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
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
1:14-cv-00405 #35

1:14-cv-00405 #35

Ratings: (0)|Views: 68|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 35 - Defendants' Anticipatory Motion for Stay of Judgment Pending Appeal
Doc 35 - Defendants' Anticipatory Motion for Stay of Judgment Pending Appeal

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Jul 20, 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

07/21/2014

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION MICHELLE BOWLING,
et al.
,
 
) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:14-CV-405-RLY-TAB ) MICHAEL PENCE, in his official capacity as ) Governor of the State of Indiana,
et al.
, ) ) Defendants. )
DEFENDANTS’ ANTICIPATORY MOTION FOR STAY OF JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL
In anticipation of final judgment against one or more of them, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c), Defendants Michael Pence, Greg Zoeller, Michael Alley, and Anita Samuel respectfully move this Court to stay the enforcement of all judgments, injunctions, and declaratory or other relief contemporaneously with the issuance of this Court’s final  judgment, pending appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
1
 A stay in this case is warranted because on June 27, 2014, the Seventh Circuit stayed this Court’s final  judgment, including all injunctive and declaratory relief granted by this Court, in the related cases
 Baskin v. Bogan
, No. 1:14-cv-355-RLY-TAB,
Fujii v. Governor 
, No. 1:14-cv-404-RLY-TAB, and
 Lee v. Pence
, No. 1:14-cv-406-RLY-MJD.
 See
 
 Baskin, et al. v. Bogan, et al.
, Nos. 14-2386, 14-2387, 14-2388 (7th Cir. June 27, 2014) (order granting stay of all relief and ceasing recognition of all same-sex marriages in Indiana pending appeal). On Tuesday July 1, 2014, the Seventh Circuit lifted the stay as to relief granted specifically to Plaintiffs Quasney and Sandler, but on July 2 it denied a similar request from the
1
 
As they have in the related cases
 Baskin v. Bogan
, No. 1:14-cv-355-RLY-TAB,
Fujii v. Pence
, No. 1:14-cv-404-RLY-TAB, and
 Lee v. Pence
, No. 1:14-cv-406-RLY-MJD, Defendants-Appellants will file their Notice of Appeal as soon as possible following this Court’s issuance of its final judgment.
 
Case 1:14-cv-00405-RLY-TAB Document 35 Filed 07/14/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 455
 
2
 
Plaintiffs in
 Lee
.
 Baskin
, No. 14-2386 (7th Cir. July 1, 2014) (order lifting stay as to Quasney and Sandler);
 Lee v. Abbott 
, No. 14-2388 (7th Cir. July 2, 2014) (order denying Plaintiffs-Appellees’ motion to lift stay). The stay and follow-on orders in
 Baskin
and
 Lee
demonstrate that, absent truly extraordinary circumstances, unless and until the United States Supreme Court determines that traditional marriage definitions such as Indiana’s are unconstitutional, it would  be premature to require Indiana and its state and local officials to act on the Court’s order declaring that definition unconstitutional. Permitting enforcement of the final judgment in this case but not the others would create unnecessary confusion and inconsistency among the four remaining same-sex marriage cases coming out of this Court. Accordingly, for purposes of this motion, the State will dispense with arguing according to the customary Rule 62(c) standard for a Stay pending appeal (which the Seventh Circuit has already deemed to have been met) and set forth why Plaintiffs in this case  present no extraordinary circumstances justifying immediate relief. As a starting point, it is worth noting that, unlike Plaintiffs Quasney and Sandler, Plaintiffs Bowling, Bowling, and Bruner have never moved this court for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. In other words, they have never claimed to assert the sorts of injuries that justify immediate relief, and there is no reason to conclude that the injuries they describe in their complaint and summary judgment briefs have become sufficiently emergent to  justify immediate relief now.
I. Shannon and Michelle Bowling Claim No Extraordinary Injuries Requiring Immediate Relief
Plaintiffs Shannon and Michelle Bowling have not pled or argued that they are incurring or will incur any extraordinary injuries as a result of Indiana’s traditional marriage definition that necessitate immediate relief.
Case 1:14-cv-00405-RLY-TAB Document 35 Filed 07/14/14 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 456
 
3
 
First, the Bowlings brought this case because they wish to file their taxes jointly.
See
M. Bowling Decl. ¶¶ 17-23 [
 Bowling
Docket No. 21-1]. The Bowlings, however, do not face any immediate tax deadlines where they might take advantage of the ability to file jointly. Conventional wisdom holds that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide the same-sex marriage issue  by the close of next October term (
see
Erik Eckholm,
Wave of Appeals Expected to Turn the Tide on Same-Sex Marriage Bans
, N.Y. Times (March 22, 2014), http://www.nytimes.com/2014/ 03/23/us/appeals-expected-to-block-more-marriage-bans-on-fast-track-to-justices.html), so even if the Bowlings are unable to file joint Indiana tax returns by April 2015, a decision in their favor from the Supreme Court in the near future would enable them to amend their returns for the 2014 tax year.
See
Ind. Dep’t of Revenue, FAQs: When Do I File an Amended (Corrected) Return? http://www.in.gov/dor/4710.htm (last visited July 7, 2014) (directing Hoosier taxpayers to submit an IT-40X to amend previously-filed tax returns). Accordingly, it is hard to see how the Bowlings’ interest in filing joint tax returns amounts to an extraordinary injury justifying immediate relief. The Seventh Circuit, by virtue of its stay of this Court’s judgment in the combined
 Baskin
,
Fujii
, and
 Lee
 cases, where several couples argued for the right to file joint tax returns, has implicitly concluded that the State’s interests in orderly resolution of the same-sex marriage issue as it pertains to administration of its tax laws outweighs plaintiffs’ interests in the ability to file joint tax returns immediately.
See Baskin
, Mem. in Supp. of Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. at 10 (arguing for right to file joint tax returns) [
 Baskin
Docket No. 39];
Fujii
, Pls.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. at 6 (same) [
Fujii
Docket No. 34].
 
The Bowlings’ congruent interest in filing  joint tax returns, particularly unaccompanied by any demonstration of financial tax benefit,
Case 1:14-cv-00405-RLY-TAB Document 35 Filed 07/14/14 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 457

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)//-->