USCA DOCKET # (IF KNOWN)Form 6. Civil Appeals Docketing Statement
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUITCIVIL APPEALS DOCKETING STATEMENT
PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES IF NECESSARY.
TITLE IN FULL:
DISTRICT COURT NUMBER:DATE NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED:IS THIS A CROSS-APPEAL?
YESIF THIS MATTER HAS BEEN BEFORE THIS COURT PREVIOUSLY, PLEASE PROVIDE THE DOCKET NUMBER AND CITATION (IF ANY):
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ACTION AND RESULT BELOW:PRINCIPAL ISSUES PROPOSED TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL:PLEASE IDENTIFY ANY OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDING THAT MAY HAVE A BEARING ON THIS CASE (INCLUDEPENDING DISTRICT COURT POST-JUDGMENT MOTIONS):DOES THIS APPEAL INVOLVE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
Possibility of settlement
Likelihood that intervening precedent will control outcome of appeal
Likelihood of a motion to expedite or to stay the appeal, or other procedural matters (specify)
Any other information relevant to the inclusion of this case in the Mediation Program
Possibility parties would stipulate to binding award by Appellate Commissioner in lieu of submission to judges.
A-11a (10/00)CIVIL APPEALS DOCKETING STATEMENTPage 1 of 2
BEVERLY SEVCIK, et al., Plaintiffs,v.BRIAN SANDOVAL, in his official capacity asGovernor of the State of Nevada, et al.,Defendants.(Please see Attachment 1 for full title.)Nevada Chief Judge Jones2:12-CV-00578-RCJ-PAL
Plaintiffs challenged Nevada officials' refusal to allow same-sex couples to marry, or to recognize their valid marriages fromother jurisdictions, as a violation of equal protection under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants'motion to dismiss and motions for summary judgment were granted; Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was denied.Whether Nevada officials' refusal to allow same-sex couples to marry, or to recognize their valid marriages from other jurisdictions, violates the equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Pursuant to Circuit Rule 28-2.6, Plaintiffs are aware of a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit thatinvolves some issues closely related to the instant case: JACKSON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ABERCROMBIE,Defendant, et al., Case Nos. 12-16995 and 12-16998. To promote efficiency for the Court and the parties, Plaintiffsantici ate seekin leave to have their a eal heard with JACKSON v. ABERCROMBIE.
Case 2:12-cv-00578-RCJ-PAL Document 106 Filed 12/03/12 Page 1 of 49
Case: 12-17668 12/04/2012 ID: 8424461 DktEntry: 2 Page: 1 of 49