2 Pursuant to DUCivR 7-1 Defendants the State of Utah, Governor Gary Herbert, and
Attorney General Sean Reyes, (“Defendants” or the “State” or the “Utah”) by and through
counsel, Joni J. Jones and Kyle J. Kaiser, Assistant Utah Attorneys General, and Parker Douglas, General Counsel and Chief of Staff, provide the following Reply Memorandum in Support of
Defendants’ Motion to Cer
tify Questions of Utah State Law to the Utah Supreme Court (doc. 34).
Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’
Motion to Certify (doc. 35) provides no relevant
legal basis for the Court to deny certification on Defendants’ Proposed Certified Question.
Rather, Plaintiffs cast
Defendants’ Motion as strategic, alleging that Defendants are “manufacturing standing” before the Utah Supreme Court and are “
[ing] this court’s certification procedures, “attempt[ing] to game the certification process,” and even “flout[ing]
the litigation process.
As is apparent from Defendants’ Motion as well as Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Proposed Supplement to Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (doc. 33), nothing could be further from the truth.
The heart of Plaintiffs’ claims
that the State’s failure to
grant marriage benefits to those marriages performed pre-stay violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (
Pl.’s Compl. (
121.) Defendants therefore
removed Plaintiffs’ case to
federal court, the appropriate forum to make such a determination. (
Not. of Removal (doc. 1) at 1.) With this action pending, at least two Plaintiffs
along with other same-sex couples who are not parties here, but who would certainly benefit from any injunction entered by
Defendants’ Proposed Certified Question is: Do same
-sex couples who received marriage licenses, and whose marriages were solemnized, between December 20, 2013 and January 6, 2014, have vested property rights in their marriages which now require recognition under present Utah law?
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 38 Filed 04/25/14 Page 2 of 5