Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
2:13-cv-05641 #35

2:13-cv-05641 #35

Ratings: (0)|Views: 14 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 35 - Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s combined reply in support of motion to dismiss claims against her and brief opposing summary judgment against her.
Doc 35 - Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s combined reply in support of motion to dismiss claims against her and brief opposing summary judgment against her.

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Feb 16, 2014
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


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





IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERNDISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIACARA PALLADINO, and ISABELLE BARKER,::Plaintiffs::No. 2:13-CV-5641v.::(Judge McLaughlin)THOMAS CORBETT, in his official capacity as Governor of Pennsylvania, and his successors in office; and KATHLEEN KANE, in her official capacity as Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and her successors in office,:::::::Electronically Filed DocumentDefendants.:DEFENDANT KATHLEEN KANE’S COMBINED REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS ALL CLAIMS AGAINST HER AND BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTAGAINST GENERAL KANEI.STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a civil rights action brought by a same-sex couple who was legally married in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts while residing there. Plaintiffs, who are now Pennsylvania residents, challenge the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s marriage law, 23 Pa. C.S. §§ 1101,
et  seq.
,to the extent that it prohibits recognition of same-sex marriages legally entered into in  jurisdictions outside of Pennsylvania.
23 Pa.C.S. §1704. Plaintiffs allege that section 1704 of the marriage law violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause andthe Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Under the Fourteenth Amendment they assert violations of their right to travel, their right to due process and their right to equal protection.Defendants, Governor Thomas W. Corbett and Attorney General Kathleen Kane, have separately filed motions to dismiss the complaint against them. Defendant Kane’s motion was
Case 2:13-cv-05641-MAM Document 35 Filed 02/14/14 Page 1 of 9
2filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 (b)(1) and (6) alleging alack of jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action against her. The defendants briefed their motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment and have filed a combined memorandum of law, opposing the defendants’ motions to dismiss and in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 27)Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants’ motions are without merit and specifically,regarding Defendant Kane, allege that Defendant Kane is responsible for enforcing § 1704 as the “chief law officer” of Pennsylvania and that as a result of the general duties to uphold and defend the laws of the Commonwealth conferred upon her by the Commonwealth Attorneys Act, 71 P.S. § 732-204(a)(3), they allege that she has the “indirect causal relationship” necessary to satisfy Article III standing. (Doc. 27, pg. 26)Plaintiffs additionally seek summary judgment in their favor alleging that section 1704 of the Marriage Law violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, and that section 1704 violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause and infringes upon Plaintiffs’ right to travel.This is Defendant Kane’s combined reply brief in support of her motion to dismiss the claims against her and in oppositionto Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgmentagainst her. Plaintiffs lack Article III standing andtherefore the Attorney General is an improper party to the action.
Case 2:13-cv-05641-MAM Document 35 Filed 02/14/14 Page 2 of 9
As argued within her briefin support of the motion to dismiss, the Attorney General is not a proper party to the current action. In order to proceed with their claims against Attorney General Kane, the Plaintiffs must first establish standing under Article III of the Constitution. They must show: (a) an injury in fact, (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct, and (3) the requested relief is likely to redress the injury.
 Planned Parenthoodof Cent. New  Jersey v. Farmer 
, 220 F.3d 127, 146-47 (3d Cir. 2000). Plaintiffs have failed to show that any injury to the Plaintiffs is fairly traceable to Defendant Kane’s conduct. Therefore, Defendant Kane’smotion to dismiss should be granted and the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against Defendant Kane should be denied.Within their complaint, Plaintiffs have failed to allege an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the conduct of Defendant Kane. Plaintiffs claimthat Pennsylvania’s failure to acknowledge their out of state same-sex marriage has caused them injury with regards to inheritanceand succession,spousal decision-making in the event of illness or infirmity, parental rights and adoption. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 18-23). Plaintiffs allege that they are suing Defendant Kane “because they seek recognition of their marriage within and by Pennsylvania.” (Doc. 27, pg. 22 fn. 16). In support of their argument that they have established standing against Defendant Kane, Plaintiffs allege that the Attorney General’s duties under the Commonwealth Attorneys Act, 71 P.S. § 732-204, to generally uphold the constitutionality of the laws of the Commonwealth indicate that she has an “indirect causal relationship” to the Plaintiffs’ injuries sufficient to establish standing against her. This is clearly not the case.
Case 2:13-cv-05641-MAM Document 35 Filed 02/14/14 Page 3 of 9

You're Reading a Free Preview

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