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 or section
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
14-4060 Motion for Stay

14-4060 Motion for Stay

Ratings: (0)|Views: 109|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
[10181446] Utah motion for stay
[10181446] Utah motion for stay

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Jun 05, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

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

06/05/2014

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
JONELL EVANS, individually; STACIA IRELAND, individually; MARINA GOMBERG, individually; ELENOR HEYBORNE, individually; MATTHEW BARRAZA, individually; and KARL FRITZ SHULTZ, individually, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. STATE OF UTAH, GARY R. HERBERT, in his official capacity as Governor of Utah, and SEAN D. REYES, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Utah, Defendants
 – 
 Appellants,
No. 14-4060 STATE DEFENDANTS
 –
 
 APPELLANTS’ MOTION
S FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL AND TEMPORARY STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF MOTION TO STAY
 ______________________________________________________
Appellate Case: 14-4060 Document: 01019259939 Date Filed: 06/05/2014 Page: 1
[Docket Reference Number 10181446]
 
1
Utah State Defendants Governor Gary R. Herbert and Attorney General Sean D. Reyes
(“Defendants”)
, through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), Fed. R. App. P. 8, and 10th Cir. R. 8.1, move this Court for a stay pending appeal
of the district court’s
order granting Plaintiffs
 preliminary injunctive relief, and a temporary stay of that order pending resolution of the
Defendants’
present motion to stay.
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY I.
 
Proceedings in this Matter
Plaintiffs are four same-sex couples who received marriage licenses and had their marriages solemnized in Utah between December 23, 2013 and January 6, 2014. The marriages occurred during the period after the district court issued its injunction in
 Kitchen v. Herbert
, ___F. Supp.2d ___, 2013 WL 6834634 (D. Utah Dec. 23, 2013), and before the United States Supreme Court issued its order
staying the district court’s
injunction, pending appeal
(“interim marriages”)
. Plaintiffs in this case sought legal recognition of their interim marriages pursuant to the due process clauses of the United States and Utah Constitutions, and an order requiring that Defendants recognize those marriages and certain attendant rights.
See
Compl. at 31. (Attached as Exhibit 1.)
Appellate Case: 14-4060 Document: 01019259939 Date Filed: 06/05/2014 Page: 2
 
2
The district court order
granting Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary
injunction appropriately details facts and the
parties’ legal positions. Memorandum Decision and Order (“Order”
 
or “Op.”
) dated May 19, 2014 at 2
 – 
8 (A copy of the Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.) For the purpose of this motion and these proceedings, Defendants generally accept the district
court’s
 apt characterization of the facts, except as otherwise noted.
1
 
II.
 
The Posture of the Present Case on This Appeal and Stay Request
 After briefing and argument, the district court granted P
laintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and denied the parties’ motions for
certification of issues to the Utah Supreme Court. The decision enjoins Defendants
from applying Utah’s same
-sex marriage bans, contained in  Article I, § 29 of the Utah Constitution, Utah Code § 30-1-2, and § 30-1-4.1 to Plaintiffs
 or any other same-sex marriages that were entered into and solemnized between December 20, 2013 and January 6, 2014. Op. at 34. Responding to the
Defendants’ request that any injunction be stayed
pending appeal, the district court denied the stay, but in its discretion stayed
1
 Defendants object to the
district court’s characterization of the State’s
motion to certify a question to the Utah Supreme Court. Op. at 33 & n.5. Rather than seek to delay, State Defendants were notifying the district court
that a matter of clarification on Utah law, from the state’s highest court, and
of direct relevance to the matters at issue in this case, was pending
.
 
Appellate Case: 14-4060 Document: 01019259939 Date Filed: 06/05/2014 Page: 3

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)//-->