Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3
4
|i
APR 13 2015
JEANNE 6. QXnHAlA
CtR OF COyT
8
9
10
11
TERRITORY OF GUAM
12
00009
M. PANGELINAN,
13
Plaintiffs,
14
v.
15
16
17
EXPEDITED RULING
Defendants.
19
20
COME
NOW,
Plaintiffs
KATHLEEN
M.
AGUERO
and
LORETTA
M.
21
PANGELINAN, by and through their attorneys, and move pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(a) as
22
23
24
r(
ORIGINAL
well as the Court's inherent authority to control its own docket, for this Court to expedite its
Plaintiffs Kathleen M. Aguero and Loretta M. Pangelinan are legally qualified to marry
supporting their Motions for Summary Judgment and Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiffs
personally brought their application for a marriage license on April 8, 2015 to the Vital
Statistics Office of the Department of Public Health and Social Services ("DPHSS"), in
Mangilao, the office that processes marriage license applications on Guam.1 DPHSS officials
refused to accept the application and handed the women two documents: (1) a 2009 opinion
10
letter from the Acting Guam Attorney General regarding "common law" unions; and (2) a copy
11
of certain provisions from Tile 10 of the Guam Code Annotated, including 10 G.C.A.
12
3207(h), indicating, "[m]arriage means the legal union of persons of the opposite sex."2 At
13
no time has any government official articulated any reason for failing to issue a marriage
14
15
Plaintiffs filed a Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief on April 13, 2015
16
seeking to secure the fundamental right to marry as guaranteed to them by the Fourteenth
17
Amendment to the United States Constitution as set forth in controlling Ninth Circuit
18
precedent, Latta v. Otter. 771 F.3d 456 (9th Cir. 2014),pet. for reh'g en banc denied, 779 F.3d
19
902 (9th Cir. Jan 9, 2015). Also on April 13, Plaintiffs filed and caused to be served Summons
20
on the Defendants herein, as well as the Office of the Attorney General, together with a motion
21
22
23
24
Plaintiffs now request an expedited ruling on the grounds that (1) they suffer irreparable
harm by any delay in the disposition of this matter due to the deprivation of their
precedent of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Latta; (3) the harm to Plaintiffs caused by
delay far exceeds any likelihood of success by Defendants; (4) the facts of this case are simple,
well-known and undisputed, and there is no necessity for discovery or trial; and (5) an
expedited ruling serves both judicial economy and the public interest in resolving an important
issue.
Defendants might claim that the relief Plaintiffs seek is somehow premature in this
10
newly-filed case.
11
granted injunctive relief less than one month after issuance of binding circuit authority on
12
point. Condon v. Haley. 2014 WL 5897175 (D. S.C. Nov. 12, 2014) (granting injunctive relief
13
and summary judgment regarding South Carolina marriage ban less than one month after
14
initiation of action); Guzzo v. Mead. 2014 WL 5317797 (D. Wyo. Oct. 17, 2014) (granting
15
16
couples a mere ten days after the filing of the original complaint); Marie v. Moser. 2014 WL
17
5598128 (D. Kan. Nov. 4,2014) (enjoining enforcement of Kansas's ban on marriage for same-
18
sex couples less than one month after the commencement of the action "[bjecause Tenth Circuit
19
precedent is binding on this Court. . ."). Likewise, in the instant case, there is absolutely no
20
principled reason to delay granting injunctive relief in the face of controlling Ninth Circuit
21
precedent on point.
22
District courts have likewise granted expedited summary judgments in favor of same-
23
sex plaintiffs. See Rolando v. Fox. 2014 WL 6476196, *4 (D. Mont. Nov. 19, 2014) (granting
3
24
summary judgment invalidating Montana's constitutional ban on same sex marriage because
"Latta represents binding Ninth Circuit precedent and provides the framework that this Court
must follow"); Majors v. Home. 141 F. Supp. 3d 1313 (D. Ariz. 2014) (promptly granting
pending summary judgment motions challenging Arizona's same-sex marriage ban just ten
. 5
days after issuance of the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Latta); Hambv v. Parnell. 2014 WL
5089399 (D. Alaska Oct. 12,2014) ("Latta is the controlling law of this Circuit").
Based on these authorities and other authorities more fully set forth in their April 13,
2015 memoranda supporting Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment and Preliminary
Injunction, expedited treatment of this matter is appropriate based on the Ninth Circuit's
10
controlling ruling in Latta. Rather than reiterate all those authorities at length, Plaintiffs hereby
11
12
13
Plaintiffs, or similarly situated same-sex couples. This Court can rule expeditiously, as a
14
matter of law, that the purported Guam marriage license ban violates Plaintiffs' fundamental
15
constitutional rights to marry the person they choose by faithful application of controlling law
16
17
This case is ripe for review without further delay; and this Court should put an end to
18
the unnecessary suffering, humiliation, stigma, and anxieties attendant to Guam's purported
19
marriage ban on Plaintiffs and all committed same-sex couples and their children who want,
20
and need, the security of marriage. As discussed below, every conceivable "justification" for
21
same-sex marriage bans has been considered and rejected by the Ninth Circuit in Latta. Thus,
22
23
24
CONCLUSION
2
There is no effective or meaningful remedy for the loss of Constitutional rights; the only
remedy of any value is swift justice. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant an
expedited ruling.
By.
P15I025.RTT
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24