Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32 Filed 04/10/14 Page 1 of 2

Erik Strindberg (Bar No. 4154) Lauren I. Scholnick (Bar No. 7776) Kathryn Harstad (Bar No. 11012) Rachel E. Otto (Bar No. 12191) STRINDBERG & SCHOLNICK, LLC 675 East 2100 South, Ste. 350 Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Telephone: (801) 359-4169 Facsimile: (801) 359-4313 erik@utahjobjustice.com lauren@utahjobjustice.com kass@utahjobjustice.com rachel@utahjobjustice.com

John Mejia (Bar No. 13965) Leah Farrell (Bar No. 13696) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF UTAH FOUNDATION, INC. 355 N. 300 W. Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Telephone: 801.521.9862 Facsimile: 801.532.2850 aclu@acluutah.org Joshua A. Block* ACLU LGBT Project 125 Broad Street, Floor 18 New York, New York, 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2593 Facsimile: (212) 549-2650 jblock@aclu.org *Admitted pro hac vice

Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION JONELL EVANS, et al. Plaintiffs v. STATE OF UTAH, et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:14-cv-55 DAK MOTION TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Based upon various material changes in the facts presented to the Court in connection with Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, all of which happened after the hearing and briefing on that motion were complete, Plaintiffs hereby move to submit the attached Proposed

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32 Filed 04/10/14 Page 2 of 2

Supplement to their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. The proposed supplement is attached hereto. DATED this 10th day of April 2014.

__________/s/________________ John Mejia

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-1 Filed 04/10/14 Page 1 of 6

Erik Strindberg (Bar No. 4154) Lauren I. Scholnick (Bar No. 7776) Kathryn Harstad (Bar No. 11012) Rachel E. Otto (Bar No. 12191) STRINDBERG & SCHOLNICK, LLC 675 East 2100 South, Ste. 350 Salt Lake City, UT 84106 Telephone: (801) 359-4169 Facsimile: (801) 359-4313 erik@utahjobjustice.com lauren@utahjobjustice.com kass@utahjobjustice.com rachel@utahjobjustice.com

John Mejia (Bar No. 13965) Leah Farrell (Bar No. 13696) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF UTAH FOUNDATION, INC. 355 N. 300 W. Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Telephone: 801.521.9862 Facsimile: 801.532.2850 aclu@acluutah.org Joshua A. Block* ACLU LGBT Project 125 Broad Street, Floor 18 New York, New York, 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2593 Facsimile: (212) 549-2650 jblock@aclu.org *Admitted pro hac vice

Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION JONELL EVANS, et al. Plaintiffs v. STATE OF UTAH, et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:14-cv-55 DAK [PROPOSED] SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Based upon a material change in the facts presented to the Court by the Attorney Generals Office in connection with Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs submit the following supplement to their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-1 Filed 04/10/14 Page 2 of 6

FACTUAL SUPPELEMENT 1. As previously noted, almost immediately after they married, Plaintiffs Matthew

Barraza and Tony Milner filed a petition to adopt their son, J., which as assigned to Judge Stone of the Utah State Court. Their attorney during those proceedings was Shane Marx. (Marx Declaration, 2 attached hereto at Exhibit A). 2. Also as previously noted, the Attorney General for the State of Utah filed a

position statement in those adoption proceedings, opining that the state court should stay the proceedings until the Tenth Circuit decided the appeal in Kitchen. (This brief is attached as Addendum C to Exhibit 1 of the Marx Declaration,) 3. In that that brief, the Attorney General declined to intervene in the proceedings,

instead opining that the court stay the proceedings or that Mr. Milner and Mr. Barraza should voluntarily dismiss them. (See id.) 4. On March 12, 2014, during oral argument before this Court on Plaintiffs motion

for preliminary injunction, counsel for Defendants emphasized they had not intervened in the adoption proceedings and instead simply supplied legal analysis in response to Judge Stones invitation. 5. Judge Stone rejected the Attorney Generals arguments and ordered that Mr.

Milner should be allowed to adopt J. (The courts order is attached as included as Addendum A to Exhibit 1 to the Marx Declaration.) 6. On April 1, 2014, Mr. Marx went to Utahs Department of Health, Office of Vital

Records (the Department) to obtain a new birth certificate for J. based on the Decree of Adoption. (Marx Declaration, 6.) He presented the certified decree of adoption and report of

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-1 Filed 04/10/14 Page 3 of 6

adoption certified by the clerk of the court, either of which, by Utah regulation, is the only record needed to amend a birth certificate based on an adoption. (Marx Declaration, 5.) He presented the certified decree of adoption and report of adoption certified by the clerk of the court, which, by Utah regulation, are the only records needed to create a new birth certificate based on an adoption. (Id.) See Utah Administrative Code Rule R436-5. New Birth Certificates After Legitimation, Court Determination of Paternity, or Adoption (Unless the court order of adoption or report of adoption specifies that a new birth certificate is not to be prepared, the State Registrar shall prepare new birth certificate for a child born in this state upon receipt of a court order of adoption or a court report of adoption certified by the clerk of the court and payment of the required fee. The full name of the child to be entered on the new birth certificate shall be as specified in the court order.) 7. The registrar at the Department asked Mr. Marx for a copy of Mr. Barraza and

Mr. Milners marriage certificate. (Marx Declaration, 7). Because that document is not one that is required to obtain a new birth certificate based on an adoption, he did not have that record with him at that time. (Id.) 8. The registrar told Mr. Marx that she could not issue the new birth certificate

without the marriage certificate. (Id., 8.) Mr. Marx insisted she was incorrect and again requested the amended birth certificate. (Id.) The registrar then contacted two attorneys from the Utah Attorney Generals office. 9. After some discussion in which Mr. Marx reiterated his request, those attorneys

instructed the registrar not to issue the amended birth certificate for J., but that they would contact Joni Jones from the Utah Attorney Generals office and contact Mr. Marx later that day

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-1 Filed 04/10/14 Page 4 of 6

or the following morning. (Id., 9.) 10. Mr. Marx did not hear from the Utah Attorney Generals office. (Id., 10.)

Instead, the Department served Mr. Milner and Mr. Barraza with a Petition for Emergency Extraordinary Relief on April 7, 2014, in the Utah Supreme Court.. (Id. That petition is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Marx Declaration.) 11. In that petition, the Department requests that they be relieved from recognizing

Mr. Milner's parental rights and the duty to issue J. an amended certificate because, the Department asserts, complying with the decree of adoption granting parental rights would require the Department to recognize Mr. Milner's marriage to Mr. Barraza. (Marx Declaration, 11.) 12. Mr. Barraza and Mr. Milner are required to respond to the petition by April 10,

2014. (Id., 12.) 13. On information and belief, Defendants have filed similar Petitions for

Emergency Extraordinary Relief in numerous other cases in which Utah state court judges have allowed married same-sex couples to complete stepparent adoption proceedings. SUPPLEMENTAL LEGAL ANALYSIS Plaintiffs are confident that the Department lacks standing to challenge J.s adoption, and that the emergency petition will be denied on that basis. Nevertheless, for several reasons, the foregoing events are relevant to Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction: First, Judge Stone of the Utah State Court rejected Defendants arguments to stay the adoption proceedings, which are essentially identical to those made here. While Judge Stones order is not necessarily res judicata, it is certainly persuasive authority in the instant case, and

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-1 Filed 04/10/14 Page 5 of 6

highlights the substantial likelihood that Plaintiffs will prevail on their state law claims. Second, Defendants recent actions mark a dramatic expansion of their policy to refuse to recognize Plaintiffs legally valid marriages. Defendants now claim the power, not only to refuse to treat Plaintiffs and other legally married same-sex couples as married, but also to refuse to carry out court orders if a factual predicate for the order is Plaintiffs marital status. Third, Defendants recent actions directly contradict their assertions at oral argument that they did not seek to intervene in Plaintiffs adoption proceedings and were simply providing legal analysis. Finally, as mentioned, Plaintiffs are confident that the Department lacks standing to challenge J.s adoption, and that the emergency petition will be denied on that basis. Yet whether the Defendants prevail or not, by actively seeking to interfere with the final steps of their valid adoption of J., Defendants are striking a blow at Mr. Milner and Mr. Barrazas child and at their very family structure, further violating their fundamental rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to family integrity. Accordingly, Defendants continue to impose irreparable harm on Mr. Barraza and Mr. Milner.

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-1 Filed 04/10/14 Page 6 of 6

For all these reasons, the Court should grant the preliminary injunction that Plaintiffs seek. DATED this 10th day of April 2014.

__________/s/________________ John Mejia

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 1 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 2 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 3 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 4 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 5 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 6 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 7 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 8 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 9 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 10 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 11 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 12 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 13 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 14 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 15 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 16 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 17 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 18 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 19 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 20 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 21 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 22 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 23 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 24 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 25 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 26 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 27 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 28 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 29 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 30 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 31 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 32 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 33 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 34 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 35 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 36 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 37 of 38

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 32-2 Filed 04/10/14 Page 38 of 38