The right to marry the unique person of one’s choice and to direct the course

4 of one’s life in this intimate r ealm without undue government restriction is one of the

5 fundamental liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause. Defendants’ actions to

6 enforce the m arriage ban directly and im permissibly infringe Plaintiffs’ choice of whom

7 to marry, interfering with a core, life-altering, and intimate personal choice.

8

148. The Due Process Clause also protects choices central to personal dignity and

9 autonomy, including each individual’s rights to family integrity and associatio n.

10 Defendants’ actions to enf orce the m arriage ba n dir ectly and i mpermissibly infringe

11 Plaintiffs’ deeply i ntimate, personal, and pr ivate dec isions regarding fam ily life, and

12 preclude t hem from obtaining f ull liberty, di gnity, and security fo r themselves, their

13 family, and their parent-child bonds.

14

149. As the State’s Attorney General De fendant, Tom Horne’s enforcement,

15 under color of state law, of the State’s di scriminatory m arriage ban, including those

16 actions taken purs uant to his responsibility to provide legal ad vice to state agencies

17 including Child Protective Servic es and with respect to vital records, tax obligations, and

18 state employee benefits programs, violates th e Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry and

19 constitutional rights to liberty, dignity, autonom y, family integrity, association, and due

20 process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

21

150. As the Di rector of t he De partment of Health Services and the State’s

22 Registrar of Vital Records, De fendant Will Humble’s ensuring , under color of state law,

23 compliance with the State’s di scriminatory marriage b an by, for example, not allowing

24 men to be listed as husbands on the death ce rtificates of m ale individuals, nor wom en to

25 be listed as wives on the death certificates of female individuals, and licensing health care

26 institutions that discriminate against same

-sex couples, violates the Plaintiffs’

27 fundamental right to marry and constitutional ri ghts to liberty, dignity, autonomy, family

28

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-39-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 40 of 42

1 integrity, a ssociation, and due pr ocess unde r the Fourteenth Ame ndment to the United

2 States Constitution.

3

151. As Clerk of the Super ior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, D efendant

4 Jeanes’s ensuring, under color of stat e l aw, compliance with the St ate’s discriminatory

5 marriage ban by, for exam ple, denying sam e-sex couples marriage licenses, violates the

6 fundamental right to marry an d the other rights of the unm arried Plaintiffs that are

7 protected by the const itutional guarantees of liberty, dignity, autonomy, family integrity,

8 association, and due process conta ined in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

9 Constitution.

10

152. Defendants’ actions thus deny and abri dge Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to

11 marry, and liberty and due pr ocess interests in autonomy, and family integrity and

12 association, by pe nalizing Plai ntiffs’ self-determinatio n in the most intimate sphere of

13 their lives.

14

153. Defendants cannot satisfy the Du

e Process Clause’s decree that

15 governmental interference with a fundamental right or liberty interest may be sustained

16 only upon a showi ng that the burden is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling or even

17 important governmental interest, as the marriag e ban is not even tailored to any legitimate

18 interest at all.

19

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

20

28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 57 and 65

21

154. Plaintiffs incorporate by referenc e and re allege paragraphs 1 to 153 of t his

22 complaint.

23

155. This case presents an actual contr oversy be cause Defenda nts’ pre sent and

24 ongoing denial of equal treatmen t to Plain tiffs subjects them to serious and im mediate

25 harms, warranting the issuance of a declaratory judgment.

26

156. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief to protect their

27 constitutional rights and avoi d the injuries described above. A favorabl e decision

28

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-40-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 41 of 42

1 enjoining Defenda nts would re dress and preve nt the irreparable injuries to Plaintiffs

2 identified herein, for which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law or in equity.

3

157. The State will incur little to no burden in allowing same-sex couples to

4 marry and in recognizing the valid marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions

5 on the sam e term s as different-sex couples, wh ereas the hardship for Plaintiffs of being

6 denied equal treatmen t and relegated to a d emonstrably inferior social and legal status is

7 severe, subjecting them to an irreparable deni al of their constitutional rights. T he balance

8 of hardships thus tips strongly in favor of Plaintiffs.

9

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

10

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment:

11

A. Declaring t hat the pr ovisions a nd enforcement by Defenda nts of Arizona

12 Constitution article 30, § 1, Ar izona Revised Statut es §§ 25-101(C) and 25-125(A), and

13 any ot her sources of state law that exclude same- sex co uples fro m ma rrying v iolate

14 Plaintiffs’ rights under the Eq ual Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the

15 United States Constitution; and, for those couples legally married in another jurisdiction,

16 declaring that it is unconstitutional for Defendants to refuse, based solely on the fact those

17 couples are sam e-sex couples or that an indi vidual’s spouse is or was of the sam e sex as

18 that individual, to respect Plaintiffs’ out-of-state valid marriages as marriages in Arizona;

19

B. Preliminarily and permanently enjo ining enforcem ent by Defendants of

20 Arizona Constitution article 30, § 1, Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 25-101(C) and 25-

21 125(A), and any ot her sources of state law th at exclude same-sex couples from marriage

22 and for those same-sex couples who are or we re legally married in another jurisdiction,

23 enjoining Defenda nts from de nying rec ognition of t hose m arriages based s olely on the

24 fact that the couple is a sam e-sex couple or that an indivi dual’s spouse is or was of the

25 same sex as that individual;

26

C. Requiring Defendants in their offici al capacities to allo w same-sex couples

27 to marry on the same terms as different-sex couples, and to recognize the valid marriages

28

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-41-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 42 of 42

1 of same-sex couples f rom other j urisdictions on the same terms as the valid marriages o f

2 different-sex couples from other jurisdictions;

3

D. Awarding Plaintiffs their costs, expe nses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees

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

5

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

6 Dated: March 12, 2014

PERKINS COIE LLP

7

By: s/ Daniel C. Barr

8

Paul F. Eckstein

Daniel C. Barr

9

Kirstin T. Eidenbach

Barry G. Stratford

10

Alexis E. Danneman

2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000

11

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788

12

Jennifer C. Pizer (Pro hac vice to be filed)

Carmina Ocampo (Pro hac vice to be filed)

13

Joshua J. Johnson (Pro hac vice to be filed)

LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND

14

EDUCATION FUND, INC.

4221 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 280

15

Los Angeles, California 90010

16

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Nelda Majors, Karen

Bailey, David Larance, Kevin Patterson,

17

Michelle Teichner, Barbara Morrissey, Kathy

Young, Jessica Young, Kelli Olson, Jennifer

18

Hoefle Olson, Kent Burbank, Vicente Talanquer,

C.J. Castro-Byrd, Jesús Castro-Byrd, Patrick

19

Ralph, and Josefina Ahumada

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

43670-0004/LEGAL120120671.2

-42-

 
 Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 1 of 53

1 Jennifer C. Pizer (Admitted Pro hac vice) Carmina Ocampo (Admitted Pro hac vice)
2 LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC.
3 4221 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 280 Los Angeles, California 90010
4 Telephone: 213.382.7600 Facsimile: 213.351.6050
5 Email: jpizer@lambdalegal.org cocam po@lambdalegal.org
6 Paul F. Eckstein (Bar No. 001822)
7 Daniel C. Barr (Bar No. 010149) Kirstin T. Eidenbach (Bar No. 027341)
8 Barry G. Stratford (Bar No. 029923) Alexis E. Danneman (Bar No. 030478)
9 PERKINS COIE LLP 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
10 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788 Telephone: 602.351.8000
11 Facsimile: 602.648.7000 Email: PEckstein@perkinscoie.com
12 DBarr@perkinscoie.com KEi denbach@perkinscoie.com
13 BStratford@perkinscoie.com ADa nneman@perkinscoie.com
14 DocketPHX@perkinscoie.com

15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Nelda Majors, Karen Bailey, David Larance, Kevin Patterson, George
16 Martinez, Fred McQuire, Michelle Teichner, Barbara Morrissey, Kathy Young, Jessica
17 Young, Kelli Olson, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kent Burbank, Vicente Talanquer, C.J. Castro-Byrd,
18 Jesús Castro-Byrd, Patrick Ralph, Josefina Ahumada and Equality Arizona
19

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

22 Nelda Majors; Karen Bailey; David Larance;
23 Kevin Patterson; George Martinez; Fred McQuire; Michelle Teichner; Barbara
24 Morrissey; Kathy Young; Jessica Young; Kelli Olson; Jennifer Hoefle Olson; Kent
25 Burbank; Vicente Talanquer; C.J. CastroByrd; Jesús Castro-Byrd; Patrick Ralph;
26 Josefina Ahumada; and Equality Arizona,

No. 2:14-cv-00518-JWS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

27

Plaintiffs,

28

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 2 of 53

1

v.

2 Michael K. Jeanes, in his official capacity as Clerk of the Superior Court of Maricopa
3 County, Arizona; Will Humble, in his official capacity as Director of the Department of
4 Health Services; and David Raber, in his official capacity as Director of the Department
5 of Revenue,

6

Defendants.

7

8

Plaintiffs Nelda Majors and Ka ren Bailey, David La rance and Kevi n Patterson,

9 George Martinez and Fred McQuire, Miche lle Teichner and Barbara Morrissey, Kat hy

10 Young and Jessica Y oung, Kelli Olson and Je nnifer Hoefle Olson, Kent Burbank and

11 Vicente Ta lanquer, C.J. Castro-Byr d and Jesú s Castro-B yrd, P atrick Ralph, Josefina

12 Ahumada, and Equalit y Ariz ona (collectively “Plaintiffs”) f ile this Amended Complaint

13 against Defendants Michael K. Jeanes, Will Hum ble, and David Raber (collectively

14 “Defendants”), and allege as follows:

15

INTRODUCTION

16

1. Plaintiffs are loving, committed same-s ex couples who reside in Arizona,

17 individual Arizona re sidents who ha d a sa me-sex spouse, and an orga nization that

18 represents same-sex couples in Arizona. Plai ntiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

19 § 1983 se eking declaratory and prelim inary and permanent injunctive relief for

20 Defendants’ violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourteenth Am endment to the United

21 States Constitution caused by the discriminato ry exclusion of same -sex couples from the

22 freedom to m arry and the discrim inatory de nial of recognition of m arriages lawfully

23 entered by same-sex couples in other juris dictions pursuant to the laws of the State of

24 Arizona (“State”).

25

2. Marriage plays a unique ro le in society as the un iversally recognized and

26 celebrated hallmark of a couple’s commitment to build family life together. It confers

27 upon couples a dignity and status of immense import. Plaintiffs have formed committed ,

28 enduring bonds equally worthy of the respect afforded by the State to different-sex

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-2-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 3 of 53

1 couples through marri age. Yet, the State, without any adequate justification, has enacted

2 statutory and constitutional ame ndments and otherwis e interpreted and enforced its laws

3 in ways that single out lesbian and gay Arizonans by excluding them from the freedom to

4 marry and by refusing to recognize and resp ect their lawful m arriages from other

5 jurisdictions, based solely on their sexual orientation and their sex.

6

3. Through the State’s constitutional and statutory marriage bans and through

7 Defendants’ enforcement of them and their in terpretation and enforcement of the State’s

8 other laws to preclude same-sex couples from marrying or having their marriages lawfully

9 entered in other juris dictions recognized in Arizona, th e State and Defendants send a

10 purposeful message that they view lesbians, gay m en, and their children as second-class

11 citizens who are unde serving of the legal sanction, res pect, protections, and support t hat

12 heterosexuals and their families are able to enjoy through marriage. This discrim ination

13 (referred to herein as the State’s “marriage ban” ) is enshrined both in the State’s statutes

14 and in Article 30, sect ion 1 of the Arizona C onstitution, which prevents same-sex couples

15 from entering into a civil marr iage in the State and prohi bits the State fro m honoring a

16 civil marriage validly entered by a same-sex couple in another jurisdiction.

17

4. The marriage ban inflicts serious and irreparable harm on same-sex couples

18 and their children. Nelda Majors and K aren Bailey an d Da vid Lara nce and Ke vin

19 Patterson are not m arried, and e ach couple wi shes to marry for the same reasons as

20 different-sex couples: to publicly declare th eir love and commitment before their family,

21 friends, and com munity, and to give one anot her and the children they are raising the

22 security and pr otections that m arriage provid es. George Martinez and Fred McQ uire,

23 Michelle Teichner and Barbara Morrissey, Kathy Young and Jessi ca Young, Kelli Olson

24 and Jennifer Hoefle O lson, Ke nt Bur bank a nd Vicente Talanquer, and C.J. Castro-Byr d

25 and Jesús Castro-Byr d all m arried in ot her jurisdictions, but are treated as legal strangers

26 in the state they call home—a hurtful invalidation of t heir relationships, which deprives

27 them of the protections that a legally recognized marriage most securely provides.

28

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-3-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 4 of 53

1

5. George Martinez has terminal pancreatic cancer and measures the rest of h is

2 life in months, not in years. George married his husband Fred McQu ire on July 19, 2014

3 in California; but the State of Arizona refu ses to recognize George’s legal marriage to

4 Fred. The State’s denial of le gal recognition to their marriage is deeply hurtful to George

5 and Fred at a time when they are already experiencing imme nse grief and pain in copi ng

6 with George’s terminal illness. When George dies, Fred will receive a death certificat e

7 from the State that records George as unmarri ed, which will interfere with Fred’s ability

8 to take care of George’ s affairs after his deat h and to access survivo r’s benefits generally

9 available to a surviving s pouse. It is George ’s desire as he prepares for his imm inent

10 death that Fred be recognized as his husband and be entitled to receive the financial and

11 dignitary benefits to which ot her surviving spouses are entitled. During this period of

12 medical and emotional challenges related to George’s illness, Fred and George are both

13 entitled to the certainty of knowing that Fred’s right to be at George’s bedside will not be

14 questioned and that they will be afforded th e same protections and respect as any other

15 married couple in Arizona with respect to medical decision-making and other matters.

16

6. Patrick Ralph married his husband Gary Hurst in California; but when Gary

17 passed away in Augus t 2013 after a lengthy disability needing around-the-clock care by

18 Patrick, the State would not permit Patrick to be listed as Gary’s husband on Gary’s death

19 certificate. Josefina Ahumada and Helen Battiste married in New Mexico; but when

20 Helen died on January 31, 2014, Josefina wa s not even permitted to apply for Helen’s

21 death certificate, let alone be listed on it as Helen’s spouse. For both Patrick and Josefina,

22 the State’s refusal to identify them properly as spouses on the official document recording

23 their beloveds’ end of life was a shocking denial of their rela tionships at the tim e of most

24 intense loss and grief, and rem ains a source of pain and deep sadness. Many m embers of

25 Equality Arizona are in committed same-sex relationships, many are raising children

26 together, a nd m any a re harm ed in these a nd other ways by Ariz ona’s discrim inatory

27 marriage ban.

28

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-4-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 5 of 53

1

7. Our courts and our society have discarded, one by one , marriage laws that

2 violated the U.S. Constitution’s mandate of equality. These have included anti-

3 miscegenation laws and laws that syst

ematically denied married women legal

4 independence and the right to own prope rty and to m ake decisions for themselves.

5 History has taught us that the vitality of ma rriage does not depe nd on maintaining suc h

6 discriminatory laws. To the contrary, elim inating thes e unconstitutional marriage rules

7 has allowed the institution to retain its re levance and resulting ability to support and

8 sustain American couples and the families they build toget her. Endi ng the exclusion of

9 lesbian and gay couples from marriage is no different. Indeed, in 17 states and the District

10 of Columbia, same-sex couple s are marrying and the institutio n of marriage continues to

11 thrive.

12

8. Plaintiffs seek equal access to marriag e as the only mean s to secure their

13 rights to equal protection of the law and due pr ocess, and to elimin ate the myriad serious

14 harms inflicted on t hem by the m arriage ba n and Defenda nts’ enforcem ent of it.

15 Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this suit pursu ant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory

16 and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on the gr ounds that Defenda nts’

17 enforcement of the m arriage ban excluding same-sex couples from marriage and refusing

18 to recogniz e their valid m arriages from other jurisdictions violat es the equal protection

19 and due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States.

20

PARTIES

21

A. Plaintiffs

22

9. Plaintiffs Nelda Majors and Karen Ba iley are lesbian indivi duals who are a

23 committed same-sex couple residing in Scottsdale, Arizona.

24

10. Plaintiffs David Larance and Kevin Pa tterson are gay m ale individuals who

25 are a committed same-sex couple residing in Phoenix, Arizona.

26

11. Plaintiffs George Martinez and Fred McQuire are gay m ale individuals who

27 are a committed same-sex couple residing in Green Valley, Arizona.

28

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-5-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 6 of 53

1

12. Plaintiffs Michelle Teichner and Bar bara Morrissey are lesbian indi viduals

2 who are a committed same-sex couple residing in Phoenix, Arizona.

3

13. Plaintiffs Kathy Young and Jessi ca Young are lesbian individuals who are a

4 committed same-sex couple residing in Phoenix, Arizona.

5

14. Plaintiffs Kelli Olson and Jennifer Hoefle Olson are lesbian individuals who

6 are a committed same-sex couple residing in Tucson, Arizona.

7

15. Plaintiffs Kent B urbank a nd V icente Talanquer are gay m ale indi viduals

8 who are a committed same-sex couple residing in Tucson, Arizona.

9

16. Plaintiffs C.J. Castro-Byrd and Jesús Castro-Byrd are gay m ale individuals

10 who are a committed same-sex couple residing in Tempe, Arizona.

11

17. Plaintiff Patrick Ralph is a gay m ale indi vidual residing in Phoe nix,

12 Arizona.

13

18. Plaintiff Josefina A humada is a lesbian indi vidual r esiding i n Tucs on,

14 Arizona.

15

19. Plaintiff Equality Arizona is the lead ing statewide organization advocating

16 for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) people and their families in the State

17 of Arizona. It is a 501(c)(3) co rporation, and is incorporated under the laws of the State

18 of Arizona with the legal name Arizona Human Rights Fund, which does business as

19 Equality Arizona.

20

B. Defendants

21

20. Defendant Michael K. Jeanes is sued in his official capacity as Clerk of the

22 Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, an office authorized by Article 6,

23 Section 23 of the Arizona Constitution. Defendant Jeanes’s duties include, among others,

24 issuing marriage lice nses. Defendant Jeanes must ensure com pliance in all of these

25 functions with the relevant State laws, including those that exclude same-sex couples from

26 marriage. Defendant Jeanes is a person wit hin the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was

27 acting under color of state law at all times relevant to this amended complaint.

28

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-6-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 7 of 53

1

21. Defendant Will Hum ble is sued in his o fficial capacity as Director of the

2 Department of Health Services. Defenda nt Humble is a person with in the meaning of 42

3 U.S.C. § 1983 and was acting under color of state law at all times relevant to this amended

4 complaint. In his official capacity, Defendant Humble serves as the State Registrar of

5 Vital Records, which appoints and supervises local regist rars w ho are responsible for

6 filing death certificates and ensuring that the pe rsonal information on a death certificate is

7 accurate.

8

22. Defendant Davi d Ra ber is sued in his official capacity as Director of the

9 Department of Revenue. Defenda nt Ra ber’s duties include overseeing the ta x

10 administration and revenue collection for the State and being directly responsi ble for the

11 direction, c ontrol, and operation of the Depa rtment of Reve nue. Defendant Raber m ust

12 ensure compliance in all of th ese functions with t he relevant State laws, includi ng those

13 that preclude same-sex married couples from f iling a joint Arizona income tax return and

14 that require same-sex married couples who f ile a joint federal in come tax return to

15 complete and file an income allocation sche dule, w hich is not requi red for different-sex

16 married couples w ho file a joint federal retu rn. Defendant Ra ber is a person withi n the

17 meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was acting unde r color of state law at all times relevant

18 to this amended complaint.

19

23. Each Defenda nt inte ntionally perform ed, participated in, aided, and/ or

20 abetted in some manner the acts averred here in, pr oximately caused the harm averred

21 herein, and will injure Plaintiffs irreparably if not enjoined.

22

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

23

24. Plaintiffs bring this acti on under 42 U. S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 to redress the

24 deprivation under color of state law of rights secured by the United States Constitution.

25

25. This Court has original jurisdiction ov er the subject matter of this action

26 pursuant to 28 U.S. C. §§ 1331 a nd 1343 be cause the m atters in contr oversy arise unde r

27 the Constitution and laws of the United States.

28

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-7-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 8 of 53

1

26. Venue is proper in this Court

under 28 U.S. C. § 1391(b) becaus e

2 Defendants reside within the Dis trict of Arizona and a substantial part of the events that

3 gave rise to Plaintiffs’ claims took place within the District of Arizona.

4

27. This Court has the authority to enter a declaratory judgm ent and to provide

5 preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pur suant t o Rules 57 and 65 of t he Fe deral

6 Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

7

28. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant s because they are

8 residents of the State.

9

FACTS

10

29. Plaintiffs all are residents of Arizona w ho experience the sam e joys and

11 shoulder the same challenges of family life as their hetero sexual neighbors, c o-workers,

12 and ot her com munity m embers who are free to marry. Plaintiffs are productive,

13 contributing, tax-paying members of societ y who support their committed partners and

14 nurture their children, but must do so without the same dignity and respect afforded by the

15 State to other families through access to the universally unde rstood and celebrated status

16 of marriag e. The State’s exclusion of same-sex couples fro m marriag e, and from

17 recognition of their lawful out- of-state marriages, subjects Plai ntiffs to legal vulnerability

18 and related stress, while depriving them and th eir children of equa l dignity and security.

19 Through its constitutional and statutory ma rriage bans, the Stat e sends a purposeful

20 message that the State views le sbians and gay m en and t heir children as second-class

21 members o f society who are undeserving of the legal sanction, respect, and support that

22 different-sex spouses and their families enjoy.

23

A. Plaintiffs’ Attempts to Marry and Marriages in Other Jurisdictions.

24

30. But for the fact that they are of th e same-sex, each unmarried Plaintiff

25 couple is legally qualified to marry under the laws of Ar izona and wishes to marry in the

26 State. Each Plaintiff is over the requisite age of 18, no Plaint iff is preclude d from

27 marriage due to bei ng closely related to his or her life partner, and no Plaintiff is

28 recognized by the State as having another spouse.

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-8-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 9 of 53

1

31. On March 4, 2014, N elda Major s and Karen Bailey a ppeared in person at

2 the Maricopa County Superior Court Clerk’ s Office, North East Facility to seek a

3 marriage license. When the couple requested a marriage lic ense, they were denied by an

4 employee of Defenda nt who t old them, “You kn ow we can’t give you a m arriage license

5 in Arizona right now.”

6

32. On March 10, 2014, Davi d Larance and Kevin Patterson appeared in pers on

7 at the Maricopa C ounty Superior Court Clerk’ s Office to seek a ma rriage license. When

8 the couple requested a marriag e license, they were denied. The i ndividual who refuse d

9 their request told the m, “Gentlemen, we can’ t issue you a m arriage license at this tim e.”

10 Kevin is an ordai ned m inister and has pr eviously solem nized the marriages of two

11 different-sex couples. He cannot , however, legally marry the m an he loves in his hom e

12 state of Arizona.

13

33. George Martinez and Fred McQ uire were validly married in California and

14 seek through this suit to end the State’s current denial of recognition of their marriage on

15 the ground that it is a marriage entered by two individuals of the same sex.

16

34. Michelle Teichner and Barbara Morri ssey were validly married in New

17 York and seek through this su it to end the State’s current de nial of recognition of their

18 marriage on the ground that it is a marriage entered by two individuals of the same sex.

19

35. Kathy Young a nd Jessica Young were validly married in New York and

20 seek through this suit to end the State’s current denial of recognition of their marriage on

21 the ground that it is a marriage entered by two individuals of the same sex.

22

36. Kelli Olson and Jennifer Hoefle Olson were validly marri ed in Minnesota

23 and seek through this suit to en d the State’s current denial of recognition of their marriage

24 on the ground that it is a marriage entered by two individuals of the same sex.

25

37. Kent Burbank and Vicente Talanquer were validly married in Iowa and seek

26 through this suit to end the State’s current denial of recognition of their marriage on the

27 ground that it is a marriage entered by two individuals of the same sex.

28

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-9-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 10 of 53

1

38. C.J. Castro-Byrd and Jesús Castro-Byrd were validly married in Washington

2 and seek through this suit to en d the State’s current denial of recognition of their marriage

3 on the ground that it is a marriage entered by two individuals of the same sex.

4

39. Patrick Ralph and Gary Hurst (deceased) were validly married in California

5 and Patrick seeks through this su it to end t he State’s current de nial of recognition of their

6 marriage on the ground that it was a marriage entered by two individuals of the same sex.

7

40. Josefina Ahumada and Helen Battiste (d eceased) were validly married in

8 New Mexi co and Jos efina seeks through t his suit to end the St ate’s current denial of

9 recognition of their marriage on the ground that it was a marriage entered by two

10 individuals of the same sex.

11

B. Arizona’s Marriage Ban Singles Out Same-Sex Couples and Excludes

12

Them From Marriage.

13

41. Arizona has enacted statutory and c onstitutional bans de signed to exclude

14 same-sex couples from marriage and has interpre ted and enforced the State’s law to do s o

15 as well. The State’s m arriage ban cannot be explained by reference to legit imate public

16 policies that could j ustify the disadva ntages the m arriage ban im poses on sam e-sex

17 couples and their family members.

18

42. In 1996, shortly after the passage of the federal Defense of Marriage Act

19 (codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 a nd 28 U.S.C. § 1738C), Arizona en acted a statutory provision

20 specifically to exclude same-s ex couples from marri age. That statute, Arizona Revis ed

21 Statute (“A.R.S.”) § 25-101(C), provides that , “[m]arriage between persons of the same

22 sex is void and prohibited.” The Arizona legislature also banne d recognition of the

23 marriages same-sex couples lawfully celebrated in other states. See A.R.S. § 25-112(A).

24

43. In 1999, t he legislature went f urther to reinforce that same-sex couples

25 should not have access to the state-regulated , preferred status of marriage by further

26 amending the marriage statutes to add a provis ion specifying that a valid m arriage is one

27 “contracted by a m ale person and a fem ale person with a proper m arriage license.” See

28 A.R.S. § 25-125(A).

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-10-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 11 of 53

1

44. In 2006, Arizona voters consider ed Proposition 107, an initiated

2 constitutional amendment which proposed to amend the Ariz ona Constitution to provide

3 that, to “protect” marriage, onl y marriages of different-sex couples would be considered

4 valid and would be recognized under Arizona law, and that the State and municipalities in

5 Arizona “shall not cre ate or recognize a legal status for unm arried persons that is similar

6 to marriage.” This proposa l was described duri ng t he ballot cam paign as likely to

7 preclude civil unions, comprehensive domestic partnerships, and other broad, non-marital

8 legal prote ctions for unm arried different-sex couples as we ll as for same-sex couples.

9 Arizona voters rejected this proposal.

10

45. Two years later in 2008, the Arizona le gislature referred another proposal to

11 amend the Arizona Constitution to reinforce the State’s excl usion of same-sex couples

12 from marriage. The resolu tion that became Proposition 102, called the “Marriage

13 Protection Am endment,” provi ded: “Onl y a uni on of one m an a nd one wom an shall be

14 valid or recognized as a marri age in this state.” Arizona voters approved Proposition 102

15 on November 4, 2008. This amendment placed into the State’s constitution, as Article 30,

16 Section 1, the m andate of Arizona’s statutes providi ng that sam e-sex couple s m ay not

17 enter into a civil ma rriage in the State and that the State may not honor the lawful

18 marriages same-sex couples celebrate in other jurisdictions.

19

C. The State’s Exclusion of Same-Sex Couples from Marriage Inflicts

20

Profound Harms on Plaintiffs.

21

46. Barring same-sex couples from marriage disqualifies them from the simple,

22 direct rout e through whic h diff erent-sex co uples access critically important rights and

23 responsibilities that allow them to secure their commitment to each other and to safeguard

24 their families. As to many of these right s and responsibilities, marriage is th e only access

25 route; as to others, marriage is far simpler and less expensive than other options. By way

26 of example only, same-sex couples are denied the ability offered to different-sex couples

27 through marriage:

28

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-11-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 12 of 53

1

a. To solem nize their relationships t hrough a st ate-sanctioned

2

ceremony. See A.R.S. § 25- 111. The deni al of state sanction or

3

recognition deprives same-sex co uples of important legal protections

4

that automatically come with state-sanctioned marriage.

5

b. To safegua rd fam ily resources under an array of laws that protect

6

spousal finances, includi ng, for ex ample, the exemption of taxes on

7

the propert y of widows and wi dowers. See Id. § 42-11111; Ariz .

8

Const. art. 9, §§ 2-2.3.

9

c. To pa y the ir fair share of taxes as legally m arried couples by fil ing

10

Arizona incom e tax returns based on marital status that is not in

11

conformity with the marital status reported on t heir federal incom e

12

tax returns, A.R.S. §§ 43-102(A)(1); 43-301; 43-309.

13

d. To secure legal recognition for parent-child b onds through the

14

mechanisms afforded to spouses, includi ng joint adoption, id. § 8-

15

103(A); adoption of a spouse’s child as a stepparent, see, e.g., id. § 8-

16

105(N)(1); the m ore stream lined procedures for the social study

17

required for stepparent adoptions used when the prospective adoptive

18

stepparent has been m arried to the legal parent for at least one ye ar

19

and has resided with the child for at least six months, id. § 8-

20

112(D)(1); and the pre sumption of parentage for children bor n into a

21

marriage, id. § 25-814(A)(1).

22

e. To receive benefits for families of veterans of the armed forces who

23

have made some of the greatest sa crifices for our country, including

24

educational benefits, id. § 15-1808.

25

f. To make caretaking decisions in tim es of death or disaster, includi ng

26

priority to m ake m edical decisi ons for an incapacitated spous e,

27

A.R.S. § 36-3231; and the aut omatic right and priority to make

28

anatomical gifts of a decedent’s body, id. § 36-848(A)(2).

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-12-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 13 of 53

1

g. To inherit under the laws of intestacy, id. § 14-2102; and rights in the

2

family residence pending final determinatio n of the estate, id. § 14-

3

2402.

4

h. In the event that a couple separates, to access an orderly dissoluti on

5

process for term inating the relations hip a nd assuring an e quitable

6

division of the couple’s assets and debts. See id. §§ 25-301 - 381.01.

7

i. To assume a range of important responsibilities that, like rights,

8

enhance the dignity a nd inte grity of the person. As one exam ple,

9

same-sex couples are denied th e ability to be made formally

10

accountable to each other through obligations of spousal support, id.

11

§ 25-319, and child support, id. § 25-320.

12

j. To assert the pri vilege not to testify against one another as to m atters

13

protected by spousal privilege. See id. § 13-4062(1).

14

k. To access a host of federal rights and responsibilities that span the

15

entire United States Code and the wh ole realm of federal regulations.

16

Unmarried couples are denied recognition for most pur poses

17

throughout the m ore than 1, 000 provisions of federal law relating t o

18

marriage, including laws and re gulations pertaining t o S ocial

19

Security, housing, immigration, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright,

20

and veterans’ benefits. Sam e-sex couples validly married in anot her

21

jurisdiction and living in the Stat e are likely to qualify for many

22

federal benefits and pr otections, but to be de nied others, such as

23

Social Security survivor benefits and prot ections under the Fam ily

24

Medical Leave Act. These depriv ations ca n drain fa mily econom ic

25

resources, causing financial harm not only to same-sex couples but to

26

their children and other dependents as well. In addition, some same-

27

sex couples are unable to travel out of state to marry due to, for

28

example, illness or other physical limitations, child care or other

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-13-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 14 of 53

1

family responsi bilities, or cost. Moreover, many same-sex coupl es

2

wish to marry at home in Arizona , in the company of family and

3

friends, who may not be able to travel out of state to attend a wedding

4

for financial or other reasons.

5

47. In addition to the tangib le harm s listed above, Plai ntiffs are denied the

6 unique social recognition that marriage conveys. Without a ccess to the familiar language

7 and legal label of m arriage, Plaintiffs are una ble instantly or adequa tely to communicate

8 to others t he de pth a nd perm anence of the ir commitment, or to obtain res pect for that

9 commitment as others do simply by invoking their married status.

10

48. The s ubstantive and dignitary inequ ities imposed on committed same-sex

11 couples include particular harms to same-sex couples’ children, who are equally deserving

12 of the stability, permanence, social recognition, and financial supports that are enjoyed by

13 children of different-sex couples who marry. Civil marriage a ffords official sanctuary to

14 the family unit, offering parent s and children critical means to secure parent-child legal

15 bonds, and a f amiliar, public way of demonstr ating those bonds to third parties. By

16 denying same-sex couples m arriage, the State re inforces the view held by som e that the

17 family ties binding sam e-sex parents and thei r children are less consequential, enduring,

18 and meaningful than those of dif ferent-sex parents and their children. Same-sex couples

19 and their children accordingly must live with the vulnerab ility and stress inflicted by a

20 lack of access to the same mechanisms for s ecuring their legal relationships, and the ever-

21 present possibility that others may question their familial re lationships—in social, legal,

22 educational, and m edical settings and i n m oments of crisis—in ways that spouses can

23 avoid by simple reference to being married.

24

49. Children fr om a young age unde rstand that marriage signi fies an enduring

25 family unit, and likewise understand whe n the State has deemed a class of families less

26 worthy than other families, undeserving of marri age, and not entitled to the same societal

27 recognition and support as other families. The State has no ad equate interest to justi fy

28 marking the children of same-sex couples, in cluding the children of Plaintiffs, with a

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-14-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 15 of 53

1 badge of inferiority that often invites disrespect in school, on the playground, and in many

2 other spheres of their lives.

3

50. The government is a powerful teacher of discrim ination to ot hers. By

4 decreeing t hat the rela tionships of sam e-sex couples shoul d be ignore d in the State and

5 enforcing that policy, the Stat e and Defendants instruct all persons with whom same-sex

6 couples interact, including thos e couples’ own chil dren, that their relationships are less

7 worthy than others. Bearing the imprimatur of the government, the State’s marriage b an,

8 and Defendants’ enforcement of it, com municates a view that same-sex couples and their

9 children are unfit for the dignity, respect, and stature afforded to different-sex couples and

10 their children, and this encourages others to follow the govern ment’s example in

11 discriminating against same-sex couples, their children, and all lesbian and gay people.

12

51. Many private entities defer to the St ate’s and Defendants’ conferral of

13 marital status in defining “fam ily” for pur poses of an array of importa nt benefits, often

14 resulting in the exclusion of sam e-sex coupl es and their children from im portant safety

15 nets such a s private em ployer-provided health insurance for family members. T he State

16 and Defendants also encourage disrespect of committed same-sex couples and their

17 children by others in wor kplaces, schools, busi nesses, and other m ajor arenas of life, in

18 ways that would be l ess likel y to occ ur and m ore readily corrected if marriage were

19 available to same-sex couples.

20

D. Plaintiffs are Similarly Situated to Different-Sex Couples in All

Relevant Respects and are Injured By The State’s Denial to Them of

21

the Freedom to Marry.

22

52. Plaintiffs are loving a nd devoted same-sex couples who have ple dged their

23 commitment to love, cherish, and care for one another, but the State denies them the

24 ability to make the binding le gal commitments to each other that spouses do through civil

25 marriage.

26

Plaintiffs Nelda Majors and Karen Bailey

27

53. Plaintiffs Nelda Majors, age 75, and Karen Bailey, age 74, are a lesbian

28 couple residing in Scottsdale, Arizona. Neld a and Karen m et in college in Texas in 1957

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-15-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 16 of 53

1 and they have been in a loving, committed re lationship for fifty-six years. Nelda ran a

2 successful physical therapy business in Ho uston for m any years and Karen wor ked f or

3 Nelda’s company. They retired in the 1990’s and moved from Texas to Arizona in 2005.

4

54. When Nelda and Kare n bega n their rela tionship in the late 1950s they did

5 not dream that they m ight som eday identi fy ope nly as a coupl e. They worried about

6 facing the discrimination and hos tility commonly directed towards lesbians and gay men,

7 and they kept their relationshi p a secret from their friends, family, and co-workers for a

8 long time. Karen worked for an oil com pany in H ouston for 13 years and she pretende d

9 that she had a boyfriend. Although Nelda and Karen have bee n in a loving, com mitted

10 relationship for decades, they only told their friends and family about their relationship six

11 years ago, shortly after their 50th anniversary.

12

55. Nelda and Karen are proud pare nts to Karen’s great grand- nieces, Sharla,

13 age 21, and Marissa, age 15. Nelda and Karen raised the girls since Sharla was four and

14 Marissa was three. The girls’ mother, Karen’ s great-niece, had substance abuse problems

15 and was not provi ding a safe living environm ent for the girls. Sharla’s father was going

16 through di fficult life circum stances and Mari ssa’s father also had subst ance abuse

17 problems and a bandoned her. Ne lda and Karen raised the two girls as if th ey were the

18 couple’s own daughte rs. In 200 8, they finally told Sharla and Marissa that they are ga y

19 and a couple. Both girls expressed their en thusiastic support and happiness for them.

20 They told Nelda and Karen that they are the “best moms in the whole world.”

21

56. As women in their m id-70s, Nelda and Karen worry that one or the other of

22 them will be turned aw ay by hospital staff and prevented from being th ere for the other if

23 either becomes ill and is hospita lized. Once in H ouston, Texas, in the late 1990s, Nelda

24 was in the hospital having surgery and Karen was asked to leave by an anesthesiologist

25 even though she had proper legal documents establishing her right to be there. They fear

26 that som ething sim ilar could ha ppen agai n. Nelda and Karen belie ve that the State’s

27 refusal to allow sam e-sex coupl es to marry fosters stigm a and disrespect for sam e-sex

28 couples. They w ould be m ore secure if th eir relationship was respected and recognized

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-16-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 17 of 53

1 like other couples’ relationships, and believe it would make a significant difference if they

2 could tell hos pital staff that th ey are marri ed. Having always to bring their legal

3 documents to the hospital is demeaning because different- sex couples do not have to

4 present legal documents attesting to their relationship to accompany each other to the

5 hospital.

6

57. Nelda and Karen also want to get m arried as further evid ence of the family

7 ties between Nelda and Marissa. Karen is a court-appointe d legal guardia n for bot h

8 Sharla and Marissa, b ut Nelda has no legal re lationship to them. Nelda and Karen fear

9 that if something were to happ en to Karen, other relatives might be in a stronger position

10 than Nelda to seek ap pointment as guardian for Marissa, w ho is only fifteen years old. I f

11 they were married, Nelda and Karen’s status woul d help c onfirm for the court t hat

12 Marissa would have greater stability and support if Nelda were appointed as her guardian.

13

58. Nelda and Karen are recipients of Soci al Security and if the State allowed

14 them to marry, they bot h w ould become eligible for a Soci al Security surviving spous e

15 benefit in the event that either of them were to pass away. Under current federal law and

16 agency pra ctice, such benefits require that the married couple’s state of residence

17 recognizes their marriage.

18

59. Nelda and Karen want to marry each other. They have been together longer

19 than most couples, regardless of sexual orienta tion, and they have a large circle of friends

20 with whom they share social time and community activities. The opportunity to marry is

21 important not just to them, but also to thei r daughters and many friends. After so many

22 years of building a life and social network t ogether, the couple w ishes to marry at hom e,

23 in Arizona, so they can have a bi g celebrati on in whic h their dau ghters and friends can

24 participate.

25

Plaintiffs David Larance and Kevin Patterson

26

60. Plaintiffs David Larance, age 35, an d Kevin Patterson, age 30, are a gay

27 male couple residing in Phoenix, Arizona. David is a Training Manager and specializes in

28 training fa culty in or ganizational developm ent and diversity at Western International

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-17-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 18 of 53

1 University. Kevin is a Director of Exec utive Developm ent and trains m anagers for a

2 hospital. Both David and Kevin are pursuing their doctorates in education.

3

61. David and Kevi n ha ve been in a lovi ng, c ommitted relationship f or seven

4 years. They met when they both wor ked for Apollo Grou p. Davi d and Kevin we re

5 friends and got to know each other after they went bowling with a group of friends. David

6 jokes that Kevi n fell in love wit h him whe n he saw what a great bowler he is. David

7 invited Kevin to see a m ovie with him and his friends. None of the other friends showe d

8 up, so they saw the movie together. They both were unimpressed by the movie they saw,

9 “Fantastic 4: The Rise of the Silver Surfer,” but they were impressed with each other and

10 started dating. The y have been t ogether ever since. David and K evin pledged their love

11 and commitment to each other in a commitment ceremony in 20 09, with a big celebration

12 attended by many friends and family.

13

62. In May 2013, Davi d and Kevin welcomed two little girls, ages four and

14 seven, into their family through adoption. Although they are a couple, they were told that

15 only one of them would be perm itted to adopt the girls. Kevin became the girls’ leg al

16 father. David also wa nted to adopt the girls, but he was to ld the S tate would not perm it

17 the men to adopt the girl s jointly. Thus, although he is a father in practical and emotional

18 terms, David has no l egal parent al rights or responsibilities with respect to either of hi s

19 daughters-in-fact. He fears that if something were to happen t o Kevi n, his role as the

20 girls’ other father would be vulnerable to challenges by others, such as the girls’ existing-

21 but-absent blood relatives. W ithout pare ntal rights, Davi d cannot m ake m edical and

22 educational decisions for the girls and, if something ha ppened to Kevi n, the girls agai n

23 would be legally adrift, as David would not have the right to retain their custody. If David

24 and Kevin could marry in Arizona, David would be able to petition to adopt the girls as a

25 stepparent. As it is, the vulnerability of David’ s legal status as a pa rent to the couple’s

26 two daughters is a source of ongoing stress and anxiety for both men.

27

28

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-18-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 19 of 53

1

Plaintiffs George Martinez and Fred McQuire

2

63. George Martinez, age 62, and Fre d McQuire, age 69, are a gay m ale couple

3 who reside in Gree n Valley, Ar izona. George and Fre d are bo th veterans who served in

4 the United States Air Force. George is a Vietnam War veteran w ho has wor ked for over

5 thirty years as a clerk for the Arizona Court of A ppeals. In 1976, he becam e the court’s

6 first Deputy Clerk and he still holds that position. Fred worked as a manager at Wal-Mart,

7 as a lieuten ant at the Arizona Department of Corrections, and as a car salesman. He is

8 now retired.

9

64. George and Fred have been in a long-term, committed relationship for forty-

10 five years. They first met at a bar in Dece mber 1969. Fred was se rving in the Air Force

11 and he had just moved to Arizona from Guam. After they me t, they became close friends

12 right away. By March 17, 1 970, they had becom e a couple and had m oved in together.

13 They realized early on that each had found his perfe ct match in the other. They be gan a

14 committed relationship of mutual love and support that continues to this day.

15

65. In 1980, G eorge and Fred ha d a co mmitment ceremo ny to celebrate ten

16 years of being together. At least a hundred of their friends cam e. Fred sur prised George

17 with a m ariachi band a nd they had a bi g potluck meal. The c ommitment ceremony was

18 very meaningful to them.

19

66. During the ir years together, the y ha ve enjoye d cam ping and traveling t o

20 different states in the country. J ust last March, they bought thei r dream house in Green

21 Valley and they live in the house with their beloved poodle terrier, Bugsy.

22

67. In m ore re cent years, both Geor ge and Fred have bat tled life-threatening

23 illnesses. They no longer have been able to travel as th ey did before. Instead, their

24 relationship involves si gnificant caretaking of each other. Fred now suffers with chronic

25 obstructive pulm onary disease, vascular pr oblems, and Par kinson’s disease. He has

26 chronic neck and back aches and walking is very difficult for hi m. In the past few years,

27 Fred has been hospitalized several times. George has acted as his caregiver.

28

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-19-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 20 of 53

1

68. George also has suffered very serious illness. He was diagnosed with

2 Stage IV prostate cancer three years ago. Th e Depart ment of V eterans Affairs issued a

3 determination t hat George’s pr ostate cancer is 100% associated w ith his exposure to

4 Agent Orange duri ng the Vietnam War, and that George is entitled to federal disability

5 benefits, which he currently receives. George underwent surgery and radiation to

6 eradicate the prostate cancer and he was able to work again. In June 2014, Geor ge was

7 diagnosed with Stage IV pancreatic cancer th at has m etastasized to his liver. Doctors

8 have told Geor ge that he has only months to live. George’s recent diagnosis of term inal

9 pancreatic cancer has been devastating for the couple.

10

69. Fred is George’s prim ary caregiver, despite the fact that Fr ed struggles with

11 his own ser ious health issues. George now relies on Fr ed to ta ke care of him every day.

12 Fred gives George hi s shots, helps him sh ower, does all the grocery shopping, gives

13 George m edications, m akes the be d, t akes him to doct ors and c hemotherapy

14 appointments, and runs all of their errands. Acting as caregivers for one another over the

15 years has brought George and Fr ed even cl oser together and has strengthe ned their love

16 and commitment to each other.

17

70. When Ge orge and Fr ed found out t hat G eorge has term inal cancer, the

18 couple dec ided it was urgent that they get married. The y ha d always wanted to get

19 married but for most of their four and a half decades together, it was not possible, and was

20 hardly even conceivable. Ev en when same-sex couples began m arrying i n other states

21 years ago, doi ng so would not have pr ovided them legal recognition under either federal

22 law or the law of their home state, Arizona. By the time married same-sex couples started

23 receiving some legal protections and benefits under federal law one year ago, both Fred

24 and George were in poor health and travelin g had become very difficult for both of them .

25 They considered traveling to California to ge t m arried, but hope d m arriage m ight soon

26 become possible for them in Ar izona because that would have been so much easier and

27 more practical. When they learned that George has only months to live, they realized they

28 could not afford to wait any longer.

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-20-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 21 of 53

1

71. George and Fred trave led to California and were m arried on July 19, 2014.

2 They did so with t he love, hel p, and suppor t of m any friends, fam ily, and Geor ge’s co-

3 workers, who m ade the journe y and celebra tion possible for them . George’s co-wor ker

4 Beth hosted their wedding party in her beach house in Enci nitas. She and G eorge’s co-

5 workers took care of all the arrangements and ordered food, drinks, and a be autiful cake

6 for the party. About t hirty of the ir friends and family members traveled from T ucson to

7 Encinitas to attend their wedding. Several of George ’s co-workers cam e, including hi s

8 supervisor who ga ve a toast. Geor ge’s friend and co-w orker Therese officiated the

9 ceremony. Geor ge and Fre d say their wedding day w as the happiest day of their lives.

10 Yet, both men had to sit during t he ceremony because they were too weak to s tand. Even

11 so, they managed to get up and dance a slow dance to their song, “You Are S o Beautiful”

12 by Joe Cocker, the song that Fred used to sing to George when they were young.

13

72. George and Fred were ecstatic to finally marry each other. Throughout their

14 lives, bot h m en have had t o lie constantly about their rela tionship beca use society was

15 hostile and discriminatory toward gay men. It made them feel vulnerable, fearful, and like

16 second class citizens, despite their military service, productive wor k lives, and ot her

17 honorable contributions to society. Getti ng m arried m ade them feel validated and

18 respected in a way they had never felt before. It meant so much to them that their family

19 members and Ge orge’s co-workers traveled su ch a long distance to attend their weddi ng

20 and express support for the couple ’s relationship. They both observe that they ha ve been

21 treated with a new kind of respect as a couple now that they are married.

22

73. Although George and Fred had a joyful marriage c elebration, traveling to

23 California to get married was excruciatin g and difficult for them. Travelling was

24 especially hard on George. He is curren tly undergoing chemotherapy, which makes him

25 feel dizzy, nauseous, exhausted, and wea k. Geor ge and Fre d flew from Tucson to

26 Phoenix and from Phoeni x to Long Beach, wh ich was incredibly difficult. Waiting in

27 lines at airports, getting on and off planes, a nd repeat edly havi ng to get up to use the

28 restroom on the plane was excruciating and exhausting for George. He and Fred had to be

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-21-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 22 of 53

1 escorted through each airport in wheelchairs because Geor ge was too wea k to walk, a nd

2 Fred was too weak to push him in a wheelchair. The couple drove to Norwalk, California

3 to obtain t heir m arriage license and the n sout h to Encinitas for the ceremony. All that

4 driving was exhausting, too. At one point during the celebration, George felt fatigued and

5 had t o lie dow n. George a nd F red felt as if it was almost a miracl e that they survived

6 traveling to California to get married.

7

74. George and Fre d feel sad and an gry that becaus e of the State’s

8 discriminatory ban on m arriage for same-sex couples, they were forced to travel to

9 California to m arry. It would ha ve bee n so mu ch mo re co nvenient for them , and their

10 friends and families, if they could have married at home, in Arizona. Instead, George and

11 Fred and their loved ones ha d to spend tim e, money, and effort to attend their wedding.

12 Several of their friends and fam ily members, including George’s sister and cousins, coul d

13 not afford to take time off or s pend the money that would have been required for them to

14 travel to California and so were not able to attend the wedding.

15

75. George and Fred we nt through a trem endous ordea l to get married in

16 California and it is painful and de meaning to them that their marriage is not recognized in

17 their home state of Arizona.

18

76. The State’s refusal to recognize Geor ge’s legal marriage to Fred causes

19 George to feel frightened and worried abou t what wi ll happe n to Fred after he passes

20 away. Although he and Fred are legally married under the laws of California, the fact that

21 the U.S. G overnment honors their marriage while Arizona does not is confusing and

22 stressful. Geor ge would like to secure his state court retiremen t, Social Security, and

23 federal disability survivor bene fits for Fred. The financial support to which Fred should

24 be entitled as George’s spouse will be very im portant to Fred becaus e George has always

25 supported Fred. If F red cannot receive George’s be nefits as his surviving spouse, Fred

26 will suffer very considerable and immediate financial hardsh ip and may not be able to

27 afford to remain in the couple’s home. George and Fred understand that Arizona’s refusal

28

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-22-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 23 of 53

1 to recognize the couple’s marriage is a legal ba rrier to Fred being eligible for s ome of the

2 important spousal benefits he should be able to receive as George’s lawful husband.

3

77. George and Fred also fear that they will be prevented from seeing and being

4 with each other when either one is next hospitalized. George’s health is precarious and he

5 could face a medical emergency on any given day. George is terrified that the lack of

6 recognition for their relationship and marriage under Arizona law could cause someone to

7 prevent Fred from being by his side or from making decisions on his behalf.

8

78. Their fears about being denied the ability to care for each other are

9 worsened by their past experiences. On prior occasions, George was prevented by staff in

10 Arizona hospitals from being with Fred because the staff did no t consider George to be a

11 legally recognized family member to Fred. For example, four or five years ago, Fred was

12 in the Intensive Care Unit at the hospital. George went to see him and told a nurse that he

13 was Fred’s partner. The nurse told George, “Do you realize th at I won’t be able to tell

14 you anything because you ’re not his relative?” George fe lt so deeply hum iliated, shaken

15 and upset that he went to th e patient advocate department of the Veterans Administratio n

16 hospital to complain and ask fo r help. As a result, the nurs e was taken off Fred’s case.

17 Three year s ago, George had another ne gative experience visiting Fred in the hos pital.

18 Fred was in the emergency room and when George went to see him, the Emergency Room

19 nurse came out and said “Who are you?” George said, “I’m his partne r.” The nurse said,

20 rudely, “Oh, you’ll have to wa it.” George felt humilia ted, degraded and helpless. He felt

21 certain that if he had been Fred’s wife the nurse im mediately would have let him in the

22 room to be with Fred without question. George tol d the nu rse that the way he had bee n

23 questioned was disrespectful and very upsetti ng, and even more so because it was during

24 his loved one’s health crisis. The nurse a pologized. But, Geor ge still remembers how

25 angry, hum iliated, and frightened he felt when prevented fro m seeing Fred just because

26 they are ga y. Geor ge and Fred hope t hey never have t o experience that type of painf ul,

27 frustrating rejection and homophobia at the hospital ever again.

28

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-23-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 24 of 53

1

79. George and Fred ne ed their m arriage to be recognized in Arizona

2 immediately so that Fred can take care of George’s affairs after George’ s death, and

3 access survivor’s benefits that are generally available to a su rviving spouse. George and

4 Fred fear that when George dies, Fred will be prevented from obtaining a death certificat e

5 for him and/or Fred will receiv e a death certif icate from the State that records George as

6 having been unmarried, which w ill interfere with Fred’s ability to access benefits as

7 George’s surviving husband. More importantly, though, the State’s insistence that George

8 is unmarried would constitute a deeply hurtful denial of Fred’s pain and loss as a

9 surviving spouse, com pounding his grief at the w orst possible time. As he c onfronts the

10 likelihood of his own im minent death, George wants Fred recognize d as his husband, and

11 wants bot h of t hem to be affor ded the sam e pr otections, recogniti on and res pect as any

12 other married couple in the state.

13

80. Based on the foregoi ng, if George a nd Fr ed are not declared m arried in

14 Arizona, they will be irreparably and immediately injured.

15

Plaintiffs Michelle Teichner and Barbara Morrissey

16

81. Michelle “Mish” Teichner, age 49, an d Barbara “Barb” Morrissey, age 59,

17 are a lesbian couple residing in P hoenix, Arizona. Mish and Barb m et at a support gr oup

18 meeting in 2004. One day after a m eeting, Mish’s car broke dow n and Barb gave her a

19 ride home. They have been together as a couple ever since. Mish and Bar b have been in

20 a loving, committed relationship for more than ten years and share all their finances. In

21 2006 the y had a religious com mitment ceremony that their fri ends and fam ily attende d.

22 They were legally married in New York on July 23, 2013.

23

82. Mish formerly worked as a high school m ath teacher, tutor, and librarian

24 and Barb previ ously taught sp ecial education as wel l as after-school tut oring. Mis h

25 stopped w orking w hen she started ha ving seri ous ki dney pr oblems in June 2012. Ba rb

26 stopped working the same year so that she could take care of Mish.

27

83. Mish and Barb both have ongoi ng he alth problem s and their pa rtnership

28 involves significant caretaking of each other. Barb has diabetes and struggles with obesity

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-24-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 25 of 53

1 and mobility issues. Mish ha s high cholesterol a nd high blood pressure . In 1994, Mish

2 experienced kidney failure and underwent a kidney transplant. She has been hospitalized

3 multiple times over the years for various hea lth problems. Recen tly, in January 2014,

4 Mish underwent a second ki dney transplant a nd then was hospitalized again shortly after

5 having been released from surgery.

6

84. Mish and Barb’s gre atest fear is be ing prevented from seeing each ot her if

7 one of them is hospitalized. Being able to care for each ot her in a m edical emergency is

8 of primary concern to them especially becaus e Mish’s health is pr ecarious. Mish needs

9 Barb to advocate for her when she is incapacitated. Mi sh worries constantly that

10 something may happen to her and Barb will be kept from her side. In fact, Barb has been

11 prevented by hospital staff in the State from being with Mish on multiple occasions

12 because the staff did not consider Barb to be a legally recognized family member to Mish.

13

85. For example, seven years ago, Mish wa s in a hospital in Peoria and hospital

14 staff prevented Barb from seeing her even though she was carrying proper legal

15 documents. A hospital staff me mber told her, “You’re not a family memb er, y ou can’t

16 come in.” Barb was not allo wed to receive any information about Mish’s condition. This

17 situation was immensely stressful and distressing for both Barb and Mish . Then again, in

18 2012, Barb accompanied Mish to an eye doctor appointment, and the eye doctor looked at

19 Barb and a sked, “What are you, her house keeper?” Barb again experienced difficulty

20 seeing Mish in the hospital as recently as January 2014. Wh ile Mish was recovering at

21 the hospital after her kidney trans plant surgery, Barb asked a nurse to take her to Mis h’s

22 room to vis it. The nurse told her that they only allow immediate family members in the

23 room. Barb said that she had legal docum ents and the nurse said, “That doe sn’t matter,

24 but I’ll try to sneak you in anyway.”

25

86. Given the distressing experiences that they have ha d with m edical staff,

26 Mish and Barb want to marry at least in part so they will put an end to the confusion,

27 disrespect, and hostility from medical professi onals. Their personal experiences confirm

28 that the State’s refusal to recogni ze the marriages of same-sex couples perpetuates stigma

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-25-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 26 of 53

1 towards lesbian and gay couples and encourages disrespect towards them. Having always

2 to bring their documents to the hospital with them is demeaning to Mish and Barb because

3 different-sex couples do not ha ve to present s uch documents to accompany each other in

4 the hospital. If same-sex co uples’ marriages from other states were recognized in

5 Arizona, hospital staff would be required to respect Barb and Mish’s marriage.

6

87. Since getting married, Mish and Barb ha ve found it confusing, stressful and

7 time-consuming to file their federal income ta x returns as a married couple and then file

8 their separate state income tax returns as un married indi viduals. The y usually prepar e

9 their tax returns themselves usin g Turbotax. But, the y did not use the software this year

10 because the inconsistency betw een state and federal law requi red additional software that

11 would c ost m ore m oney. Mish spent at least seven hours calling t he IR S and ot her

12 individuals for advice about ho w to prepa re her and Barb’s tax returns. They prepared

13 their returns themselves by hand because they could not afford to have them prepared by a

14 professional. They now are anxious becaus e they are unsure whether they prepared them

15 correctly because the process wa s so confusing as well as stre ssful. If their marriage were

16 recognized by the state of Arizona, Mish and Ba rb would file a joint state tax return, in

17 conformity with the marital status reported on their federa l tax return, and enjoy the

18 relative simplicity that would re sult from filing consistent fede ral and state tax returns in

19 contrast to their filing of one federal return and two separate individual state returns along

20 with the additional income allocation schedul es Arizona requires of same-sex married

21 couples and does not require of different-sex married couples.

22

88. Mish and Barb are active in their co mmunity. The y have vol unteered for

23 Aunt Rita’s Foundation, the HIV/AIDS awareness foundation, and One Voice community

24 center, and they are active in th eir local church. They also sing i n the Phoenix Women’s

25 Chorus, love to go da ncing, and have three dogs. The y stro ngly wish for an end to the

26 anti-gay message and social stigm a imposed by Arizona’s laws denyi ng lesbian and ga y

27 couples the opportun ity to marry in this st ate and forbidding recognition of t he marriages

28 they validly celebrate elsewhere.

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-26-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 27 of 53

1

Plaintiffs Kathy Young and Jessica Young

2

89. Plaintiffs Kathy Y oung, a ge 41, and Jessica “Jess” Young, age 29, are a

3 lesbian couple residing in P hoenix, Arizona. Kathy is Vice President of the yout h market

4 for the American Heart Association and Jess is a senior customer service rep resentative

5 with Blue Cross Blue Shield. Their daily lives revolve around their 7-year old son, Ian.

6

90. Kathy and Jess have been in a loving , committed relationship for almost ten

7 years. Kathy first met Jess when she owne d a martial arts stu dio where Jess was a

8 taekwondo student and em ployee. Both w omen have achieved the black belt level in

9 taekwondo. After bei ng friends for five ye ars, Kathy and Jess starte d dating in 2004. In

10 2005 they pledged their love and com mitment to each other in a large commitment

11 ceremony attended by friends and family. In 2009, on their anniversary, they registered as

12 domestic partners in Phoenix. On June 11, 2013, they married in New York.

13

91. Kathy and Jess have a particul ar se nse of urge ncy about havi ng their

14 marriage recognized fo r the sake of their son. Kat hy and Jess have expe rienced and

15 continue t o experienc e stress and conf usion in identifying to others that they both are

16 parents to Ian becaus e school f orms only r ecognize different-sex married parents. For

17 example, Kathy is listed as an em ergency contact on Ian’s school f orms, but not as a

18 parent. All of Ian’s school fo rms state that Ian is being ra ised by a single-pare nt, despite

19 the fact that Ian actually has two parents—his two mothers.

20

92. Kathy and Jess planned for their son togethe r and Jess gave birt h to him .

21 Although Kathy has been an active parent to him his entire life, their parent-child

22 relationship has no legal recognition or support in Arizona. And, although Jess and Kathy

23 lawfully married outside Arizona, the fact th at the State does not recognize their marriag e

24 precludes Kathy from securing her parent-child relationship with Ian through a stepparent

25 adoption.

26

93. Jess has been hospitalized for mental he alth issues on multiple occasions in

27 the past, and som etimes has had to remain in the hospital for as long as a week. Kathy

28 and Jess worry that if Jess ever has to be ho spitalized again in the future, Kathy will not

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-27-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 28 of 53

1 have any legal authorit y to take care of Ia n and m ake educational and medical decisions

2 for him. If the State recognized Kathy and Jess’s m arriage as it would a di fferent-sex

3 couple’s marriage, then parentage presum ptions woul d apply and, if the couple wished,

4 Kathy also coul d secure her parental role th rough adoption as Jess’s spouse. Currentl y,

5 same-sex m arried couples are ineligible for stepparent adoption in Arizona. Kathy and

6 Jess want the State to recognize their marriage so they can pursue the full range of legal

7 protections for their fam ily and be secure in the knowledge that, if something were to

8 happen to Jess, Kathy would be able to function fully as a legal parent and as a recognized

9 spouse.

10

94. Since getting married, Kathy and Jess have found it confusing, inconvenient

11 and frustrating to file their federal income ta x returns as a married couple, and then file

12 their separate state income tax returns as unm arried indi viduals. The tax preparer they

13 have used for several years was unsure how to prepa re taxe s for same-sex couples who

14 married outside Arizona. As a result, Kathy and Jess had to find another person to prepare

15 their tax returns and s pend more money to have their returns pre pared by som eone who

16 could do so competently. If their marriage were recognized by the state of Arizona, Kathy

17 and Jess would file a joint state tax return, in conformity with the marital status reported

18 on their federal tax return, and enjoy the relative simplicity that results from filing

19 consistent federal and state tax returns in contrast to their f iling of one federal return and

20 two separate individual state tax returns al ong with the additional income allocation

21 schedules Arizona requires of same-sex married couples and does not require of different-

22 sex married couples. Kathy a nd Jess felt as if they were being forced to l ie about t heir

23 marital status by havi ng to i dentify them selves on their state income tax forms as not

24 married, even though they are.

25

Plaintiffs Kelli Olson and Jennifer Hoefle Olson

26

95. Kelli Olson, age 36, and Jennifer “Jen” Hoefle Olson, age 38, are a lesbian

27 couple residing in Tucson, Arizona. Kelli is an attorney and Jen is a Program Director of

28 a student center at the University of Arizona. Kelli and Jen met in 2004 through their best

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-28-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 29 of 53

1 friends who were dating each other. Although Kelli and Jen’s friends eventually broke

2 up, Kelli and Jen ended up pursuing their own relationship. They fell in love, bonding

3 over their love of yoga, intellectual conversa tions, dogs, laughte r, and silly jokes. O n

4 December 31, 2009, they pledged their love and commitment to each other in a ceremo ny

5 attended by m any friends a nd family. From that day on, New Y ear’s Eve would al ways

6 be their anniversary.

7

96. Kelli and Jen’s close relationships with their families led them to want to

8 start their own family. In 2012, they became the proud parents of two fraternal twin girls,

9 E. and S. On August 7, 20 13, Kelli and Jen married in Minn esota in a ceremony attended

10 by their two daughters.

11

97. Jen is the birth mother of the twins. Although Jen and Kelli planned for

12 their daughters together, Kelli has no legal pare ntal rights. Consequently, Kelli carrie s

13 power of attorney forms confirming her right to take certain actions for the girls. But, she

14 fears what could happen if there is an emergency or if something happens to Jen and Kelli

15 does not have her documents, or someone refu ses to honor them, just when Kelli needs to

16 act on behalf of one or both of her daughters.

17

98. The twins have health in surance through Jen’s em ployer, and Kelli worries

18 that in some medical settings, she will be questioned about her relationship to the girls and

19 not recognized as their parent. For example, when one of the girls had a sim ple skin rash,

20 Kelli and J en decided that Jen, not Kelli, shoul d be the one t o take their daughter to t he

21 hospital because Kelli could not go alone if they wanted to get prompt care for their

22 daughter. Kelli fears that she may not be able to claim the twins as dependents for health

23 insurance purposes if such insurance is need ed and she is working for an employer that

24 only provides insurance for family members recognized as such under state law.

25

99. Kelli and Jen fear that as the girls gr ow older and eventually start attending

26 school, Kelli’s lack of parental rights will cause yet more co nfusion and problems.

27 Without parental rights, Kelli does not have the ability to make medical and educational

28 decisions for the girls. Moreover, if someth ing happens to Jen, th ere will be no one with

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-29-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 30 of 53

1 the legal right to come forward to protect the couple’s children. If Kelli and Jen’s

2 marriage were recognized in Arizona, Kelli would be r ecognized as a legal parent of bot h

3 girls due to parentage presumptions. She also would be able to formalize her relationship

4 with each of the girls through stepparent adoption.

5

100. Kelli and Jen’s twins call Jen “Mommy ” and Kelli “Mamma.” The girls

6 were present at Kelli and Jen’s wedding and clearly understand that Kelli and Jen are

7 married. It pains Kelli and Jen to think that their daughters ar e growing up in a state that

8 does not respect or recognize their lawful marri age. They worry that as their twins grow

9 older, they will feel distress and confusion wh en they realize that their image of their

10 mothers as being in a loving, binding m arriage does not match the State’s official

11 disregard for their mothers’ marital status.

12

101. Since getting married, Kelli and Jen have found it confusing to file their

13 federal income tax returns as a married couple and then file their separate state income tax

14 returns as unmarried individuals. When it came time to prepare their state taxes, their tax

15 return preparer at H&R Block experienced technical difficulties and was unable to use his

16 software to prepare their separate state tax returns. As a result, the preparer had to prepare

17 all the paperwork f or their state tax returns by hand and ask them to return several days

18 later to finalize their return s, m aking the process of f iling their taxes more time-

19 consuming and inconvenient. If their m arriage were recognized by the state of Arizona,

20 Kelli and J en would file a joint state tax retu rn, in conformity with the marital status

21 reported on their federal tax return, and en joy the relative simplic ity that results fro m

22 filing consistent federal and state tax returns in contrast to their filing of one federal return

23 and two separate individual state tax returns along wit h the additional income allocation

24 schedules Arizona requires of same-sex married couples and does not require of different-

25 sex married couples. In addition to the frustration and additional time involved due to the

26 inconsistency between state a nd federal law, Kelli and Jen fe lt that it was demeaning to

27 have to file their taxes as single individuals in Arizona when they are not single.

28

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-30-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 31 of 53

1

Plaintiffs Kent Burbank and Vicente Talanquer

2

102. Plaintiffs Kent Burbank, age 45, an d Vicente Talanquer, a ge 51, are a ga y

3 male coupl e living in Tucson, Arizona. Kent is the Direct or of the Victim Services

4 Division at the Pima County A ttorney’s office. Vicente is an Associate Professor in the

5 Department of C hemistry and Bi ochemistry at the University of Ar izona. Vicente is a

6 citizen of Mexico and Spain, and is a permanent legal resident of the United States.

7

103. Kent and Vicente have been a couple for almost twenty years. They met

8 while they were both studying at the University of Chi cago in 1994. Vicente was a

9 postdoctoral student and Kent was completing dual master’s degrees. They first met each

10 other at an LGBT s ocial club meeting but did not talk to ea ch other much there. Awhile

11 later, they ran into each other when they were both studying by a lake in Hyde Park on a

12 beautiful day in May. They began dating after their f ortuitous run-in at the park. Soon

13 after, they decided to build a life together. They lived in Mexi co City from 1997-1999

14 and then, in 2000, when Vicente received a job offer in Tucs on, they moved to Arizona.

15 They registered as dom estic partners afte r the Tucson Dom estic Partnership Ordina nce

16 became effective in December 2003, and married on June 30, 2013 in Iowa right after the

17 Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Windsor.

18

104. Kent and Vicente are loving fathers to two adopted sons, Daniel, age 12, and

19 Martín, age 14. Their sons spent their early years being shuffled among foster care homes

20 and were at risk of not being adopted because they were older children. Kent and Vicente

21 welcomed the boys into their home in 2008, w hen t hey were six and eight years old,

22 committed to providing them love, stability and a permanent family. Their sons ’

23 adoptions were finalized in 2009.

24

105. Although Kent and Vicente decided to adopt children together, went

25 through the lengthy and complicated adoption process together, and have raised their sons

26 together, they were not permitted to adopt th eir sons jointly because Arizona permits only

27 one person to adopt a child or children if a couple is unm arried. They understood that

28 Arizona law readily would permit them both to become legal parents of Martín and Daniel

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-31-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 32 of 53

1 if they could m arry and have their m arriage re cognized in Arizona. Instead, they were

2 forced to m ake the stressful, awkward de cision about which of them woul d be the sole

3 parent wit h legal right s, and by a decision a s arbitrary as a coin t oss, they decided that

4 Vicente would be the parent w ith legal rights. Kent has no legal rights or bi nding legal

5 responsibilities with respect to his sons.

6

106. Vicente and Kent married in Iowa right after the U.S. Supreme Court issued

7 its Windsor decision last year, with hopes that the decision would lead to the legal

8 recognition of their marriage in their home state of Arizona. They were disappointed to

9 learn that their marriage in fact would not be respected by Arizona, and that Kent remains

10 ineligible to establish a lega l relationshi p with his sons through the stepparent adoption

11 procedure based on his marriage to Vicente.

12

107. Kent and Vicente share parenting res ponsibilities and everything they do as

13 parents is impacted by the fact that only one of them is a legal parent to their sons. Kent

14 feels chronic stress, anxiety and vulnerability because he is not legally recognized as a

15 parent to his children. Kent is the parent th at most frequently takes Martín and Daniel to

16 their doctors’ appointments and to school activitie s. Kent fears constantly t hat his status

17 as a parent will be que stioned by school and medical prof essionals. For example, he was

18 told by his sons’ school that he could not sign any parental-permission forms for activities

19 like field trips. Vicente and K ent even gave their sons the very long last name o f

20 “Burbank-Talanquer” so that there would be some acknowledgement of Kent’s tie to their

21 children. Whe n Kent travels with their sons to other count ries without Vi cente, he is

22 questioned for long periods of tim e by imm igration officials about his relationshi p to

23 Daniel and Martín. Vicente always has to wr ite letters that Kent brings with him that

24 explain Kent’s relationship to his own sons.

25

108. Kent and Vicente know that the ir ch ildren are vulnerable and unprotected

26 because only one of their parents has a leg al bond with them. If something were to

27 happen to Vicente, Daniel and Martín would receive social security benefits based on their

28 relationship with him, but Kent would be denied any social se curity benefits as Vicente’s

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-32-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 33 of 53

1 lawful spouse. And if something were to ha ppen to Kent, neither Vicente nor Martín and

2 Daniel would be eligi ble to receive the social security benefits to whic h they shoul d be

3 entitled as Kent’s hus band and sons, respectively. Similarly, if Vice nte were to lose his

4 job, Ke nt would not be able switch the couple’s sons onto his health insurance plan.

5 Martín and Daniel participated in Vicente a nd Kent’s marriage cerem ony last year. They

6 love, depend upon, and understand both men to be their fathers. It is extremely painful to

7 Kent that the State refuses to acknowledge his marri age and de prives him of t he right to

8 be recognized legally as a “forever father” to hi s sons. Kent sa ys that in the eyes of the

9 State, “I’m nothing to them.”

10

109. Since getting married, Kent and Vicente have found it confusing, distressing

11 and time-consuming to file their federal incom e tax returns as a married couple, and then

12 to file their separate state in come tax returns as unmarried individuals. Kent and Vicent e

13 have spent hours trying to sort t hrough the confusing process of doing their tax returns as

14 a married couple this year. Kent and Vicente usually prepare their tax returns online using

15 Turbotax. But, because they coul d not obta in any assurances fro m Turbotax that the

16 software could accommodate their specific need s given the inconsistent treatment of their

17 marital status under state and federal law, th ey spent double their usual am ount to have

18 their tax returns prepa red by a private account ant who understood the tax issues facing

19 same-sex couples who have ma rried outside Arizona. If thei r marriage were recognized

20 by the state of Arizona, Kent and Vicente would file a joint st ate tax return, in conformity

21 with the marital status repor ted on their federal tax re turn, and enjoy the relative

22 simplicity that results from filing consistent fe deral and state tax returns in contrast to

23 their filing of one federal return and tw o separate individual state tax returns along wit h

24 the additional income allocation schedules Ar izona requires of same-sex married couples

25 and does not require of different-sex married couples. Kent a nd Vicente felt disrespected

26 and demeaned that they had to file their state taxes as single individuals when, in fact,

27 they are married.

28

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-33-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 34 of 53

1

Plaintiffs C.J. Castro-Byrd and Jesús Castro-Byrd

2

110. Plaintiffs Clayton J ohn “C.J.” Castro-B yrd, age 23, and Jesús Castro-B yrd,

3 age 27, are a gay male couple residing in Tem pe, Arizona. C.J. is a m edical equipment

4 sales representative and Jesús works at a call ce nter for the public transit system. C.J. and

5 Jesús have associate’ s degrees. C.J. is completing a bachelor’s degree in busine ss

6 management and hopes to com plete an MB A in health adm inistration. Jesús is earning a

7 second associate’s degree in interior design.

8

111. C.J. and Jesús have been in a lo ving, committed relations hip for two years.

9 In April 2012, the y met each other through a dating website. When they first met, they

10 liked each other so much that they deleted their online pr ofiles the same day. They knew

11 right away that they were me ant for each other and have be en inseparable ever since.

12 They enjoy spendi ng tim e outdoors and biki ng together, and are the proud owners of a

13 tandem bicycle. C.J. and Jesús got married in Seattle, Washington, C.J.’s home state, o n

14 December 14, 2012. They woul d have preferred to marry in Arizona, with friends and

15 family to share the speci al event. Instead, a year later on their anniversary, they hel d a

16 ceremony in Arizona that was attende d by their friends and family who had not been able

17 to travel to Seattle for th eir wedding. But that ceremony c onveyed no legal rights or

18 status under Arizona law.

19

112. Under federal law, however, C.J. a nd Jesús’ m arriage has ope ned up a

20 pathway for Jesús to appl y to becom e a pe rmanent resident. Jesús, who was bor n in

21 Sonora, México, immigrated to Arizona with his family in 2001 whe n he w as 14 year s

22 old. Jesús lived as an undoc umented immigrant in the United States for the years since

23 then. He obtaine d te mporary a uthorization to remain in the count ry and a work permit

24 after he successfully applied for deferred action under the DACA (“Deferred Action f or

25 Childhood Arrivals”) program, which was authorized by President Obama in 2012.

26

113. Even though he was granted defe rred action, Jesús still was not eligible to

27 adjust his status because a grant of deferre d action does not provide a path to lawful

28 permanent resident status or U.S. citizen ship. However, as a result of the Supreme

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-34-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 35 of 53

1 Court’s 2013 ruli ng s triking down the cor e pr ovision of the Defense of Marriage Act,

2 same-sex couples who are able to marry fina lly are eligible for many federal protections

3 and benefits available to hete rosexual spouses, including the right of a U.S. citizen to

4 sponsor a spouse to adjust status and remain in the United States. As a result of the

5 Windsor decision, Jesús was able to apply for a green card to remain with his husband just

6 like other immigrants married to U.S. citizens.

7

114. Jesús is particularly vul nerable a nd stigmatized as a gay formerly

8 undocumented immigrant living in Arizona. When Arizona ’s restrictive immigration bill,

9 SB 1070, was signed into law in 2010, Jesú s was undocumented. SB 1070’s passage and

10 the State’s subseque nt hars h treatment of immigrants made Jesús fe el targeted ,

11 stigmatized, and vul nerable as a Latino im migrant. He was cons tantly afraid that he and

12 his family would be stopped, harassed and deported. Ariz ona’s discriminatory marriage

13 law compounds the stigma and discrimination that Jesús has exper ienced as a gay Latino

14 man living in the state.

15

115. Since getting m arried, C.J. and Jesús ha ve found it confusing a nd stressful

16 to file their federal income tax returns as a married couple and then file their separate state

17 income tax returns as unm arried indi viduals. C.J. and Jesús usually prepare their taxes

18 online using Tur botax. But, they were unable to confirm that Turbota x coul d

19 accommodate their n eeds as a same-sex married couple living in a state that does not

20 honor their marriage. Accordingly, they c oncluded t hat they ha d to spend m ore m oney

21 than usual to hire a pr ofessional who was c ompetent to prepare their tax returns. If their

22 marriage were recogni zed by the state of Ariz ona, C.J. and Jesús woul d file a joint state

23 tax return, in conform ity with the marital status reported on their federal tax return, and

24 enjoy the relative simplicity that results from filing consistent federal and state tax returns

25 in contrast to their filing of one federal return and two separate individual state tax returns

26 along with the additional income allocati on schedul es Arizona requires of sam e-sex

27 married couples and does not require of differe nt-sex married couples. C.J. and Jesús felt

28

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-35-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 36 of 53

1 that it was dem eaning and ups etting to have to file their state tax returns as single

2 individuals when, in fact, they are married.

3

116. In addition, C.J. and Jesús would very much like to have children in the next

4 two to three years. They worry, howeve r, about raising children in a state that does not

5 respect their marriage. They are concerned that the State’s refusal to honor their marriage

6 will prevent them both from being legal parent s to the children they hope to bring into

7 their family sometime soon.

8

117. They are young and in love and want their marriage to be honored by the

9 State to which they pay taxes and in which they make thei r home and are bui lding their

10 life together.

11

Plaintiff Patrick Ralph

12

118. Longtime Phoeni x residents, Patrick Ra lph, age 59, a nd Gary H urst, who

13 would be age 73, met and fell in love in 1974. Patrick a nd Gary were bot h working for

14 different airlines as sales representatives wh en they met at the An chorage International

15 Airport in Alaska. Patrick was at the airport dropping a friend off and he parked in Gary’s

16 reserved parking space. When Patrick returned to his car, he saw Gary standing in front

17 of his parking space looki ng very irate. Gary got over his anger at Patrick for parki ng in

18 his space, and the two men chatted and exchange d contact information. They then dated

19 for five mont hs and decided they were m eant for each other. Thus be gan a lovi ng,

20 committed relationship that last ed thirty-nine year s. They divided their time between

21 Anchorage and Seattle, and after Gary retired th ey moved to Arizona in 1995. They first

22 built a house in Chandler and later moved to Phoenix.

23

119. In 2008, Gary suffered a massive brain bleed and became severely disabled.

24 He could not swallow or walk , had a trach placed in his throat and a pegline in his

25 stomach, and needed intensive physical therapy and care. Patrick became Gary’s full-time

26 caregiver and dedicated his life to taking care of him . He fed, bathed, a nd dressed Gary

27 every day, helped him use the bathroom, and took him to his medical appointments.

28

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-36-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 37 of 53

1

120. Later that same year, Gary was watchi ng the “Ellen” talk show a nd learned

2 that it had become legal for same -sex couples to marry in Calif ornia. Patrick recalls that

3 Gary said to him , “We should get married” and that he answered, “That’s impossible, w e

4 can’t get married.” G ary then said, “Yes we can. Ellen and Porti a are getting m arried.”

5 They traveled with Gary’s nurse, wheelch airs, and oxyge n tanks to P alm Springs,

6 California and m arried on October 31, 2008, afte r thirty-four year s of bei ng together and

7 just three weeks before California voter s passed P roposition 8, w hich t emporarily

8 prevented same-sex couples from marrying but did not affect the validity of Patrick and

9 Gary’s marriage.

10

121. On July 25, 2013, Gar y fell and broke his hip. He ha d an adverse reaction

11 to medication and suff ered respiratory failure. He was taken off life support and die d on

12 August 8, 2013.

13

122. Gary had been an army veteran and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

14 sent Patrick a bronze attachm ent for Gary’s headstone recognizing his service for the

15 country. During Gary’s funeral, a Color Gu ard unfolded the American flag and presented

16 it to Patrick, who was sitting next to Gary’s family, saying that it was, “In honor of Gary’s

17 service to the country and on behalf of the President.”

18

123. Patrick requested Gar y’s death cer tificate from the National Cremation

19 Society and asked to be listed as Gary’s husband. The clerk said that she would try listing

20 Patrick as Gary’s husband on his application for the death certificate. But, it was rejected

21 by the Maricopa County Office of Vital Records. When Patrick called the Office of Vital

22 Records to ask why hi s application had been rejected, he was told they could not list him

23 as Gary’s husband because Arizona does not recognize sa me-sex couples’ marriage s.

24 Patrick recalls that he said, “I’m not asking Arizona to re cognize sam e-sex m arriage. I

25 want Gary’s death certificate to show that I and t he man I was with for thirty-nine years

26 were married.” Patrick received a letter from the Arizona Department of Health Services

27 saying that the State coul d not honor his request to be liste d as Gary’s hus band on his

28

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-37-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 38 of 53

1 death certificate because the State does not recognize same-sex couples’ m arriages from

2 other states.

3

124. Patrick has been deva stated by the loss of his husba nd. The State’s refusal

4 to acknowledge his and Gary’s marriage on the State’s official record of the end of Gary’s

5 life expresses the State’s disrespect of this couple’s love and shared life together. It

6 officially negates their deep mutual commitment and exacerbates Patrick’s grief.

7

125. Moreover, because Arizona refuses to recognize Gary and Patrick’s

8 marriage on Gary’s death certificate and in othe r records, the emotional injury to Patrick

9 is com pounded by the fact that he is not eligible to rece ive Social Security surviving

10 spouse’s benefits based on Ga ry’s Social Security pe nsion rights under current federal

11 agency policy and practice be cause eligibility depends on the law of the decedent’s

12 domicile.

13

Plaintiff Josefina Ahumada

14

126. Josefina Ahumada, age 68, was married to her beloved wi fe Helen Battiste,

15 who would be 77 i n June of this year, for 20 years. Josefina is a social worker and Helen

16 worked as a registered nurse for fifty year s. The two women me t in 1991 when Helen

17 moved i nto an a dobe house in Josefina’s neighborhood. Jose fina adm ired Helen’s

18 beautiful garden and asked fo r garde ning t ips. Helen explaine d that she had taken a

19 gardening class and gave Josefina the name and contact information of her instructor, and

20 also slipped in her ow n phone num ber. Hele n and Jose fina developed a warm friendship

21 that evolved into a loving, committed relationship. They enjoyed going on long walks and

22 bike rides together, and were intensely involved in their Presbyterian church. They shared

23 a home in Tucs on for twenty ye ars. Toget her with H elen’s grown son Jack, they wer e a

24 tight-knit family. In all their years together they never had one bitter argument.

25

127. Josefina and Helen pledge d their lif elong com mitment to each other in a

26 religious commitment ceremony in July 1994. On October 22, 2013, they celebrated their

27 beautiful relationship by marrying legally in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The pastor from

28 their church in Tucson flew to New Mexico to attend and officiate their wedding.

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-38-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 39 of 53

1

128. In January 2014, Hele n ha d heart surger y. To s how l ove a nd support for

2 Helen, Josefina arran ged for their church’s choir to come to the hospital and sing for

3 Helen in her room in the Intensive Care Un it after the surgery. Ten days after the

4 operation, Helen passed away on January 31, 2014. Josefina was heartbroken.

5

129. Helen’s memorial service at the churc h was packe d full of m embers of the

6 community that love d and supporte d the co uple. Family members, friends, nurses,

7 neighbors, churc h m embers, and social work ers all came to pay respect to Helen and

8 express condolences to Josefina.

9

130. The f uneral director spoke t o Jos efina about Helen’s death certificate. He

10 was from California and he said he was not sure whether Josefina could legally apply for a

11 death certificate as Helen’s wife. He sugges ted that Jack also subm it an application in

12 case Josefina’s application was rejected becau se Helen’s son’s s tatus as a recognized

13 family member was not in doubt. Josefina subsequently was informed that her application

14 indeed had been rejected becaus e the State would not recognize her m arriage to Helen.

15 Upon learning this, Josefina w as in a state of shoc k and trem endous grief. It was

16 incredibly painful for her to hear that her application for a death certificate for her wife

17 was rejected because their relationship was not recognized. She described the rejection as

18 “an official negation” of w hat was m ost important to her. Josefina and Hele n had been

19 committed to each other for 20 years, and

it seemed as if the State’s official

20 pronouncement was that their relationship had been worth nothing.

21

131. Moreover, because Arizona refuses to acknowle dge Josefina and Helen’ s

22 marriage on Helen’s death certificate and in ot her records, Josefina is ineligible under

23 current federal law to receive a Social Secu rity death benefit and sur viving spouse’s

24 pension benefits based on Helen’s Social Security pension account.

25

Plaintiff Equality Arizona

26

132. Equality Arizona is the leading statewide organization advocating for LGBT

27 people and their families in the State of Arizona. It has thousands of members throughout

28 the state and works collaboratively to secure, protect, and defend the equal civil rights and

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-39-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 40 of 53

1 welfare of LGBT people in the State. Ma ny Equality Arizona members desire and intend

2 to marry a same-sex life partner in Arizon a, but ha ve been prevented from doing so by

3 Arizona’s law denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry. Si milarly, many Equality

4 Arizona m embers have m arried in states outsi de of Arizona, but their m arriages are not

5 recognized in Arizona due to the State’s discriminatory marriage law.

6

E. The State’s Exclusion of Same-Sex Couples from Marriage is Not Even

Rationally Related to a Legitimate Governmental Purpose, Let Alone

7

Substantially Related to an Important Government Purpose or Narrowly

Tailored to a Compelling Governmental Purpose. 8

9

133. No legitimate, let alo ne important or co mpelling, interest exists to exclude

10 same-sex couples from the historic and highl y venerated institution of marriage. An

11 individual’s capacity to establish a loving and enduring relationship does not depend upon

12 that person’s sexual orientation or sex in rel ation t o his or her life partner, nor is there

13 even a legitimate interest in justifying same-sex couples’ exclusion from marriage and the

14 spousal protections it provides on such bases.

15

134. Neither history nor tradition can legally justify the State’s discriminatory

16 exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. Marriage has remained vital and enduring

17 because of, not despite, its re siliency in response to a dynamic society, for example as

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

19 The State is not confined to historic notions of equality, and no excuse for the State’s

20 discriminatory restriction can be found in the pedigree of such discrimination.

21

135. As the Supreme Court has made clear, the law cannot, directly or indirectly,

22 give effect to private biases. Liberty an d equality, not moral disa pproval, must be the

23 guiding framework for a state’s treatment of its citizens.

24

136. Excluding sam e-sex couples from m arriage does nothi ng to protect or

25 enhance the rights of different-sex couples. Different-sex spouses will continue to enjoy

26 the same rights and status conferred by m arriage regardless of whether same-sex couples

27 may m arry, unim paired by the acknowle dgment that this freedom belongs equally to

28 lesbians and gay men.

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-40-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 41 of 53

1

137. Although the State has a valid interest in protecting the public fisc, it may

2 not pursue that interest by m aking invi dious distinctions be tween classes of its citizens

3 without adequate justification. Moreover , the State not onl y lacks any such fiscal

4 justification but rather would generate additional revenues by allowing same-sex couples

5 to marry and be recognized as married.

6

138. The State’s interest in ch ild welfare is affirmativ ely harm ed rather than

7 furthered by the e xclusion of sam e-sex couples from m arriage. That e xclusion inj ures

8 same-sex couples’ children without offering any conceivable benefit to other children.

9

139. Barring same-sex couples from marriage does not affect which couples raise

10 children together. Many same-sex couples in Arizona can and do bear children through

11 medically assisted reproductio n in wa ys available to bot h sam e-sex and different -sex

12 couples. Same-sex co uples also bring childre n into their families th rough foster care and

13 adoption. Marriage has never been the provinc e solely of couples who are, who seek to

14 be, or who are capable of bec oming parents. Neither Arizona nor any other state in this

15 country has ever restricted marriage to those capable of, or intending to, procreate.

16

140. There is no valid basis for Arizona to assert a preference for parenting by

17 different-sex couples over same-sex couples. Based on m ore than 30 years of research,

18 the scientific community has reached an emphatic consensus that children raised by same-

19 sex couple s are just as well-adjusted as ch ildren raised by different -sex couples. This

20 consensus has been recogni zed by e very m ajor prof essional or ganization dedicated t o

21 children’s health and welfar e including the American Ac ademy of Pe diatrics, the

22 American Psychological Associ ation, the American Medica l Association, the National

23 Association of Social Workers, and the Child Welfare League of America.

24

141. Other courts have found, after considering expert testimony, that there is no

25 rational basis for favoring parent ing by hete rosexual couples over parenting by gay a nd

26 lesbian couples. See, e.g., Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 980 (N.D. Cal.

27 2010) (finding that the research supporting the conclusion that “[c]hildren raised by gay or

28 lesbian parents are as likely as children rais ed by he terosexual pare nts to be healthy,

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-41-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 42 of 53

1 successful and well-adjusted” is “accep ted beyond serious debate in the field of

2 developmental psychology”), aff’d sub nom. Perry v. Brow n, 671 F.3d 1052 ( 9th Ci r.

3 2012), vacated f or lack of standing sub nom. Hollingsworth v. Perry , 133 S. Ct. 2652

4 (2013); In re Adoption of Doe , 2008 W L 5006172, at *20 (F la. Cir. Ct. Nov. 25, 2008)

5 (“[B]ased on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied

6 that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best

7 interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption.”), Fla. Dep’t

8 of Children & Families v. Adoption of X.X.G. , 45 S o. 3d 79 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010) ;

9 Howard v. Child Welfar e Agency Review Bd. , Nos. 1999-9881, 2004 W L 3154530, at *9

10 and 2004 WL 3200916, at *3 -4 (Ark. Cir. Ct. Dec. 29, 20 04) (holding based on factual

11 findings re garding t he well-being of c hildren of ga y parents that “there was no rational

12 relationship between the [exclu sion of gay people from becoming foster parents] and the

13 health, safety, and welfare of the foster children.”), aff’d sub nom. Dep’t of Human Servs.

14 v. Howard, 238 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. 2006).

15

142. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage harms their children, including

16 by branding their families as inferior and less deserving of respect, and by encouraging

17 private bias and discrimination. Denying same-sex couples the equal dignity and status of

18 marriage humiliates the children now being rais ed by same-sex couples, and makes it

19 more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their ow n

20 family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.

21

143. Excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage will not make the children

22 of different-sex spous es more secure. Diff erent-sex spouses’ children will continue t o

23 enjoy the benefits that flow from their parent s’ marriage regardless of whether same-sex

24 couples are permitted to marry. The marri age ban has no conceivable effect on th e

25 choices dif ferent-sex couples m ake about su ch prof ound issues as whether to marry,

26 whether to have children, and whether to raise their children within marriage.

27

144. The State’s interest in the welfare of children raised by s ame-sex couples is

28 as great as its interest in the welfare of any other children. The family security that comes

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-42-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 43 of 53

1 from the State’s official recognition a nd support is no less important for same-sex parents

2 and their children than it is for different-sex parents and their children.

3

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 4

Equal Protection on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Sex

5

U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

6

145. Plaintiffs incorporate by referenc e and re allege paragraphs 1 to 144 of t his

7 amended complaint.

8

146. Plaintiffs state this cause of action against Defendants in their official

9 capacities for purposes of seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

10

147. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Un ited States Constitution, enforceable

11 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, pr ovides that no state shall deny t o any pers on t he equal

12 protection of the laws. Defenda nts’ conduct violates Plaintiffs’ r ight to equal protection

13 of the laws, and specifically Plaintiffs’ right not to be denied equal protection on the basis

14 of sexual orientation or sex.

15

148. Article 30, § 1 of the Arizona Constitution, Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 25-

16 101(C) a nd 25-125( A), and all ot her sources of Arizona law that preclude m arriage of

17 same-sex couples or prevent in-state reco gnition of same-sex couples’ out-of-state

18 marriages violate the equal pr otection guar antee of the Fourteen th Amendment both

19 facially and as applied to Plaintiffs. More over, by ens hrining discrimination in the form

20 of a constitutional amendment, Arizona Constitution article 30, § 1, deprives lesbian and

21 gay Arizonans of equal protection of the la ws by l ocking them out of state and local

22 political processes an d making it uniquely more difficult to secure legislation on their

23 behalf. The conduct of Defenda nts in enforcing these laws violates the right of Plaintiffs

24 to equal protection by discriminating impermissibly on the basis of sexual orientation and

25 sex.

26

149. As Clerk of the Super ior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, D efendant

27 Jeanes’s ensuring, under color of stat e l aw, compliance with the St ate’s discriminatory

28

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-43-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 44 of 53

1 marriage ban by, for exam ple, denying sam e-sex couples marriage licenses, violates the

2 constitutional right to equal treatment of the unmarried Plaintiffs.

3

150. As the Di rector of t he De partment of Health Services and the State’s

4 Registrar of Vital Records, De fendant Will Humble’s ensuring , under color of state law,

5 compliance with the State’s di scriminatory marriage b an by, for exam ple, not allowing

6 men to be listed as husbands on the death ce rtificates of m ale individuals, nor wom en to

7 be listed as wives on the death certificates of female individuals, and licensing health care

8 institutions that discriminate against same-sex couples, violates the constitutional rights of

9 Plaintiffs to equal treatment regardless of sexual orientation and sex.

10

151. As the Director of the Department of Revenue, Defenda nt Davi d Raber’s

11 ensuring, under color of stat e law, compliance with the St ate’s discriminatory marriage

12 ban by, for example, not allowing same-sex married couples to file a joint Arizona income

13 tax return and i nstead requiring them to each individually file as single and subm it an

14 additional form identifying which individual earned which portion of the income reported

15 on the joint federal return, violates the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs to equal treatment

16 regardless of sexual orientation and sex.

17

152. The State’s m arriage ban and Def endants’ actions to enforce it deny same-

18 sex couples equal dignity and respect, and deprives their families of a critical safety net of

19 rights and responsibilities. The State’s marriage ban and Defendants’ actions to enforce it

20 reflect disappr oval, oppr obrium, calum ny, a nd a ntipathy toward lesbians and gay m en

21 based in particular notions of morality and tradition. The State’ s marriage ban brands

22 lesbians and ga y m en and their children as second-class citizens through a m essage of

23 government-imposed stigma and fosters privat e bias and discrim ination by instructing all

24 persons wi th w hom sam e-sex couples inter act, including t heir own c hildren, that their

25 relationship is less worthy than others.

26

153. Same-sex couples such as the plaintiff couples are id entical to different-sex

27 couples in all of the characte ristics relevant to marriage. S ame-sex co uples mak e th e

28 same commitment to one another as different -sex couples. Like different-sex couples,

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-44-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 45 of 53

1 same-sex couples fall in love, build their lives together, plan their futures together, and

2 hope to gr ow ol d together. Like different -sex couples, sa me-sex couples support one

3 another emotionally and fina ncially and take care of one anot her physically whe n faced

4 with injury or illness, as fo r example Plaintiff Fred McQuir e does for his hus band George

5 Martinez who is battling terminal cancer, as Pl aintiff Barbara Morrissey did for her wife

6 Michelle Teichner w hen Mish ha d a kidney tr ansplant earlier this year, and as Plaintiff

7 Patrick Ralph did for his husband Gary Hurst during Gary’s lengthy illness.

8

154. Plaintiffs seek to marry for the sam e em otional, rom antic, and dignitary

9 reasons, and to provide the same legal shelter to their families, as different-sex spouses.

10

155. Like some different-sex couples, som e same-sex couples are parents raising

11 children together. Several of the Plaintiffs ar e raising children jointly with their same-sex

12 partners or unrec ognized spouses. Those Pla intiffs and their childr en are equa lly worthy

13 of the tangible rights and responsibilities, as well as the respect, dignity, and concrete

14 protections that access to marriage confers on different-sex coupl es and their children.

15 For t he m any c hildren bei ng ra ised by sa me-sex couples, the ta ngible re sources and

16 societal esteem that access to marriage confers is no less pr ecious than for children of

17 different-sex couples.

18

A. Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation.

19

156. The State’s marriage ban targets lesbia n and gay Arizona ns as a class for

20 exclusion from m arriage and dis criminates ag ainst each Plaintiff based on his or her

21 sexual orientation both facially and as applied.

22

157. The exclusion of Plaintiffs from marri age based on the ir sexual or ientation

23 subjects Defendants’ conduct to s trict or at least heightened scrutiny, which Defendants’

24 conduct cannot withstand beca use the exclusion does not even serve any legitimate

25 governmental interests, let al one any im portant or com pelling interests, nor does it serve

26 any such interests in an adequately tailored manner.

27

158. Lesbians a nd ga y m en ha ve s uffered a long a nd painf ul his tory of

28 discrimination in the State and across the United States.

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-45-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 46 of 53

1

159. Sexual orientation bears no relation to an individual’s ab ility to perform in

2 or contribute to society.

3

160. Sexual orientation is a core, defining trait that is so fundamental to one’s

4 identity and conscience that a person may not legitimately be required to abandon it (even

5 if that were possible) as a condition of obtaining equal treatment by the government.

6

161. Sexual orientation generally is fixed at an early age and highly resistant to

7 change through interv ention. No credible evidence supports the notion that su ch

8 interventions are either effec tive or safe; in deed, they ofte n are harm ful and dam aging.

9 No m ainstream m ental health professiona l organization approves interventions that

10 attempt to change sexual orient ation, and vi rtually all of them have adopte d poli cy

11 statements cautioning professionals and the public about these treatments.

12

162. Lesbians a nd ga y m en are a di screte and insular m inority, a nd ongoing

13 prejudice against them continues seriously to curtail the opera tion of those political

14 processes that might ordinar ily be relied upon to protect minorities. Gay people have

15 fewer civil rights protections at the state and federal level than racial minorities and

16 women had when race- and sex-based classifica tions were determined to be suspect a nd

17 quasi-suspect, respectively.

18

163. Lesbians and ga y m en lack expr ess statutory protection agains t

19 discrimination in em ployment, public acco mmodations, and hous ing at the federal level

20 and in more than half the states, including Arizona; are systematically underrepresented in

21 federal, state, and l ocal dem ocratic bodies ; have bee n strippe d of the ri ght to m arry

22 through 30 state constitutional amendments and are currently not perm itted to marry in a

23 total of 33 states; and have been targeted across the nation through the voter initiativ e

24 process more than any other group.

25

164. The se xual orientation classification in A rizona’s m arriage ban, w hich

26 permits heterosexual couples to marry and be recognized as ma rried, and excludes

27 Plaintiffs and other lesbian and gay couples from marriage, imposes inequality on lesbians

28 and gay men, sends a m essage of second-class status, and cannot survive the heightene d

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-46-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 47 of 53

1 scrutiny required for such classifications, or even any form of review, because it

2 perpetuates discrim ination and stigm a agains t lesbian and ga y indivi duals, couples and

3 their families without being justified by any legitimate purpose.

4

B. Discrimination Based on Sex.

5

165. The State’s marriage ban discriminates ag ainst Plaintiffs on the basis of sex,

6 both facially and as a pplied, barring Plaintiffs from marriage or from being recognized a s

7 validly married, solely because ea ch of the Plaintiffs wishes to marry a life partner of th e

8 same sex as themselves. The sex-based restri ction is plain on the face of the State’s laws,

9 which restrict marriage to “a union of one man and one woman,” and prohibit marriage or

10 recognition of a marriage from another jurisdiction validly entered by a “committed same-

11 sex couple.” Ariz. Const. art. 30, § 1.

12

166. Because of these sex-based classifica tions, Nelda Majors is precluded from

13 marrying the woman to w hom she is de voted because Nelda is a woman and not a m an;

14 were Nelda a m an, she coul d m arry Karen Ba iley. Similarly, Michelle Teichner is

15 precluded f rom havi ng her m arriage to Barb ara Morrissey recognized as valid becaus e

16 Mish is a wom an and not a m an; were Mish a man, her validly-ent ered marriage to Barb

17 would be recognized as such under Arizona law.

18

167. The State’s marriage ban also serves the impermissible purpose of enforcing

19 and per petuating sex stereot ypes by excluding Plaintif fs fro m marriage, or from being

20 recognized as validly married, because th ey have failed to c onform to sex-based

21 stereotypes that men should marry women, and women should marry men.

22

168. Given that there are no l onger legal distinctions between the duties of

23 husbands and wives in Arizona law, there is no basis for the sex-based eligibility

24 requirements for marriage in this state.

25

169. The e xclusion of Pla intiffs from m arriage based on their sex and the

26 enforcement of gender -based stereotypes cannot survive the heighten ed scrutiny required

27 for sex-based discrimination.

28

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-47-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 48 of 53

1

C. Discrimination With Respect to Fundamental Rights and Liberty

2

Interests Secured by the Due Process Clause.

3

170. The m arriage ba n discrim inates agai nst Plaintiffs based on sexual

4 orientation and se x wi th respec t to the exercise of the fu ndamental right to marry, and

5 their liberty interests in dignity, autonomy , and family integrity and association.

6 Differential treatment with respect to the exercise of fundam ental right s and liber ty

7 interests, based on Pla intiffs’ sexual orientat ion and sex, subjects Defenda nts’ conduct t o

8 strict or at least heightened scrutiny, which Defendants’ conduct cannot withstand.

9

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

10

Substantive Due Process

U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

11

12

171. Plaintiffs incorporate by referenc e and re allege paragraphs 1 to 170 of t his

13 amended complaint.

14

172. Plaintiffs state this cause of action against Defendants in their official

15 capacities for purposes of seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

16

173. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Un ited States Constitution, enforceable

17 pursuant to 42 U.S. C. § 1983, pr ovides that no state shall deprive any person of life,

18 liberty, or property without du e process of law (the “Due Process Clause”). The above-

19 described conduct by Defenda nts infringes upon P laintiffs’ fundam ental rights and

20 protected liberty interests, a nd in so doing violates their right not to be depri ved of

21 substantive due process.

22

174. The Due Process Clause has a substant ive component that protects against

23 government interference with fundam ental right s and protected liberty interests. Each

24 individual Plaintiff has a protected, fundam ental right and liberty interest in his or her

25 private intimate conduct and family relationshi p with his or her com mitted same-sex life

26 partner.

27

175. Arizona Constitution article 30, § 1, Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 25-101(C)

28 and 25-125(A), and all other sources of stat e law that preclude marriage for sa me-sex

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-48-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 49 of 53

1 couples or prevent recognition of their marriages violate the due process guarantee of the

2 Fourteenth Amendment both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs.

3

176. The right to marry the unique person of one’s choice and to direct the course

4 of one’s life in this intimate r ealm without undue government restriction is one of the

5 fundamental liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause. Defendants’ actions to

6 enforce the m arriage ban directly and im permissibly infringe Plaintiffs’ choice of whom

7 to marry, interfering with a core, life-altering, and intimate personal choice.

8

177. The Due Process Clause also protects choices central to personal dignity and

9 autonomy, including each individual’s rights to family integrity and associatio n.

10 Defendants’ actions to enf orce the m arriage ba n dir ectly and i mpermissibly infringe

11 Plaintiffs’ deeply i ntimate, personal, and pr ivate dec isions regarding fam ily life, and

12 preclude t hem from obtaining f ull liberty, di gnity, and security fo r themselves, their

13 family, and their parent-child bonds.

14

178. As Clerk of the Super ior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, D efendant

15 Jeanes’s ensuring, under color of stat e l aw, compliance with the St ate’s discriminatory

16 marriage ban by, for exam ple, denying sam e-sex couples marriage licenses, violates the

17 fundamental right to marry an d the other rights of the unm arried Plaintiffs that are

18 protected by the const itutional guarantees of liberty, dignity, autonomy, family integrity,

19 association, and due process conta ined in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

20 Constitution.

21

179. As the Di rector of t he De partment of Health Services and the State’s

22 Registrar of Vital Records, De fendant Will Humble’s ensuring , under color of state law,

23 compliance with the State’s di scriminatory marriage b an by, for example, not allowing

24 men to be listed as husbands on the death ce rtificates of m ale individuals, nor wom en to

25 be listed as wives on the death certificates of female individuals, and licensing health care

26 institutions that discriminate against same

-sex couples, violates the Plaintiffs’

27 fundamental right to marry and constitutional ri ghts to liberty, dignity, autonomy, family

28

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-49-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 50 of 53

1 integrity, a ssociation, and due pr ocess unde r the Fourteenth Ame ndment to the United

2 States Constitution.

3

180. As the Director of the Department of Revenue, Defenda nt Davi d Raber’s

4 ensuring, under color of stat e law, compliance with the St ate’s discriminatory marriage

5 ban by, for example, not allowing same-sex married couples to file a joint Arizona income

6 tax return and i nstead requiring them to each individually file as single and subm it an

7 additional form identifying which individual earned which portion of the income reported

8 on the joint federal return, vi olates the Plaintiffs’ fund amental right to marry and

9 constitutional rights to liberty, dignity, autonom y, family integrity, association, and due

10 process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

11

181. Defendants’ actions thus deny and abri dge Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to

12 marry, and liberty and due pr ocess interests in autonomy, and family integrity and

13 association, by pe nalizing Plai ntiffs’ self-determinatio n in the most intimate sphere of

14 their lives.

15

182. Defendants cannot satisfy the Du

e Process Clause’s decree that

16 governmental interference with a fundamental right or liberty interest may be sustained

17 only upon a showi ng that the burden is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling or even

18 important governmental interest, as the marriag e ban is not even tailored to any legitimate

19 interest at all.

20

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

21

28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 57 and 65

22

183. Plaintiffs incorporate by referenc e and re allege paragraphs 1 to 182 of t his

23 amended complaint.

24

184. This case presents an actual contr oversy be cause Defenda nts’ pre sent and

25 ongoing denial of equal treatment to Plain tiffs, and denial to Plaint iffs of their

26 fundamental rights and protected l iberty interests, subjects them to serious and immediate

27 harms, warranting the issuance of a declaratory judgment.

28

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-50-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 51 of 53

1

185. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief to protect their

2 constitutional rights and avoi d the injuries described above. A favorabl e decision

3 enjoining Defenda nts would re dress and preve nt the irreparable injuries to Plaintiffs

4 identified herein, for which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law or in equity.

5

186. The State will incur little to no burden in allowing same-sex couples to

6 marry and in recognizing the valid marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions

7 on the sam e term s as different-sex couples, wh ereas the hardship for Plaintiffs of being

8 denied equal treatment and their fundamental ri ghts and protected l iberty interests, and of

9 being relegated to a demonstrably inferior so cial and legal status is severe, subjecting

10 them to an irreparable denial of their constitu tional rights. The balance of hardships thus

11 tips strongly in favor of Plaintiffs.

12

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

13

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment:

14

A. Declaring t hat the pr ovisions a nd enforcement by Defenda nts of Arizona

15 Constitution article 30, § 1, Ar izona Revised Statut es §§ 25-101(C) and 25-125(A), and

16 any ot her sources of state law that exclude same- sex co uples fro m ma rrying v iolate

17 Plaintiffs’ rights under the Equal Protection and D ue P rocess Clauses of the Fourteent h

18 Amendment to the United States Constitution; and, for those couples legally married in

19 another jurisdiction, declari ng that it is unconstitutional for Defendants to refuse, based

20 solely on t he fact those couples are sam e-sex couples or that an indi vidual’s spouse is or

21 was of the same sex as that individual, to respect Plaintiffs’ out-of-state valid marriages as

22 marriages in Arizona;

23

B. Preliminarily and permanently enjo ining enforcem ent by Defendants of

24 Arizona Constitution article 30, § 1, Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 25-101(C) and 25-

25 125(A), and any ot her sources of state law th at exclude same-sex couples from marriage

26 and for those same-sex couples who are or we re legally married in another jurisdiction,

27 enjoining Defenda nts from de nying rec ognition of t hose m arriages based s olely on the

28

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-51-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 52 of 53

1 fact that the couple is a sam e-sex couple or that an indivi dual’s spouse is or was of the

2 same sex as that individual;

3

C. Requiring Defendants in their offici al capacities to allo w same-sex couples

4 to marry on the same terms as different-sex couples, and to recognize the valid marriages

5 of same-sex couples f rom other j urisdictions on the same terms as the valid marriages o f

6 different-sex couples from other jurisdictions;

7

D. Awarding Plaintiffs their costs, expe nses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees

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

9

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

10 Dated: August 5, 2014 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC.
By: s/ Jennifer C. Pizer Jennifer C. Pizer (Admitted pro hac vice) Carmina Ocampo (Admitted pro hac vice) 4221 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 280 Los Angeles, California 90010 Paul F. Eckstein Daniel C. Barr Kirstin T. Eidenbach Barry G. Stratford Alexis E. Danneman PERKINS COIE LLP 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-52-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 50 Filed 08/05/14 Page 53 of 53

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on August 5, 2014, I electronically transmitted the

3 attached documents to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and

4 transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:

5

Robert L. Ellman: robert.ellman@azag.gov

6

Kathleen P. Sweeney: kathleen.sweeney@azag.gov

7

Bryon Babione: BBabione@alliancedefendingfreedome.org

8

Jonathan Caleb Dalton: CDalton@alliancedefendingfreedom.org

9

James A Campbell: jcampbell@alliancedefendingfreedom.org

10

Kenneth J. Connelly: kconnelly@alliancedefendingfreedom.org

11

I hereby certify that on A ugust 5, 2 014, I served the a ttached document by

12 first class m ail on H onorable J ohn W. Se dwick, U nited States District Court, Federa l

13 Building and U nited States Courthouse, 2 22 West 7th Ave nue, Box 32, Anc horage,

14 Alaska 99513-9513.

15

s/ S. Neilson

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

43670-0004/LEGAL122920412.1

-53-

 
 Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 88 Filed 10/17/14 Page 1 of 4

1

2

3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8

9

10 Nelda Majors, et al.,

)

)

11

Plaintiffs,

)

2:14-cv-00518 JWS

12 vs.

)

)

ORDER AND OPINION

13

)

Tom Horne, et al., 14

) [Re: Motions at dockets 59 and 82] )

15

Defendants.

)

)

16

I. MOTIONS PRESENTED 17

18

At docket 59 plaintiffs move for summary judgment. Defendants respond at

19 docket 83, and plaintiffs reply at docket 85. Defendants move for summary judgment at

20 docket 82. Plaintiffs respond at docket 85, and defendants’ reply has not yet been filed.

21 Oral argument was not requested and, given recent developments in the law of the
22 Ninth Circuit, would not be of assistance to the court.
23
II. BACKGROUND 24

25

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

26 seek to have Arizona recognize their marriages, same-sex couples who wish to wed in

27 Arizona, and an organization that purports to represent the interests of same-sex 28

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 88 Filed 10/17/14 Page 2 of 4

1 couples in Arizona. There are provisions of Arizona law that make it impossible for
2 same-sex couples to wed in Arizona and which also make it impossible for Arizona to
3 recognize the validity of same-sex marriages lawfully entered in other jurisdictions. The
4 provisions at issue are Article 30, Section 1, of the Arizona Constitution which states
5
6 that only a marriage between one man and one woman is valid and recognizable in

7 Arizona; A.R.S. § 25-101(C) which provides that same-sex marriage is prohibited in

8 Arizona; and A.R.S. § 25-125(A) which defines marriage as between a male and female
9 person (collectively “the challenged laws”). Plaintiffs ask the court to declare that the
10 challenged laws deny them equal protection of the law and therefore are invalid under
11 the United States Constitution. They also ask the court to permanently enjoin the
12
13 enforcement of the challenged laws. Defendants deny that the laws violate the United

14 States Constitution.

15

III. DISCUSSION

16 When the pending motions were filed the law of this circuit was not clear. Thus,
17
resolution of the motions would have required this court to write a lengthy decision. 18

19 However, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently ruled that substantially

20 identical provisions of Nevada and Idaho law that prohibit same-sex marriages are

21 invalid because they deny same-sex couples equal protection of the law, the right to

22 which is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.1 This court is bound by 23

24

25

26
1Latta v. Otter, F.3d , Nos. 14-35420, 14-35421, and 12-17668, 2014 WL 4977682
27 (9th Cir. Oct. 7, 2014).

28

-2-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 88 Filed 10/17/14 Page 3 of 4

1 decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.2 For that reason, plaintiffs are
2 entitled to a declaration that the challenged laws are unconstitutional together with a
3 permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of the challenged laws.
4 A stay of this decision to allow defendants to appeal is not warranted. It is clear
5
6 that an appeal to the Ninth Circuit would not succeed. It is also clear—based on the

7 Supreme Court’s denial of petitions for writs of certiorari filed in connection with several

8 circuit court decisions which held that same-sex marriage must be recognized in

9 Indiana,3 Oklahoma,4 Utah,5 Virginia,6 and Wisconsin7—that the High Court will turn a
10 deaf ear on any request for relief from the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
11
IV. CONCLUSION 12

13

For the reasons given in the preceding section of this order, plaintiffs’ motion for

14 summary judgment at docket 59 is granted as follows: this court hereby declares

15 Article 30, Section 1, of the Arizona Constitution; A.R.S § 25-101©; and A.R.S. § 25-
16 125(A) unconstitutional because they deny same-sex couples the equal protection of
17

18

19

2See Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1171 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Circuit law . . . binds all

courts within a particular circuit, including the court of appeals itself. Thus, the first panel to
20 consider an issue sets the law not only for all the inferior courts in the circuit, but also future

panels of the court of appeals.”) (citation omitted).
21

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

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

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

27

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

28

-3-

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 88 Filed 10/17/14 Page 4 of 4

1 the law. It is further ordered that defendants are hereby ordered to permanently cease

2 enforcement of those provisions of Arizona law declared unconstitutional by this order.

3 The court declines to stay the effect of this order. Defendants’ cross-motion for
4
summary judgment is denied as moot. 5

6

DATED this 16th day of October 2014.

7

8 /s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-4-

 
 Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 111 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8 Nelda Majors; Karen Bailey; David Case No: 2:14-cv-00518-JWS

9

Larance; Kevin Patterson; Michelle Teichner; Barbara Morrissey; Kathy

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS’

10

Young; Jessica Young; Kelli Olson; Jennifer Hoefle Olson; Kent Burbank;

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

11

Vicente Talanquer; C.J. Castro-Byrd; Jesús Castro-Byrd; Patrick Ralph;

12

Josefina Ahumada; Equality Arizona; George Martinez; and Fred McQuire,

13

Plaintiffs,

14 vs.

15 Michael K. Jeanes, in his official

16

capacity as Clerk of the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona;

17

Cara M. Christ, in her official capacity as Director of the

18

Department of Health Services; and David Raber, in his official capacity

19

as Director of the Department of Revenue,

20

Defendants.

21

22

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

23 for Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ Fees and Costs incurred in litigating this case in this Court.

24 (Dkt. 110.) Having reviewed the parties’ Joint Stipulation and for good cause shown,

25

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

26 Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is approved.

27

28

Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 111 Filed 12/18/15 Page 2 of 2

1

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

2 Defendants is entered in the amount of $302,140.11 and that postjudgment interest on

3 the $302,140.11 amount shall accrue at the current statutory rate beginning thirty days

4 after this Court enters its Judgment for that amount if the amount has not been paid in

5 full by that date.

6

DATED this 17th day of December 2015.

7

8

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 
 Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 1 of 27
U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Phoenix Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:14−cv−00518−JWS

CLOSED,STD

Majors et al v. Horne et al Assigned to: Judge John W Sedwick Case in other court: Ninth Circuit, 14−17276 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
Nelda Majors

Date Filed: 03/12/2014 Date Terminated: 10/17/2014 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Alexis Elizabeth Danneman Perkins Coie LLP − Phoenix, AZ P.O. Box 400 Phoenix, AZ 85001−0400 602−351−8201 Email: ADanneman@Perkinscoie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barry Grant Stratford Perkins Coie LLP − Phoenix, AZ P.O. Box 400 Phoenix, AZ 85001−0400 602−351−8206 Fax: 602−648−7035 Email: BStratford@perkinscoie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmina OCampo Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund Incorporated 4221 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 280 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213−382−7600 Fax: 213−351−6050 Email: cocampo@lambdalegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Clayton Barr Perkins Coie LLP PO Box 400 Phoenix, AZ 85001−0400 602−351−8085 Fax: 602−648−7085 Email: DBarr@perkinscoie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer C Pizer Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund Incorporated 4221 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 280 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213−382−7600 Fax: 213−351−6050 Email: jpizer@lambdalegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 2 of 27

Joshua J Johnson Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund Incorporated 4221 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 280 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213−382−7600 Fax: 213−351−6050 Email: jjohnson@lambdalegal.org TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kirstin T Eidenbach Eidenbach Law PLLC P.O. Box 91398 Tucson, AZ 85752 520−477−1475 Email: kirstin@eidenbachlaw.com TERMINATED: 04/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul F Eckstein Perkins Coie LLP PO Box 400 Phoenix, AZ 85001−0400 602−351−8000 Fax: 602−648−7122 Email: PEckstein@perkinscoie.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Karen Bailey

represented by Alexis Elizabeth Danneman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry Grant Stratford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer C Pizer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua J Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 3 of 27

Kirstin T Eidenbach (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul F Eckstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff David Larance

represented by Alexis Elizabeth Danneman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry Grant Stratford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer C Pizer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua J Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kirstin T Eidenbach (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul F Eckstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kevin Patterson

represented by Alexis Elizabeth Danneman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry Grant Stratford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 4 of 27

Plaintiff Michelle Teichner

Carmina OCampo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer C Pizer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua J Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kirstin T Eidenbach (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul F Eckstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexis Elizabeth Danneman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barry Grant Stratford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmina OCampo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer C Pizer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua J Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 5 of 27

Plaintiff Barbara Morrissey
Plaintiff Kathy Young

Kirstin T Eidenbach (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul F Eckstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexis Elizabeth Danneman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barry Grant Stratford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carmina OCampo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer C Pizer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua J Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kirstin T Eidenbach (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul F Eckstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexis Elizabeth Danneman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barry Grant Stratford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 6 of 27

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer C Pizer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua J Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kirstin T Eidenbach (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul F Eckstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jessica Young

represented by Alexis Elizabeth Danneman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry Grant Stratford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer C Pizer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua J Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 7 of 27

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kirstin T Eidenbach (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul F Eckstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kelli Olson

represented by Alexis Elizabeth Danneman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry Grant Stratford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer C Pizer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua J Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kirstin T Eidenbach (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul F Eckstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jennifer Hoefle Olson

represented by Alexis Elizabeth Danneman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry Grant Stratford (See above for address)

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 8 of 27

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer C Pizer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua J Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kirstin T Eidenbach (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul F Eckstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kent Burbank

represented by Alexis Elizabeth Danneman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry Grant Stratford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer C Pizer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua J Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 9 of 27

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kirstin T Eidenbach (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul F Eckstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Vicente Talanquer

represented by Alexis Elizabeth Danneman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry Grant Stratford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer C Pizer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua J Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kirstin T Eidenbach (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul F Eckstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CJ Castro−Byrd

represented by Alexis Elizabeth Danneman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry Grant Stratford

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 10 of 27

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

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

Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer C Pizer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua J Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kirstin T Eidenbach (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul F Eckstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jesus Castro−Byrd

represented by Alexis Elizabeth Danneman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry Grant Stratford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer C Pizer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua J Johnson (See above for address)

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 11 of 27

TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kirstin T Eidenbach (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul F Eckstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Patrick Ralph

represented by Alexis Elizabeth Danneman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry Grant Stratford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer C Pizer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua J Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kirstin T Eidenbach (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul F Eckstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Josefina Ahumada

represented by Alexis Elizabeth Danneman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 12 of 27

Barry Grant Stratford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer C Pizer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua J Johnson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kirstin T Eidenbach (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul F Eckstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Equality Arizona

represented by Alexis Elizabeth Danneman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry Grant Stratford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer C Pizer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua J Johnson

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 13 of 27

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/04/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kirstin T Eidenbach (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul F Eckstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff George Martinez

represented by Alexis Elizabeth Danneman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry Grant Stratford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer C Pizer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kirstin T Eidenbach (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul F Eckstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Fred McQuire

represented by Alexis Elizabeth Danneman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry Grant Stratford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 14 of 27
Carmina OCampo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Clayton Barr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer C Pizer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kirstin T Eidenbach (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul F Eckstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Intervenor Plaintiff
Chris Sevier TERMINATED: 05/16/2014

represented by Chris Sevier P.O. Box 17148 Phoenix, AZ 85011 615−500−4411 PRO SE

V.
Defendant
Tom Horne in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Arizona TERMINATED: 04/10/2014

represented by Kathleen Patricia Sweeney Office of the Attorney General Solicitor Generals Section 1275 W Washington St. Phoenix, AZ 85007−2926 602−542−8625 Fax: 602−542−8308 Email: Kathleen.Sweeney@azag.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lawrence Ellman Office of the Attorney General − Phoenix 1275 W Washington St. Phoenix, AZ 85007−2997 602−542−8696 Fax: 602−542−8308 Email: rle@ellmanweinzweig.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd Mitchell Allison − Inactive Office of the Attorney General − Phoenix 1275 W Washington St.

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 15 of 27

Phoenix, AZ 85007−2997 602−542−8137 Email: tallison@fclaw.com TERMINATED: 08/01/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
William Humble named as: Will Humble − in his official capacity as Director of the Department of Health Services

represented by Byron Jeffords Babione Alliance Defending Freedom − Scottsdale, AZ 15100 N 90th St. Scottsdale, AZ 85260−0001 480−444−0020 Fax: 480−444−0028 Email: bbabione@alliancedefendingfreedom.org TERMINATED: 10/27/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Andrew Campbell Alliance Defending Freedom − Scottsdale, AZ 15100 N 90th St. Scottsdale, AZ 85260−0001 480−444−0020 Fax: 480−444−0020 Email: jcampbell@alliancedefendingfreedom.org TERMINATED: 10/27/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Caleb Dalton Alliance Defending Freedom 15100 N. 90th Street Scottsdale, AZ 85260 480−444−0020 Fax: 480−444−0028 Email: cdalton@alliancedefendingfreedom.org TERMINATED: 10/27/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Kenneth John Connelly Alliance Defending Freedom − Scottsdale, AZ 15100 N 90th St. Scottsdale, AZ 85260−0001 480−444−0020 Fax: 480−444−0028 Email: kconnelly@alliancedefendingfreedom.org TERMINATED: 10/27/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 16 of 27

Defendant Michael K Jeanes in his official capacity as Clerk of the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona
Defendant David Raber in his official capacity as Director of the Department of Revenue

Todd Mitchell Allison − Inactive (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/01/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Byron Jeffords Babione (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Andrew Campbell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Caleb Dalton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen Patricia Sweeney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth John Connelly (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Lawrence Ellman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Todd Mitchell Allison − Inactive (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/01/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Byron Jeffords Babione (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Andrew Campbell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Caleb Dalton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2014

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 17 of 27
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen Patricia Sweeney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenneth John Connelly (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/12/2014
03/12/2014
03/12/2014 03/13/2014 03/13/2014
03/14/2014 03/17/2014 03/20/2014
03/20/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $400.00, receipt number PHX 0970−10223992 filed by Patrick Ralph, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Kent Burbank, Nelda Majors, Josefina Ahumada, Barbara Morrissey, Vicente Talanquer, Kathy Young, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kevin Patterson, Jessica Young, CJ Castro−Byrd, Kelli Olson, Michelle Teichner, David Larance, Karen Bailey. (submitted by Daniel Barr) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(REK) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
2 SUMMONS Submitted by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, David Larance, Nelda Majors, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young. (submitted by Daniel Barr) (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons)(REK) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
3 Filing fee paid, receipt number PHX 0970−10223992. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Neil V. Wake. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV−14−00518−PHX−NVW. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (REK) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
4 Summons Issued as to Tom Horne, William Humble, Michael K Jeanes. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons)(REK). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document. (Entered: 03/13/2014)
5 ORDER that motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(c) are discouraged if the defect can be cured by filing an amended pleading. Therefore, the parties must meet and confer prior to the filing of such motions to determine whether it can be avoided. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs serve a copy of this Order upon Defendants and file a notice of service. Signed by Judge Neil V. Wake on 03/13/2014. (NVW, mh) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
NOTICE of request for e−notices by J. Christian. (Christian, Jeremy) (Entered: 03/14/2014)
NOTICE of request for e−notices by Heather A. Macre. (Macre, Heather) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
6 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, David Larance, Nelda Majors, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young: Certificate of Service re: Summons in a Civil Action; Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Order (Doc. 5) upon Tom Horne on 3/14/2014. (Eidenbach, Kirstin) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
7 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, David Larance, Nelda Majors, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young: Certificate of Service re: Summons in a Civil Action; Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Order (Doc. 5) upon Michael Jeanes on 3/14/2014. (Eidenbach, Kirstin) (Entered: 03/20/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 18 of 27

03/20/2014 03/24/2014
03/25/2014 03/25/2014 03/25/2014 03/28/2014 03/28/2014 03/31/2014 04/03/2014 04/03/2014

8 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, David Larance, Nelda Majors, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young: Certificate of Service re: Summons in a Civil Action; Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Order (Doc. 5) upon Will Humble on 3/14/2014. (Eidenbach, Kirstin) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
9 * First MOTION to Consolidate Cases with Connelly et al. v. Roche, No. 2:14−CV−0024 by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, David Larance, Nelda Majors, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Associated Cases: CV−14−00518−PHX−NVW, CV−14−0024−PHX−JWS) (Barr, Daniel) * Modified to correct numbers of associated cases on 3/25/2014 (LAD). (Entered: 03/24/2014)
10 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, David Larance, Nelda Majors, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young: Declaration of Service re: Motion to Consolidate Case with Connelly et al v. Roche, 2:14−CV−2004 (and Proposed Order) upon Defendant Horne on 3/24/14. (Barr, Daniel) (Entered: 03/25/2014)
11 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, David Larance, Nelda Majors, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young: Declaration of Service re: Motion to Consolidate Case with Connelly et al v. Roche, 2:14−CV−2004 (and Proposed Order) upon Defendant Humble on 3/24/14. (Barr, Daniel) (Entered: 03/25/2014)
12 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, David Larance, Nelda Majors, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young: Declaration of Service re: Motion to Consolidate Case with Connelly et al v. Roche, 2:14−CV−2004 (and Proposed Order) upon Defendant Jeanes on 3/24/14. (Barr, Daniel) (Entered: 03/25/2014)
13 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Carmina Ocampo by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, David Larance, Nelda Majors, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young. (OCampo, Carmina) (Entered: 03/28/2014)
14 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Jennifer C. Pizer by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young. (Pizer, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/28/2014)
15 RESPONSE to Motion re: (22 in 2:14−cv−00024−JWS, 22 in 2:14−cv−00024−JWS) First MOTION to Consolidate Cases with Connelly et al. v. Roche, No. 2:14−CV−0024 filed by Peter Bramley, David Chaney, Joseph Connolly, Suzanne Cummins, Christopher L Devine, Jeffrey Ferst, R Mason Hite, IV, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Holly N Mitchell, Terrel L Pochert, Robin Reece, Clark Rowley. (Associated Cases: 2:14−cv−00024−JWS, 2:14−cv−00518−NVW) (Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 03/31/2014)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by Kathleen Patricia Sweeney on behalf of Tom Horne, William Humble, Michael K Jeanes. (Sweeney, Kathleen) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
17 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT . (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting)(Sweeney, Kathleen) (Entered: 04/03/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 19 of 27

04/03/2014 04/07/2014 04/10/2014 04/10/2014 04/10/2014
04/10/2014
04/11/2014 04/11/2014 04/14/2014
04/15/2014 04/15/2014 04/15/2014

18 ORDER granting the Stipulation (Doc. 17 ) and extending the time for Defendants Attorney General Thomas C. Horne; Will Humble, the Director of the Department of Health Services; and Michael K. Jeanes, the Clerk of the Superior Court of Maricopa County, to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint to 04/11/14. Signed by Judge Neil V. Wake on 4/3/14. (NKS) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
19 *NOTICE re: Non−Opposition to Motion to Consolidate filed in CV−14−024−PHX−JWS by Tom Horne, William Humble, Michael K Jeanes . (Sweeney, Kathleen) *Modified to include lead case number on 4/8/2014 (LSP). (Entered: 04/07/2014)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX144955 as to Jennifer C Pizer. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 04/10/2014)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 50, receipt number PHX144956 as to Carmina OCampo. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 04/10/2014)
20 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 13 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 14 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 04/10/2014)
21 *AMENDED COMPLAINT for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief against William Humble, Michael K Jeanes filed by Patrick Ralph, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Kent Burbank, Nelda Majors, Josefina Ahumada, Barbara Morrissey, Vicente Talanquer, Kathy Young, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kevin Patterson, Jessica Young, CJ Castro−Byrd, Kelli Olson, Michelle Teichner, David Larance, Karen Bailey. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Barr, Daniel) *Modified to add plaintiff Equality Arizona and defendant David Raber on 4/11/2014 (LSP). (Entered: 04/10/2014)
22 Summons Issued as to David Raber. (LSP). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document. (Entered: 04/11/2014)
23 NOTICE of Filing Amended Pleading pursuant to LRCiv 15.1(b) by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Equality Arizona, David Larance, Nelda Majors, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young (Amended Complaint). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Barr, Daniel) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
24 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Equality Arizona, David Larance, Nelda Majors, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young: Rule 4 Waiver of Service of Summons. Waiver sent on 4/11/14 to David Raber, in his official capacity as Director of Arizona Department of Revenue . (Barr, Daniel) (Entered: 04/14/2014)
25 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Joshua J Johnson on behalf of plaintiffs Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Equality Arizona, David Larance, Nelda Majors, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, and Kathy Young. (BAS) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX145122 as to Joshua J Johnson. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
26 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 25 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 20 of 27

04/15/2014
04/18/2014 04/18/2014 04/18/2014 04/23/2014 04/23/2014 04/23/2014
04/28/2014
05/06/2014
05/13/2014 05/13/2014 05/16/2014 05/29/2014 05/30/2014 06/09/2014

five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
27 ORDER denying (22) Motion to Consolidate Case 2:14−cv−00024−JWS with case 2:14−cv−00518−NVW. However, the court finds that the cases should be before the same judge. Given that the earlier filed case is on the docket of Judge Sedwick, the Clerk will please transfer the CV−14−00518 case from the docket of Judge Wake to the docket of Judge Sedwick. Henceforth, the CV−14−00518 case shall be identified as Case No. 2:14−cv−00518−JWS. (Associated Cases: 2:14−cv−00024−JWS, 2:14−cv−00518−NVW) (LSP) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
28 NOTICE of Appearance by Byron Jeffords Babione on behalf of William Humble, Michael K Jeanes, David Raber. (Babione, Byron) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
29 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan Caleb Dalton on behalf of William Humble, Michael K Jeanes, David Raber. (Dalton, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
30 Defendants' ANSWER to 21 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand and Affirmative Defenses by William Humble, Michael K Jeanes, David Raber.(Sweeney, Kathleen) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
31 MOTION to Intervene by Chris Sevier. (LSP) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
32 MEMORANDUM in Support of 31 MOTION to Intervene by Intervenor Plaintiff Chris Sevier. (LSP) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
33 *LODGED Proposed "Intervening Complaint and Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" re: 31 MOTION to Intervene. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Chris Sevier. (LSP) Modified on 8/20/2014 (LSP). (Entered: 04/24/2014)
34 *Joint RESPONSE in Opposition re: 31 MOTION to Intervene as Plaintiff filed by William Humble, Michael K Jeanes, David Raber and All Plaintiffs. (Sweeney, Kathleen) *Modified to reflect correct filers on 4/28/2014 (LSP). (Entered: 04/28/2014)
35 SUPPLEMENT Notice of Supplemental Authority re: 34 Response in Opposition to Motion to Intervene as a Plaintiff by Plaintiffs Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Equality Arizona, David Larance, Nelda Majors, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Barr, Daniel) (Entered: 05/06/2014)
36 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 31 MOTION to Intervene filed by Chris Sevier. (LSP) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
37 MOTION "to File through ECF Pacer" by Chris Sevier. (LSP) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
38 ORDER FROM CHAMBERS denying 31 Motion to Intervene and denying as moot 37 Motion to File through ECF PACER. (LSP) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
NOTICE of request for e−notices by Shawn K. Aiken. (Aiken, Shawn) (Entered: 05/29/2014)
39 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Chris Sevier. Reason for return: Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward. Document number 38. (LSP) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
40 INITIAL CASE STATUS REPORT / CASE SCHEDULING AND PLANNING ORDER. Counsel for all parties must meet within 21 days from service of this order for purposes of jointly completing a scheduling and planning report. Within 28 days from service of this order, counsel for plaintiff shall serve and file the parties' report with the court. In the event the parties to this case are already actively engaged in settlement negotiations, counsel for plaintiff shall so advise the court within seven (7) days following the entry of this order, and shall specify the date by which the parties expect to conclude their settlement negotiations. (JWS) (Entered: 06/09/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 21 of 27

06/20/2014 07/07/2014 07/15/2014
07/31/2014
08/01/2014 08/01/2014
08/04/2014 08/04/2014 08/04/2014 08/05/2014
08/08/2014 08/14/2014

41 NOTICE of Appearance by James Andrew Campbell on behalf of William Humble, Michael K Jeanes, David Raber. (Campbell, James) (Entered: 06/20/2014)
42 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Equality Arizona, David Larance, Nelda Majors, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young. (Pizer, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/07/2014)
43 JUDGE SEDWICK TEXT ORDER. The court has reviewed the report at (Doc. 42 ). The court accepts the report and agrees that this case will likely be resolved by summary judgment. The court adopts the summary judgment briefing schedule suggested by the parties on page 3 of the report at docket 42. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment due August 1, 2014. Defendants' response and cross−motion for summary judgment due September 5, 2014. Plaintiffs' combined reply to response to motion for summary judgment and response to defendants' cross−motion for summary judgment due October 6, 2014. Defendants' reply in support of cross−motion for summary judgment due October 27, 2014. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (JWS) Modified on 7/15/2014 (LSP). (Entered: 07/15/2014)
44 STIPULATION to Amend Scheduling Order by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Equality Arizona, David Larance, Nelda Majors, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pizer, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/31/2014)
45 NOTICE of Attorney Withdrawal filed by Kathleen Patricia Sweeney. (Sweeney, Kathleen) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
46 STIPULATION Requesting Leave to File Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Equality Arizona, David Larance, Nelda Majors, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Pizer, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
47 NOTICE of Attorney Withdrawal Joshua J.Johnson filed by Carmina OCampo. (OCampo, Carmina) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
48 ORDER granting 44 Stipulation to Amend Scheduling Order. Defendants shall answer the second amended complaint by Friday, August 8, 2014. See PDF document for details. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 8/4/14. (LSP) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
49 ORDER granting 46 Stipulation, Plaintiffs' proposed Second Amended Complaint shall be filed. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 8/4/14. (LSP) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
50 *SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Patrick Ralph, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Kent Burbank, Nelda Majors, Josefina Ahumada, Barbara Morrissey, Vicente Talanquer, Kathy Young, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kevin Patterson, Equality Arizona, Jessica Young, CJ Castro−Byrd, Kelli Olson, Michelle Teichner, David Larance, Karen Bailey.(Pizer, Jennifer) *Modified to add plaintiffs Maritnez and McQuire on 8/5/2014 (LSP). (Entered: 08/05/2014)
51 Defendants' ANSWER to 50 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand by William Humble, Michael K Jeanes, David Raber.(Sweeney, Kathleen) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
52 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Equality Arizona, David Larance, Nelda Majors, George Martinez, Fred McQuire, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pizer, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/14/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 22 of 27

08/14/2014
08/14/2014
08/14/2014
08/14/2014 08/14/2014 08/20/2014 08/20/2014 08/20/2014 08/20/2014

53 *(Filed at Doc. 59 )−−LODGED Proposed Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support re: 52 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Equality Arizona, David Larance, Nelda Majors, George Martinez, Fred McQuire, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young. (Pizer, Jennifer) Modified on 8/20/2014 (LSP). (Entered: 08/14/2014)
54 *(Filed at Doc. 60 )−−LODGED Proposed Plaintiffs' Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment re: 52 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Equality Arizona, David Larance, Nelda Majors, George Martinez, Fred McQuire, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young. (Pizer, Jennifer) Modified on 8/20/2014 (LSP). (Entered: 08/14/2014)
55 *(Filed at Doc. 61 )−−LODGED Proposed Declaration of Carmina Ocampo in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment re: 52 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Equality Arizona, David Larance, Nelda Majors, George Martinez, Fred McQuire, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young. (Attachments: # 1 Index & Exhibits A−T)(Pizer, Jennifer) Modified on 8/20/2014 (LSP). (Entered: 08/14/2014)
56 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction by George Martinez, Fred McQuire. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pizer, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/14/2014)
57 *(Filed at Doc. 63 )−−LODGED Proposed Motion for Preliminary Injunction of Plaintiffs George Martinez and Fred McQuire and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support re: 56 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by George Martinez, Fred McQuire. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pizer, Jennifer) Modified on 8/20/2014 (LSP). (Entered: 08/14/2014)
58 ORDER granting 52 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The Clerk's Office shall electronically file the Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 8/19/14.(LSP) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
59 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Equality Arizona, David Larance, Nelda Majors, George Martinez, Fred McQuire, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young. (LSP) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
60 STATEMENT of Facts in Support of 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Equality Arizona, David Larance, Nelda Majors, George Martinez, Fred McQuire, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young. (LSP) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
61 DECLARATION of Carmina Ocampo in Support of 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Equality Arizona, David Larance, Nelda Majors, George Martinez, Fred McQuire, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young. (LSP) (Entered: 08/20/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 23 of 27

08/20/2014 08/20/2014 09/02/2014 09/02/2014 09/02/2014 09/02/2014 09/03/2014
09/04/2014 09/08/2014 09/09/2014 09/10/2014
09/10/2014 09/12/2014

62 ORDER granting 56 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The Clerks Office shall electronically file the Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 8/19/14.(LSP) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
63 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support by George Martinez, Fred McQuire. (LSP) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
64 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order of Plaintiff Fred McQuire; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support by Fred McQuire. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pizer, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
65 DECLARATION of Jennifer C. Pizer re: 64 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order of Plaintiff Fred McQuire; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support by Plaintiff Fred McQuire. (Pizer, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
66 DECLARATION of Frederick "Fred" McQuire re: 64 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order of Plaintiff Fred McQuire; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support (Supplemental Declaration) by Plaintiff Fred McQuire. (Pizer, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
67 DECLARATION of Isabel Duff re: 64 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order of Plaintiff Fred McQuire; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support by Plaintiff Fred McQuire. (Pizer, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
68 JUDGE SEDWICK TEXT ORDER re 64 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order. The motion at docket 64 seeking a temporary restraining order requests an expedited decision. The circumstances reflected in the motion papers warrant an expedited decision. Any response to the motion shall be filed no later than September 8, 2014, and a reply may be filed no later than September 10, 2014. The court will hear telephonic oral argument on the motion at docket 64 at 9:00 AM Alaska Time (10:00 AM Arizona Time) on September 12, 2014. To participate call 907−677−6247. Unless otherwise advised at the time of the hearing, each side will be limited to 20 minutes. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (JWS) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
69 ORDER re: 68 Order Setting Hearing on 64 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order. Motion Hearing set for 9/12/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 401, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge John W Sedwick. See PDF for further information regarding the hearing. (JWS) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
70 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 64 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order of Plaintiff Fred McQuire; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support filed by William Humble, Michael K Jeanes, David Raber. (Babione, Byron) (Entered: 09/08/2014)
71 MOTION for Extension of Time Briefing Deadlines by William Humble, Michael K Jeanes, David Raber. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Babione, Byron) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
72 ORDER granting 71 Motion for Extension of Time Deadline: Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion and preliminary injunction motion, and file their cross−motion for summary judgment, by Tuesday, September 16, 2014. Plaintiffs shall reply to Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion by Thursday, October 9, 2014. Plaintiffs shall file their combined (a) reply to Defendants' response to Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and (b) response to Defendants' cross− motion for summary judgment by Wednesday, October 15, 2014. Defendants shall file their reply in support of their cross−motion for summary judgment by Wednesday, October 29, 2014. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 9/10/14.(LSP) (Entered: 09/10/2014)
73 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 64 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order of Plaintiff Fred McQuire; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support filed by Fred McQuire. (Pizer, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/10/2014)
74 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge John W Sedwick: Motion Hearing held on 9/12/2014. Argument to the Court. ORDERED taking under advisement 64 Motion for TRO. Court will issue an order.

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 24 of 27

09/12/2014
09/16/2014 09/16/2014
09/16/2014
09/16/2014 09/16/2014 09/18/2014 09/18/2014 09/18/2014 09/22/2014 10/14/2014

APPEARANCES: Jennifer Pizer, Daniel Barr, Alexis Danneman, Paul Eckstein, Kirstin Eidenbach, Carmina OCampo, and Barry Stratford for Plaintiffs. James Campbell, Byron Babione, Kenneth Connelly, Jonathan Dalton, Robert Ellman, Kathleen Sweeney for Defendants (Court Reporter Candy Potter.) Hearing held 10:06 AM to 10:40 AM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (TCA) (Entered: 09/12/2014)
75 ORDER GRANTING 64 Motion for TRO. As to plaintiff Fred McQuire only, Arizona officials receiving notice of this order are TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED from enforcing § 1 of Article 30 of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. § 25−101(C), A.R.S. § 25−112(A), and any other Arizona law against recognition of the marriage of Fred McQuire to George Martinez; and Defendant Will Humble, in his capacity as Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, and his agents shall promptly prepare, issue, and accept a death certificate for George Martinez which records his marital status as married and his surviving spouse as Fred McQuire. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 9/12/14.(JWS) (Entered: 09/12/2014)
76 MOTION for Leave to File Overlength Memorandum of Law in Support of Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment with Consolidated Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion For Summary Judgment by William Humble, Michael K Jeanes, David Raber. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Babione, Byron) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
77 *(Filed at Doc. 82 and 83 )−−LODGED Proposed Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law in Support with Consolidated Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment re: 76 MOTION for Leave to File Overlength Memorandum of Law in Support of Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment with Consolidated Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion For Summary Judgment . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by William Humble, Michael K Jeanes, David Raber. (Babione, Byron) Modified on 9/18/2014 (LSP). (Entered: 09/16/2014)
78 *STATEMENT of Facts in Support of 82 Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants William Humble, Michael K Jeanes, David Raber. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−10, # 2 Exhibit 11−26, # 3 Exhibit 27−29, # 4 Exhibit 30−36, # 5 Exhibit 37−45, # 6 Exhibit 46−52, # 7 Exhibit 53−59, # 8 Exhibit 60−64, # 9 Exhibit 65−70)(Babione, Byron) *Modified to correct document numbers on 9/18/2014 (LSP). (Entered: 09/16/2014)
79 *STATEMENT of Controverting Statement of Facts in Response to 59 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants William Humble, Michael K Jeanes, David Raber. (Babione, Byron) *Modified to add document number on 9/17/2014 (LSP). (Entered: 09/16/2014)
80 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 63 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by William Humble, Michael K Jeanes, David Raber. (Babione, Byron) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
81 ORDER granting 76 Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Overlength Memorandum of Law in Support of Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment with Consolidated Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk's Office shall electronically file the Memorandum of Law. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 9/18/14.(LSP) (Entered: 09/18/2014)
82 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment by William Humble, Michael K Jeanes, David Raber. (LSP) (Entered: 09/18/2014)
83 RESPONSE to Motion re: 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by William Humble, Michael K Jeanes, David Raber. (LSP) (Entered: 09/18/2014)
84 ORDER [JUDGE SEDWICK TEXT ORDER]. This is a housekeeping order. The court having granted the motion at (Doc. 64 ), the motion at (Doc. 63 ) is denied as moot. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (JWS) Modified on 9/22/2014 (LSP). (Entered: 09/22/2014)
85 *REPLY to Response to Motion re: 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment and RESPONSE to Motion re: 82 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Josefina

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 25 of 27

10/15/2014 10/15/2014
10/17/2014
10/17/2014 10/24/2014
10/27/2014 10/27/2014 11/17/2014 11/18/2014 11/25/2014
12/01/2014

Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Equality Arizona, David Larance, Nelda Majors, George Martinez, Fred McQuire, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young. (Pizer, Jennifer) *Modified to correct event type on 10/14/2014 (LSP). (Entered: 10/14/2014)
86 NOTICE re: Supplemental Authority by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Equality Arizona, David Larance, Nelda Majors, George Martinez, Fred McQuire, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young re: 85 Reply to Response to Motion . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Pizer, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
87 *STATEMENT of Controverting Facts re: 85 Response to 82 Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Equality Arizona, David Larance, Nelda Majors, George Martinez, Fred McQuire, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young. (Pizer, Jennifer) *Modified to add and correct document numbers on 10/16/2014 (LSP). (Entered: 10/15/2014)
88 ORDER AND OPINION granting 59 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. This court hereby declares Article 30, Section 1, of the Arizona Constitution; A.R.S § 25−101; and A.R.S. § 25−125(A) unconstitutional because they deny same−sex couples the equal protection of the law. It is further ordered that defendants are hereby ordered to permanently cease enforcement of those provisions of Arizona law declared unconstitutional by this order. The court declines to stay the effect of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDER denying as moot 82 Defendats' Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 10/16/14.(LSP) (Entered: 10/17/2014)
89 CLERK'S JUDGMENT it is ordered and adjudged that pursuant to the Courts Order filed October 17, 2014, judgment is entered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants. This action is hereby terminated. (LSP) (Entered: 10/17/2014)
90 STIPULATION To Extend Time To File A Motion For Attorneys Fees And Bill Of Costs by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Equality Arizona, David Larance, Nelda Majors, George Martinez, Fred McQuire, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Extending Time for Filing Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs)(Pizer, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
91 ORDER granting 90 Stipulation: Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and a bill of costs may be filed on or before December 1, 2014. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 10/27/14. (LSP) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
92 NOTICE of Attorney Withdrawal Babione, Campbell, Connelly, Dalton filed by Kathleen Patricia Sweeney. (Sweeney, Kathleen) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
93 *NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals re: 89 Clerk's Judgment and 88 Order by William Humble, Michael K Jeanes, David Raber. Filing fee received: $ 505.00, receipt number 0970−11074074. (Sweeney, Kathleen) *Modified to add document number on 11/18/2014 (LSP). (Entered: 11/17/2014)
94 USCA Case Number re: 93 Notice of Appeal. Ninth Circuit Case Number 14−17276. (Copies sent by Ninth Circuit) (LFIG) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
95 STIPULATION To Extend Time To File A Motion For Attorneys' Fees And Bill Of Costs by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Equality Arizona, David Larance, Nelda Majors, George Martinez, Fred McQuire, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Extending Time For Filing Motion For Attorneys' Fees And Costs)(Pizer, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
96 ORDER approving 95 Stipulation. Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and a bill of costs may be filed on or before 30 days after the judgment of this Court becomes final

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 26 of 27

12/01/2014 04/02/2015 09/10/2015 10/06/2015
10/07/2015 10/30/2015
10/30/2015
10/30/2015
10/30/2015 11/09/2015 11/10/2015

following resolution of Defendants' appeal. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 12/1/14. (LSP) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
97 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Chris Sevier. Reason for return: Not at this Address, Return to Sender. Document number 93. (LSP) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
98 NOTICE of Attorney Withdrawal of Kirstin T. Eidenbach filed by Kirstin T Eidenbach. (Eidenbach, Kirstin) (Entered: 04/02/2015)
99 MANDATE of USCA, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, this appeal is voluntarily dismissed; the parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys' fees on appeal, re: 14−17276 93 Notice of Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 NDA) (copies sent by the Ninth Circuit)(REW) (Entered: 09/10/2015)
100 STIPULATION First Post−Remand Stipulation To Extend Time To File A Motion For Attorneys' Fees And Bill Of Costs by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Equality Arizona, David Larance, Nelda Majors, George Martinez, Fred McQuire, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Extending Time For Filing Motion For Attorneys' Fees And Costs)(Pizer, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/06/2015)
101 ORDER that Plaintiffs' 100 motion for attorneys' fees and a bill of costs may be filed on or before October 30, 2015. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 10/7/15. (JWS) (Entered: 10/07/2015)
102 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Equality Arizona, David Larance, Nelda Majors, George Martinez, Fred McQuire, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs)(Pizer, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/30/2015)
103 *DECLARATION of Jennifer Pizer re 102 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Equality Arizona, David Larance, Nelda Majors, George Martinez, Fred McQuire, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Pizer Declaration with Exhibits)(Pizer, Jennifer) *Modified to correct event type on 11/2/2015 (LSP). (Entered: 10/30/2015)
104 *DECLARATION of Daniel Barr re 102 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Josefina Ahumada, Karen Bailey, Kent Burbank, CJ Castro−Byrd, Jesus Castro−Byrd, Equality Arizona, David Larance, Nelda Majors, George Martinez, Fred McQuire, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits to Barr Declaration)(Pizer, Jennifer) *Modified to correct event type on 11/2/2015 (LSP). (Entered: 10/30/2015)
105 *DECLARATION of Mark Harrison re 102 MOTION for Attorney Fees by David Larance, Nelda Majors, George Martinez, Fred McQuire, Barbara Morrissey, Jennifer Hoefle Olson, Kelli Olson, Kevin Patterson, Patrick Ralph, Vicente Talanquer, Michelle Teichner, Jessica Young, Kathy Young. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit to Harrison Declaration)(Pizer, Jennifer) *Modified to correct event type on 11/2/2015 (LSP). (Entered: 10/30/2015)
106 *First MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Response to 102 Motion for Attorneys' Fees by William Humble, Michael K Jeanes, David Raber. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Extending Time)(Sweeney, Kathleen) *Modified to correct motion type on 11/9/2015 (LSP). (Entered: 11/09/2015)
107 ORDER granting 106 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re: 102 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs. Defendants' response is now due December 7, 2015. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 11/10/15. (EJA) (Entered: 11/10/2015)

Case: 2:14-cv-518 As of: 11/14/2017 01:39 PM MST 27 of 27

12/03/2015 12/04/2015 12/16/2015 12/18/2015

108 STIPULATION re: 102 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs to Extend Time to File Response by William Humble, Michael K Jeanes, David Raber. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Extending Time)(Sweeney, Kathleen) (Entered: 12/03/2015)
109 ORDER pursuant to 108 Stipulation re: 102 MOTION for Attorney's Fees and Costs. Response due not later than January 4, 2016. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 12/4/15. (JWS) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
110 STIPULATION re: 102 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs by William Humble, Michael K Jeanes, David Raber. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Judgment)(Sweeney, Kathleen) (Entered: 12/16/2015)
111 JUDGMENT on Attorney Fees − IT IS ORDERED that 110 Joint Stipulation for Entry of Judgment for Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Costs is approved. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants is entered in the amount of $302,140.11. See document for further details. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 12/17/15. (EJA) (Entered: 12/18/2015)

 
 TOM HORNE A HORNEY GENERAL

OFFICE OF THE ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL
SOLICITOR GENERAL'S OFFICE

October 17, 2014
Michael K. Jeanes Clerk of the Court Maricopa County Superior Court 125 W. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85003
Re: Marriage Licenses for Same Sex Couples
Dear Michael:
Pursuant to an injunction issued by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in Connolly v. Brewer, 2: 14-cv-00024-JWS, I am writing to inform you that Arizona courts can no longer treat marriage exclusively as "a union of one man and one woman" under Article 30 of the Arizona Constitution. The court has determined that both Article 30 and Section 25-10 I(C) of the Arizona Revised Statutes are invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to the extent that those laws prohibit or treat as void marriage between persons of the same sex.
Accordingly, and effective immediately, the clerks of Arizona county superior courts cannot deny a marriage license to any otherwise eligible licensees on the ground that the license permits a marriage between persons of the same sex.
Sincerely,
~/~
Attorney General Tom Horne

#41 86204

1275 WEST WASHINGTON STREET, PHOENIX, AZ 85007-2926 • PHONE 602.542.3333 • FAX 602.542.8308 • WWW.AZAG.GOV