Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Dragovich v. U.S. Dept of the Treasury - ORDER Dismissal Denied

Dragovich v. U.S. Dept of the Treasury - ORDER Dismissal Denied

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,375|Likes:
Published by Kathleen Perrin
Dragovich v. U.S. Dept of the Treasury - ORDER Denying federal government defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Federal District Court, N. District of California. Filed 1/18/2011
Dragovich v. U.S. Dept of the Treasury - ORDER Denying federal government defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Federal District Court, N. District of California. Filed 1/18/2011

More info:

Published by: Kathleen Perrin on Jan 20, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

01/20/2011

pdf

text

original

 
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAMICHAEL DRAGOVICH; MICHAEL GAITLEY;ELIZABETH LITTERAL; PATRICIAFITZSIMMONS; CAROLYN LIGHT; andCHERYL LIGHT; on behalf of themselvesand all others similarly situated,Plaintiffs,v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THETREASURY; TIMOTHY GEITHNER, in hisofficial capacity as Secretary of theTreasury, United States Department ofthe Treasury; INTERNAL REVENUESERVICE; DOUGLAS SHULMAN, in hisofficial capacity as Commissioner ofthe Internal Revenue Service; BOARDOF ADMINISTRATION OF CALIFORNIAPUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM;and ANNE STAUSBOLL, in her officialcapacity as Chief Executive Officer,CalPERS,Defendants./No. 10-01564 CWORDER DENYINGFEDERALDEFENDANTS’MOTION TO DISMISS(Docket No. 25)Plaintiffs bring a constitutional challenge to section threeof the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. § 7, and section7702B(f) of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.), 26 U.S.C.§ 7702B(f), which interfere with their ability to participate in astate-maintained plan providing long-term care insurance. Long-term care insurance provides coverage when a person needsassistance with basic activities of living due to injury, old age,or severe impairments related to chronic illnesses, such asAlzheimer’s disease. Enacted on August 21, 1996, as part of theHealth Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA),
Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document56 Filed01/18/11 Page1 of 29
 
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
2section 7702B(f) provides favorable federal tax treatment toqualified state-maintained long-term care insurance plans for stateemployees. 26 U.S.C. § 7702B(f). Section 7702B(f) disqualifies astate-maintained plan from this favorable tax treatment if itprovides coverage to individuals other than certain specifiedrelatives of state employees and former employees. § 7702B(f)(2).The provision’s list of eligible relatives does not includeregistered domestic partners, but does include spouses. 26 U.S.C.§ 7702B(f)(2)(C); 26 U.S.C. § 152(d)(2)(A)-(G)). One month later,section three of the DOMA amended the United States Code to define,for federal law purposes, the term “spouse” to mean solely “aperson of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife,” and“marriage” to mean only “a legal union between one man and onewoman as husband and wife.” 1 U.S.C § 7.Plaintiffs are three California public employees and theirsame-sex spouses, who are in long-term committed relationshipslegally recognized in California as both marriages and registereddomestic partnerships. California Public Employees’ RetirementSystem (CalPERS) provides retirement and health benefits, includinglong-term care insurance, to many of the state’s public employees,retirees, and their families. CalPERS has refused to makeavailable its Long-Term Care (LTC) Program to the same-sex spousesof the public employee Plaintiffs.Plaintiffs contend that section three of the DOMA andI.R.C. § 7702B(f) violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment
Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document56 Filed01/18/11 Page2 of 29
 
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
1
 
While the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection guaranteedoes not directly apply to the United States, courts haveinterpreted the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause as imposing onthe United States the same principles of equal protectionestablished in the Fourteenth Amendment. Adarand Constructors,Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 213-18 (1995).3guarantees of equal protection and substantive due process.
1
 Plaintiffs have named both Federal and State Defendants. FederalDefendants move to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure12(b)(1), on grounds that this Court lacks subject matterjurisdiction because Plaintiffs do not have standing. In addition,Federal Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ action under FederalRule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state claims forviolations of equal protection and substantive due process. StateDefendants have answered the complaint and do not join the motionto dismiss.BACKGROUNDI. Facts Alleged in the ComplaintOn a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court musttake as true the facts alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint. Thefollowing summarizes the facts alleged.A. Long-term care insurance and the CalPERS LTC ProgramPursuant to California law, Defendant CalPERS Board ofAdministration offers public employees and their families theopportunity to purchase long-term care insurance during periodicopen enrollment periods. Cal. Gov’t. Code § 2166(a).Long-term care insurance has advantages which health anddisability insurance, Medicare and MediCal generally do not offer.The official guide explaining the CalPERS LTC Program states that
Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document56 Filed01/18/11 Page3 of 29

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->