Amended Answer of Janet M. Rainey

Case 5:13-cv-00077-MFU-RSB Document 111 Filed 01/27/14 Page 1 of 18 Pageid#: 1350
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Harrisonburg Division JOANNE HARRIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT F. MCDONNELL, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Civil Action No. 5:13-cv-00077
AMENDED ANSWER OF JANET M. RAINEY Defendant Janet M. Rainey, by counsel, in her official capacity, and in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), having obtained written consent from counsel for Plaintiffs, answers the allegations in the Complaint in the numbered paragraphs below, corresponding to the numbers in the Complaint. (Doc. 1.) I. 1. INTRODUCTON
Janet M. Rainey, the State Registrar, is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs. Defendant Rainey admits that Plaintiffs sue pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, and that current Virginia law, constitutional and statutory, improperly denies same-sex couples access to the institution of civil marriage, a fundamental right, without legal justification, and therefore violates the federal constitutional guarantees of due process of law and the equal protection of the laws. 2. Defendant Rainey admits that marriage is a fundamental social institution, and
that same-sex couples in Virginia are wrongly denied their fundamental right to marry. She is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations personal to Plaintiffs.
3. 4.
Admitted. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations personal to Plaintiffs, but does not contest that these facts, if true, suffice to establish named Plaintiffs standing to challenge Virginias same-sex-marriage ban. She admits that same-sex couples are denied the legal affirmation, recognition and protection afforded opposite-sex couples, as well as the resulting social affirmation of their relationships. 5. 6. Admitted. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs. Defendant Rainey admits that Plaintiffs sue pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Virginias samesex-marriage ban, and that the ban violates the Fourteenth Amendments guarantees of due process of law and equal protection of the laws. II. 7. PARTIES
Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs Harris and Duff. 8. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs Harris and Duff.
11.
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs Harris and Duff. She admits that Virginia law does not permit a parent to co-adopt a child with someone who is not the parents spouse, and so prevents same-sex couples in Virginia from adopting. 16. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs Berghoff and Kidd. 19. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiff Kidd. 20. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiff Berghoff.
21.
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiff Berghoff. 22. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs Berghoff and Kidd. Defendant admits that Virginias marriage laws deny same-sex couples equal legal and social status. 29. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs Berghoff and Kidd. She admits that Virginia law does not permit a parent to co-adopt a child with someone who is not the parents spouse, thus preventing same-sex couples in Virginia from adopting. 30. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs Berghoff and Kidd. She admits that
Virginias marriage laws unconstitutionally deny same-sex couples the same rights and responsibilities as married opposite-sex couples. 31. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs Berghoff and Kidd. Allegations regarding eligibility for Veterans Administration loan guarantees constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. The Supreme Court decision referenced speaks for itself. 32. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs Berghoff and Kidd. She admits that Virginias marriage laws unconstitutionally deny same-sex couples the same rights and responsibilities as married opposite-sex couples. 34. Defendant Rainey avers that the allegations in this paragraph have been rendered
moot by the Governors dismissal and, thus, no response is required. (Doc. 94.) 35. Defendant Rainey admits that she is sued in her official capacity as the State
Registrar of Vital Records and further affirms that the statutes prescribing her duties speak for themselves. She admits that she is a proper official-capacity defendant for purposes of this suit challenging Virginias marriage laws under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 36. Defendant Rainey admits that Thomas E. Roberts is sued in his official capacity
as Staunton Circuit Court Clerk, but affirms that the statutory and constitutional bases for his authority speak for themselves. The allegations with respect to his status as a defendant under 42 U.S.C. 1983 are legal conclusions that require no response.
37.
Defendant Rainey admits that she is obligated to enforce Virginias marriage laws
denying same-sex couples the right to marry, that she and her agents will continue faithfully to enforce the challenge state statutes and constitutional provision unless and until declared unconstitutional by the judicial branch, and that the relief requested from this deprivation is sought against each Defendant and all persons under her employment, supervision, direction or control. III. 38. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Admitted except that Defendant Rainey denies that these claims properly are
susceptible to trial as a class action. 39. 40. 41. Admitted. Admitted. Defendant Rainey affirms that Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202 speak for themselves. 42. Admitted. IV. 43. STATEMENT OF FACTS
about the truth of the allegations personal to Plaintiffs. She admits that Virginias same-sexmarriage ban denies same-sex couples legal and social status equal to opposite-sex couples. 44. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations personal to Plaintiffs Harris and Duff, but does not contest that these facts, if true, establish that they have standing to challenge Virginias same-sex-marriage ban. Plaintiffs allegation regarding their legal qualification to marry under the laws of the
Commonwealth, but for the fact that they are of the same sex, constitutes a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 45. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations personal to Plaintiffs Harris and Duff, but does not contest that these facts, if true, establish that they have standing to challenge Virginias same-sex-marriage ban. 46. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations personal to Plaintiffs Berghoff and Kidd. The allegation by Plaintiffs Berghoff and Kidd regarding entitlement to recognition of their Washington, D.C. marriage constitutes a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Defendant Rainey admits that Virginias same-sex-marriage ban precludes recognition of the marriages of same-sex couples celebrated in other jurisdictions and does not contest that if Plaintiffs Berghoff and Kidd are validly married under the laws of the District of Columbia, and wish to domesticate that marriage in Virginia, they possess standing to challenge the same-sex-marriage ban. 47. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations personal to the members of the putative class. She further denies that this case is fit for class resolution. See (Docs. 30, 83.) 48. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations personal to the members of the putative class. She further denies that this case is fit for class resolution. See (Docs. 30, 83.) 49. Defendant Rainey admits that the Commonwealth has enacted multiple statutes
since 1975 that have expressly denied same-sex couples the right to marry.
50.
Defendant Rainey avers that 1975 Va. Acts c. 644, codified as Virginia Code
20-45.2, speaks for itself. 51. Defendant Rainey avers that 1997 Va. Acts c. 354, codified as Virginia Code
20-45.2, speaks for itself. 52. Defendant Rainey avers that 2004 Va. Acts c. 983, codified as Virginia Code
20-45.3, speaks for itself. 53. 54. Admitted. Admitted that the General Assembly approved the measure again in early 2006,
and the voters ratified Virginia Constitution article 1, 15-A in November 2006. The precise vote tally is a matter of public record that speaks for itself. 55. Admitted that same-sex couples may not marry in the Commonwealth or
domesticate a same-sex marriage celebrated in another jurisdiction. 56. Defendant Rainey admits that Virginias definition of marriage affects the
availability of certain state and federal rights and benefits and, by not permitting same-sex couples to marry, results in those rights and benefits not being available to them under current federal and Virginia law. She further avers that the cited provisions speak for themselves. 57. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations personal to Plaintiffs, but admits that by denying them the right to marry, Virginia law unconstitutionally denies same-sex couples the legal affirmation, recognition, and protection that it extends opposite-sex couples, as well as the resulting social affirmation of their relationships. 58. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations personal to Plaintiffs. She admits that by denying them the
right to marry, Virginia law unconstitutionally denies same-sex couples the legal affirmation, recognition, and protection that it extends opposite-sex couples, as well as the resulting social affirmation of their relationships. 59. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations personal to Plaintiffs. She admits that by denying them the right to marry, Virginia law unconstitutionally denies same-sex couples the legal affirmation, recognition, and protection that it extends opposite-sex couples, as well as the resulting social affirmation of their relationships. 60. Defendant Rainey admits that by denying them the right to marry, Virginia law
unconstitutionally denies same-sex couples the legal affirmation, recognition, and protection that it extends opposite-sex couples, as well as the resulting social affirmation of their relationships. 61. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations regarding the referenced private entities. She admits that by denying them the right to marry, Virginia law unconstitutionally denies same-sex couples the legal affirmation, recognition, and protection that it extends opposite-sex couples, as well as the resulting social affirmation of their relationships. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of allegations regarding the net fiscal impact of allowing same-sex marriage in
Virginia, but admits that the Commonwealth may not constitutionally deny gays and lesbians of their fundamental right to marry. 67. 68. adopt a child. 69. 70. Admitted. Defendant Rainey admits that there is no rational basis for favoring parenting by Admitted. Admitted, except that Virginia law currently does not permit unwed couples to
heterosexual couples as a class over gay and lesbian couples, but avers that the cited cases speak for themselves. 71. 72. 73. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. V. 74. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
The class definition is improper because it is framed in merits terms, creating a
fail-safe class, and the identity of its putative members is practically unascertainable. 75. Because the putative class as alleged in the complaint and as amended, see (Docs.
79 & 80), is practically unascertainable, Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the class allegations. Defendant admits that Virginias same-sex-marriage ban prevents same-sex couples from marrying in Virginia or having their marriages celebrated in other jurisdictions recognized by the Commonwealth. 76. Admitted that this constitutional challenge presents a pure question of law.
Defendant Rainey denies that the case presents common questions of evidentiary fact. There are,
10
however, within the putative, though unascertainable, class individualized questions of ripeness and standing. 77. Admitted that Plaintiffs arguments for their right to marry are typical of those
brought challenging the same-sex-marriage ban. However, Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the class allegations. 78. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the class allegations. Defendant avers that members of the putative class are presently pursuing their own suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Bostic v. Rainey, No. 2:13-cv-00395. 79. Denied that there is a real risk within this circuit of inconsistent and varying
adjudications, as the losing party will have an appeal as of right and, regardless of the timing of the decision, the United States Court of Appeals will impose uniformity either because panel decisions are binding on other panels, or because the court will take the question en banc. 80. Denied that a class action is appropriate because declaratory and/or injunctive
relief in favor of Plaintiffs upon the exhaustion of all appeals would have the same effect as a class judgment, as Virginia officials will respect the judgment of the federal courts. VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Deprivation of Due Process U.S. Const. Amend. XIV 81. 82. Defendant Rainey restates her responses to paragraphs 1 through 80. Defendant Rainey admits that she is sued in her official capacity for declaratory
and injunctive relief. 83. Admitted.
11
84.
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs, but admits that Virginia Constitution Article 1, 15-A, Virginia Code 20-45.2, Virginia Code 20-45.3, and all other sources of state law that preclude marriage for same sex couples or prevent recognition of their out-of-state marriages facially violate the due process of law guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 85. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs, but admits that Virginia Constitution Article 1, 15-A, Virginia Code 20-45.2, Virginia Code 20-45.3, and all other sources of state law that preclude marriage for same sex couples or prevent recognition of their out-of-state marriages facially violate the due process of law guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 86. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs, but admits that Virginia Constitution Article 1, 15-A, Virginia Code 20-45.2, Virginia Code 20-45.3, and all other sources of state law that preclude marriage for same sex couples or prevent recognition of their out-of-state marriages facially violate the due process of law guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 87. Defendant Rainey avers that these allegations have been rendered moot by
Governor McDonnells dismissal from the suit, (Doc. 94), and thus that no response is required. 88. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs, and avers that the statutory provisions with respect to her duties speak for themselves. Defendant Rainey admits that she enforces the
12
Virginia laws that restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples and that these restrictions deny samesex couples the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 89. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs Harris and Duff or the putative class, and avers that the statutory provisions with respect to Defendant Roberts duties as Staunton Circuit Court Clerk speak for themselves. She admits that denying couples marriage licenses on the ground that they are of the same sex violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 90. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs. She admits that denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 91. Admitted. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Deprivation of Equal Protection U.S. Const. Amend. XIV 92. 93. Defendant Rainey restates her responses to paragraphs 1 through 91. Defendant Rainey admits that she is being sued in her official capacity for
declaratory and injunctive relief. 94. 95. Admitted. Admitted that that Virginia Constitution Article 1, 15-A, Virginia Code 20-
45.2, Virginia Code 20-45.3, and all other sources of state law that preclude marriage for samesex couples or prevent recognition of their marriages facially violates the Equal Protection
13
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by discriminating impermissibly on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. 96. Defendant Rainey avers that these allegations have been rendered moot by
Governor McDonnells dismissal from the suit, (Doc. 94), and thus that no response is required. 97. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs, and avers that the statutory provisions with respect to her duties speak for themselves. Defendant Rainey admits that she enforces the Virginia laws that restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples and that these restrictions deny samesex couples the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 98. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs Harris and Duff or the putative class, and avers that the statutory provisions with respect to Defendant Roberts duties as Staunton Circuit Court Clerk speak for themselves. She admits that denying couples marriage licenses on the ground that they are of the same sex violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 99. Defendant Rainey admits that the same-sex-marriage ban denies gays and lesbians
their fundamental right to marry and the legal affirmation, recognition and protection that the Commonwealth extends to opposite-sex couples, thereby denying them the resulting social affirmation of their relationships that opposite-sex couples enjoy. 100. 101. Admitted. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs.
14
102.
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs. 103. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs. Admitted that some same-sex couples are raising children together. 104. 105. Admitted. Admitted except that Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs. 106. Admitted except that Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs. 107. Defendant Rainey admits that a history exists of invidious discrimination against
gay men and lesbians. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Defendant Rainey avers that the referenced laws speak for themselves, but admits
that gay men and lesbians are denied the right to marry in many States and may be discriminated against legally in untold ways in a number of jurisdictions. 113. Admitted except that Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs. Defendant Rainey further avers that Va. Const. art. 1, 15-A and Va. Code Ann. 20-45.2 speak for themselves.
15
114.
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs. She admits that otherwise qualified couples of the opposite sex are permitted to marry in Virginia, but that otherwise qualified couples of the same sex are not. 115. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs. Defendant Rainey admits that the same-sexmarriage ban denies gays and lesbians their fundamental right to marry and the legal affirmation, recognition and protection that the Commonwealth extends to opposite-sex couples, thereby denying them the resulting social affirmation of their relationships that opposite-sex couples enjoy. 116. 117. Admitted. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs. She admits that Virginias same-sexmarriage ban discriminates on the basis of sex and that that discrimination cannot satisfy heightened scrutiny. 118. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs. She admits that Virginias same-sexmarriage ban violates the core personal liberties of gay men, lesbians and of same-sex couples generally by unconstitutionally denying them, without justification and based on their sexual orientation and sex, their fundamental right to marry. DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 57 and 65 119. Defendant Rainey restates her responses to paragraphs 1 through 118.
16
120.
about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs. She admits that Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief against the same-sex-marriage ban and that the allegations of fact personal to Plaintiffs, if true, give rise to a case or controversy within the jurisdiction of the Court to adjudicate. 121. Admitted that named Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief against Virginias same-sex-
marriage ban, but lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs or the putative class. 122. Admitted that the Constitution requires, and the public interest favors, the
vindication of same-sex couples constitutional right to marry. Defendant Rainey, however, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs or regarding the burden on the Commonwealth in allowing same-sex couples to marry and in recognizing the valid marriages of same-sex couples entered into in another jurisdictions on the same terms as opposite-sex couples. 123. 124. All allegations not expressly admitted are denied. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated and cannot demonstrate entitlement to
preliminary injunctive relief. Respectfully submitted, JANET M. RAINEY, in her official capacity Dated: January 27, 2014 By: /s/ Stuart A. Raphael Solicitor General of Virginia (VSB #30380) Office of the Attorney General 900 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 786-7240 Telephone (804) 371-0200 Facsimile sraphael@oag.state.va.us 17
Mark R. Herring Attorney General of Virginia Cynthia E. Hudson Chief Deputy Attorney General H. Lane Kneedler, VSB #07722 Senior Counsel Rhodes B. Ritenour, VSB #71406 Deputy Attorney General E-mail: rritenour@oag.state.va.us Trevor S. Cox, VSB #78396 Deputy Solicitor General E-mail: tcox@oag.state.va.us Catherine Crooks Hill, VSB #43505 Senior Assistant Attorney General/Chief Email: cchill@oag.state.va.us Allyson K. Tysinger, VSB #41982 Senior Assistant Attorney General/Chief E-mail: atysinger@oag.state.va.us
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 27th day of January 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send a copy to counsel of record. /s/ Stuart A. Raphael
18

Amended Answer of Janet M. Rainey

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amended Answer of Janet M. Rainey

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 5:13-cv-00077-MFU-RSB Document 111 Filed 01/27/14 Page 1 of 18 Pageid#: 1350

Civil Action No. 5:13-cv-00077

Janet M. Rainey, the State Registrar, is without knowledge or information

Case 5:13-cv-00077-MFU-RSB Document 111 Filed 01/27/14 Page 2 of 18 Pageid#: 1351

Admitted. Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs Harris and Duff.

Case 5:13-cv-00077-MFU-RSB Document 111 Filed 01/27/14 Page 3 of 18 Pageid#: 1352

Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiff Berghoff.

Case 5:13-cv-00077-MFU-RSB Document 111 Filed 01/27/14 Page 4 of 18 Pageid#: 1353

Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

Case 5:13-cv-00077-MFU-RSB Document 111 Filed 01/27/14 Page 5 of 18 Pageid#: 1354

Case 5:13-cv-00077-MFU-RSB Document 111 Filed 01/27/14 Page 6 of 18 Pageid#: 1355

Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

Case 5:13-cv-00077-MFU-RSB Document 111 Filed 01/27/14 Page 7 of 18 Pageid#: 1356

Case 5:13-cv-00077-MFU-RSB Document 111 Filed 01/27/14 Page 8 of 18 Pageid#: 1357

Case 5:13-cv-00077-MFU-RSB Document 111 Filed 01/27/14 Page 9 of 18 Pageid#: 1358

Case 5:13-cv-00077-MFU-RSB Document 111 Filed 01/27/14 Page 10 of 18 Pageid#: 1359

The class definition is improper because it is framed in merits terms, creating a

Case 5:13-cv-00077-MFU-RSB Document 111 Filed 01/27/14 Page 11 of 18 Pageid#: 1360

and injunctive relief. 83. Admitted.

Case 5:13-cv-00077-MFU-RSB Document 111 Filed 01/27/14 Page 12 of 18 Pageid#: 1361

Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

Case 5:13-cv-00077-MFU-RSB Document 111 Filed 01/27/14 Page 13 of 18 Pageid#: 1362

Case 5:13-cv-00077-MFU-RSB Document 111 Filed 01/27/14 Page 14 of 18 Pageid#: 1363

about the truth of allegations personal to Plaintiffs.

Case 5:13-cv-00077-MFU-RSB Document 111 Filed 01/27/14 Page 15 of 18 Pageid#: 1364

Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

Case 5:13-cv-00077-MFU-RSB Document 111 Filed 01/27/14 Page 16 of 18 Pageid#: 1365

Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

Case 5:13-cv-00077-MFU-RSB Document 111 Filed 01/27/14 Page 17 of 18 Pageid#: 1366

Defendant Rainey is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

Case 5:13-cv-00077-MFU-RSB Document 111 Filed 01/27/14 Page 18 of 18 Pageid#: 1367

You might also like