Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Sister Wives State Motion for Summary Judgement

Sister Wives State Motion for Summary Judgement

Ratings: (0)|Views: 739|Likes:
Published by Lindsay Whitehurst
Summary judgement motion filed by Utah state attorneys.
Summary judgement motion filed by Utah state attorneys.

More info:

Published by: Lindsay Whitehurst on Aug 21, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

01/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
1
 
Jonathan Turley (
Pro Hac
)2000 H St., N.W.Washington, D.C. 20052(202) 994-7001 jturley@law.gwu.eduAdam Alba, 13128610 Crestwood Cir.Bountiful, UT 84010(801) 792-8785adam.alba@gmail.com
 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
KODY BROWN, MERI BROWN, JANELLEBROWN, CHRISTINE BROWN, ROBYNSULLIVAN,Plaintiffs,v.GARY R. HERBERT, in his official capacityas Governor of Utah; MARK SHURTLEFF, inhis official capacity as Attorney General of Utah; JEFFREY R. BUHMAN, in his officialcapacity as County Attorney for Utah County,Defendants.)))))))))
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS ANDAUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO
STRIKE DEFENDANT’S CROSS
MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT AND MOTION TOSTAY SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Judge WaddoupsCivil No. 2:11-cv-00652-CW
PLAINTIFFS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S
CROSS MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO STAY SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case 2:11-cv-00652-CW-BCW Document 61 Filed 06/29/12 Page 1 of 7
 
2
 
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant
to the Court’s order of May 10
, 2012, the Plaintiffs Kody Brown, Meri Brown,
Janelle Brown, Christine Brown, and Robyn Sullivan (hereinafter “the Brown family” or “theBrowns”) have
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and, on this date, a response to thedispositive motion filed by Defendant Buhman. Shortly before the end of the business day,however, Defendant Buhman filed a Cross Motion For Summary Judgment and a Motion To
Stay Summary Judgment. The Defendant’s motions filed today violate the agreement reached by
the parties, the schedule jointly sought by the parties, a
nd, most importantly, this Court’s order.
These motions should be stricken as violating
of this Court’s standing order and in the
interests of a fair and efficient adjudication in this case.In the alternative, the Court could denythese motions
sua sponte
as violative of the Court's prior order. 
BACKGROUND
 This motion is based on the following facts in this case:1. This action was filed on July 13, 2011.2. Defendants were required to file an answer by August 5, 2012, as required underthe federal rules and expressly stated in the summons to Defendants.3. On August 2, 2011, the Defendants asked for an extension to answer theComplaint. Despite the willingness of the Plaintiffs to allow an extension for an answer untilAugust 25, 2011, Defendants did not file a motion and allowed the time to expire.4. On August 29, 2011, Defendants again contacted the Plaintiffs and asked for anextension. Plaintiffs stated that before they would agree to such an extension they needed toconfirm whether a motion had been filed before the period expired for an answer. No motionwas filed and no response was given to the inquiry.
Case 2:11-cv-00652-CW-BCW Document 61 Filed 06/29/12 Page 2 of 7
 
3
 
5. On September 2, 2011
 — 
one month past the original date for filing an answer
 — 
Defendant filed not an answer but a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Standing.6. On February 3, 2012, this Court ruled that the Brown family had standing tochallenge the law.
 Brown v. Herbert 
, 2:11-CV-0652-CW, 2012 WL 380110 (D. Utah Feb. 3,2012).7. On March 20, 2012, Defense Counsel Jerry Jensen responded to inquiries from
Plaintiffs’ Counsel
Professor Jonathan Turley seeking to establish a pre-trial schedule. Mr.Jensen indicated that he wanted to stay discovery and instead have the parties file dispositivemotions.8. On March 30, 2012, Professor Turley agreed to the proposal but asked for a filingdate of April 23, 2012 for cross motions, which would have allowed a filing three months after
the Court’s ruling and scheduling order.
 9. On April 3, 2012, Mr. Jensen stated that he needed more time and, after repeatedefforts to confirm a schedule with Defendant, Plaintiffs agreed to a schedule for dispositivemotions to be filed on May 31.10. On May 3, 2012, Defendant Buhman agreed to the following statement to theCourt (emphasis added):Soon after the prior order scheduling a pre-
trial hearing, Plaintiffs’ Counsel
contacted opposing lead counsel to suggest a joint motion on pre-trial schedulingand discovery. Defense counsel indicated a desire to postpone discovery in favorof a summary judgment motion based on the pleadings. Plaintiffs consent to sucha schedule and reserve the right to also file a motion for summary judgment.Given
the intended filing of a motion for summary judgment (or cross motions for summary judgment),
the parties believe that the May hearing is an unnecessary
expenditure of the Court’s time as well as an unnecessary cost for the parties,
including out-of-town counsel. Obviously, once these threshold motions areresolved, the parties and the Court would be in a better position to judge the needfor discovery and any outstanding pre-trial issues.
Case 2:11-cv-00652-CW-BCW Document 61 Filed 06/29/12 Page 3 of 7

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->