Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
3:14-cv-00213 #76

3:14-cv-00213 #76

Ratings:
(0)
|Views: 14|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 76 - Defendant Laura M. Riddick's (Wake County Register of Deeds) Reply in support of stay
Doc 76 - Defendant Laura M. Riddick's (Wake County Register of Deeds) Reply in support of stay

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Jul 02, 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

07/10/2014

pdf

text

original

 
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK GENERAL SYNOD OF THE UNITED CHURCH ) OF CHRIST; REVEREND JOSEPH HOFFMAN; ) REVEREND NANCY ELLETT ALLISON; ) REVEREND NATHAN KING; REVEREND )  NANCY KRAFT; RABBI JONATHAN ) FREIRICH; REVEREND ROBIN TANNER; ) REVEREND MARK WARD; REVEREND DR. )  NANCY E. PETTY; KAY DIANE ANSLEY; )
CATHERINE “CATHY” McGAUGHEY;
)
ELIZABETH “LISA” CLONINGER;
 ) KATHLEEN SMITH; SHAUNA BRAGAN; ) STACY MALONEY; CATHY FRY; JOANNE ) MARINARO; JOEL BLADY; JEFFREY ADDY; ) BETTY MACK; and CAROL TAYLOR; ) ) Plaintiffs, )
DEFENDANT RIDDICK’S REPLY
 )
TO PLAINTIFFS’
 
RESPONSE TO
)
DEFENDANT RIDDICK’S
v. )
MOTION TO STAY
)
 
ROY COOPER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF )  NORTH CAROLINA; DREW REISINGER, ) REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR BUNCOMBE ) COUNTY; WAYNE NIXON, REGISTER OF ) DEEDS FOR CABARRUS COUNTY; TONIA ) HAMPTON, REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR ) McDOWELL COUNTY; J. DAVID ) GRANBERRY, REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR ) MECKLENBURG COUNTY; LAURA M. ) RIDDICK, REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR WAKE ) COUNTY; RONALD L. MOORE, BUNCOMBE ) COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY; ROXANN ) VANEEKHOVEN, CABARRUS COUNTY ) DISTRICT ATTORNEY; BRADLEY ) GREENWAY, McDOWELL COUNTY ) DISTRICT ATTORNEY; ANDREW MURRAY, ) MECKLENBURG COUNTY DISTRICT ) ATTORNEY; and NED MANGUM, WAKE ) COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY; ) ) Defendants. )
Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 76 Filed 07/01/14 Page 1 of 7
 
2  NOW COMES defendant Laura M. Riddick, [herei
nafter “Riddick”]
, through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to LCvR 7.1(E), and the Order filed June 26, 2014 [Document  No. 75] and hereby files this reply to the plaintiffs
 
Response [Document No. 66] to Riddick’s
Motion to Stay [Document No. 47], and Riddick shows unto the court the following in reply:
a.
 
The impending decision in Bostic will undoubtedly
resolve two of plaintiffs’ four 
 claims on the merits and it is not necessary to litigate these claims in multiple lawsuits.
Differing opinions about the procedure and substance of legal disputes is familiar in litigation.
A motion to stay a proceeding and a preliminary injunction are about as “differing” as
one could imagine. It would seem that resolution of one could necessarily resolve the other. Defendant Riddick continues to believe that it is in the interest of the parties and judicial economy for this Court to exercise its
inherent power “
to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants
, and grant the
defendants’ Motions to Stay
.
Stone v. I.N.S.,
 514 U.S. 386, 411 (1995). As we urged in our Memorandum in Support of our Motion to Stay, the impending decision in
 Bostic vs. Schaefer 
, et al, No. 14-1167 will impact in some form the direction of this litigation. In their response to the Motion to Stay, plaintiffs contend that defendants have failed to make out a case of hardship or inequity in light of the alleged harm to plaintiffs, that a stay would s
ignificantly harm plaintiffs,” that the harms alleged by the State of North Carolina are
minimal, that there would be no serious costs to judicial economy and that their First Amendment Claims distinguish this case from
 Bostic
.
In our Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Stay we compared the “marriage laws” raised in this case with the “marriage laws” under review in the
 Bostic.
They are for all intents and purposes the same in that both limit marriages in their respective jurisdictions to one man
Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 76 Filed 07/01/14 Page 2 of 7
 
3 and one woman. Plaintiffs contend
that “defendants’ core argument is that
 Bostic
 
might 
 affect the
issues implicated in this matter.” (emphasis in the original) [Plaintiffs’ Response to Motio
n to State Document No. 66, page 3, ¶ 2 and page 12, ¶ 3].
That is not this defendant’s core
argument. This defendant made the point that
 Bostic
 
will 
 affect issues in this litigation - not might, and plaintiffs have made no plausible showing that, as to the claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, there are any real differences between the two cases. Indeed, it cannot be denied that the requested relief as to these claims is identical in both cases. In other words, if plaintiff  prevails, they might well des
ire to seek summary judgment on the “
a
ffected” issues, and
defendants might do the same if the opposite result is reached. It remains unseen how the Fourth Circuit will address the applicability of any ruling it makes on the Fourteenth Amendment claims and when or if the mandate of that decision will be stayed. However, the effect
 Bostic
 will have on the merits and any ensuing legal analysis in this case is undeniable. We cannot know if the decision will be stayed requiring the parties to then turn to the issue of whether a stayed decision becomes the law of the circuit. Moreover, we cannot know if the Supreme Court will grant
certiorari
and issue its own stay as it did in the Utah case.
 Kitchen v. Herbert 
, 2:13-cv-217-RJS, 2013 WL 6834634 (D. Utah Dec. 23, 2013). What we do know is that there are other cases litigating the exact issues under the Fourteenth Amendment both in and outside of this Circuit. Since this decision, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal has issued its ruling in
 Kitchen v.  Herbert,
 ___ F.3d. ___ (10
th
 Cir.) on June 25, 2014 addressing the Fourteenth Amendment issues
in plaintiffs’ favor, but that decision’s mandate
is uncertain.
1
 What does seem certain is that the
1
 
In light of the United States Supreme Court’s stay issued to the District Court, the 10
th
 Circuit stayed its mandate  pending disposition of any petitions for certiorari. If no petition is filed, the stay is lifted. If filed and denied, the stay is lifted. If one is filed and granted, stay is in effect until the Supreme Court resolves the issue.
 Herbert v. Kitchen,
  ___ F.3d. ____ (10
th
 Circuit) No. 13-4178, page 68.
Case 3:14-cv-00213-RJC-DCK Document 76 Filed 07/01/14 Page 3 of 7

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)//-->