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
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
3:13-cv-24068 #62

3:13-cv-24068 #62

Ratings: (0)|Views: 13 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 62 - Defendants Cole and McCormick Joint Motion for Summary Judgment (omitted attach#1, 3 page certificate of service)
Doc 62 - Defendants Cole and McCormick Joint Motion for Summary Judgment (omitted attach#1, 3 page certificate of service)

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Feb 21, 2014
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

02/21/2014

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA HUNTINGTON DIVISION CASIE JO MCGEE and SARA ELIZABETH ADKINS; JUSTIN MURDOCK and WILLIAM GLAVARIS; and NANCY ELIZABETH MICHAEL and JANE LOUISE FENTON Individually and as next friends of A.S.M. minor child Plaintiffs v. Civil Action No. 3:13-24068 KAREN S. COLE in her official capacity as CABELL COUNTY CLERK; and VERA J. MCCORMICK in her official capacity as KANAWHA COUNTY CLERK Defendants.
JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANTS KAREN S. COLE AND VERA J. MCCORMICK
Defendants Karen S. Cole (“Ms. Cole”), by counsel, Lee Murray Hall, Sarah  A. Walling, and Jenkins Fenstermaker, PLLC, and Vera McCormick (“Ms. McCormick”), by counsel, Charles R. Bailey, Michael W. Taylor, and Bailey & Wyant, PLLC, jointly move this Court pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an Order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and granting summary judgment in their favor. As set forth more fully in the
Memorandum of Law and ttached Exhibit
, filed contemporaneously herewith, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to their right to the relief requested in their Complaint.
Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 62 Filed 02/12/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 683
 
Rather, Defendants Cole and McCormick are entitled to summary judgment because:
 
Current, validly enacted West Virginia law mandated Defendants’ refusal to issue Plaintiffs’ marriage licenses;
 
The Oath of Office taken by Defendants Cole and McCormick, as well as the duties of their respective offices and threat of legal sanctions and incarceration, requires them to follow current West Virginia law without any ability to exercise discretion;
 
Plaintiffs’ failure to join necessary parties deprives this Court of its ability to afford Plaintiffs complete relief; and
 
Neither W. Va. Code §48-2-104 nor §48-2-401 violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, as both statutes are rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.
 
 Accordingly, Ms. Cole and Ms. McCormick respectfully move this Court to enter an Order granting summary judgment in their favor.
KAREN S. COLE and VERA J. MCCORMICK By counsel /s/ Lee Murray Hall_____________
Lee Murray Hall, Esquire Sarah A. Walling, Esquire
JENKINS FENSTERMAKER
,
 PLLC
Counsel for Defendant Karen S. Cole 
 
Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 62 Filed 02/12/14 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 684
 
_/s/ Charles R. Bailey_______________
Charles R. Bailey, Esq. Michael W. Taylor, Esq. Bailey & Wyant, PLLC 500 Virginia Street, East, Suite 600 P.O. Box 3710 Charleston, WV 25337-3710
Counsel for Defendant Vera J. McCormick 
 
Case 3:13-cv-24068 Document 62 Filed 02/12/14 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 685

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)//-->