Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
2:13-cv-00217 #16

2:13-cv-00217 #16

Ratings: (0)|Views: 22 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 16 - State Defendants' Answer
Doc 16 - State Defendants' Answer

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Equality Case Files on Aug 13, 2013
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

01/24/2014

pdf

text

original

 
PHILIP S. LOTT (5750)STANFORD E. PURSER (13440)Assistant Utah Attorneys GeneralJOHN E. SWALLOW (5802)Utah Attorney General160 East 300 South, Sixth Floor P.O. Box 140856Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0856Telephone: (801) 366-0100Facsimile: (801) 366-0101Email: phillott@utah.govEmail:spurser@utah.gov
 Attorneys for Defendants Gary R. Herbert and John E. Swallow
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISIONDEREK KITCHEN, individually; MOUDISBEITY, individually; KAREN ARCHER,individually; KATE CALL, individually;LAURIE WOOD, individually; andKODY PARTRIDGE, individually,Plaintiffs,vs.GARY R. HERBERT, in his official capacityas Governor of Utah; JOHN SWALLOW, inhis official capacity as Attorney General of Utah; and SHERRIE SWENSEN, in her official capacity as Clerk of Salt LakeCounty,Defendants.
UTAH STATE DEFENDANTS’
ANSWER 
Civil Case No. 2:13-cv-00217-RJSJudge Robert J. ShelbyUtah State Defendants Governor Gary R. Herbert and Attorney General John E. Swallow, by and through their counsel of record, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, hereby
answer the Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief as follows:
 
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 16 Filed 08/12/13 Page 1 of 14
 
2
INTRODUCTION
 1.
State Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs’
Complaint. The quotations of legal authority in paragraph 1 do not constitute factual allegationsand require no answer.2.
Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint summarizes the
requested relief and need not be admitted or denied.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
 3. State Defendants deny that the court has jurisdiction over the issues presented in
Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
4. State Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny theallegations contained in paragraph 4
of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
 
NATURE OF THE CASE
 5.
To the extent paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs’ Compla
int contains any allegations theyare denied. To the extent paragraph 5 summarizes the relief requested by Plaintiffs, it containsno allegations of fact requiring an answer.6.
To the extent paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs’ Compla
int contains any allegations theyare denied. To the extent paragraph 6 summarizes the relief requested by Plaintiffs, it containsno allegations of fact requiring an answer. Defendants object to the non-statutory, argumentative
term “Marriage Discrimination Statutes.”
 7. State Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny theallegations regarding the Plaintiffs contain
ed in paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. State
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 16 Filed 08/12/13 Page 2 of 14
 
3Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are being denied any constitutionally protected rights.8. State Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny theallegations regarding the Plaintiffs conta
ined in paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. State
Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are being denied any constitutionally protected rights.9. State Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are asserting any enforceable rights in their Complaint. To the extent paragraph 9 summarizes the relief requested by Plaintiffs, it containsno allegations of fact requiring an answer.
PARTIES
10. State Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the
allegations contained in paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs’ Compl
aint.11. State Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the
allegations contained in paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
 12. State Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny theallegations contained in paragraph
12 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
 13. State Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the
allegations contained in paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
 14. State Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the
allegations contained in paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
 15. State Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the
allegations contained in paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
 16. State Defendants admit the allegations containe
d in paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs’
Complaint.
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 16 Filed 08/12/13 Page 3 of 14

You're Reading a Free Preview

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