Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Connolly v. Jeanes

United States District Court, D. Arizona

October 17, 2014

Joseph Connolly, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Michael K. Jeanes, et al., Defendants

Decided: October 16, 2014.

For Joseph Connolly, Each for Themselves and all Others Simililarly Situated, Terrel L Pochert, Each for Themselves and all Others Simililarly Situated, Suzanne Cummins, Each for Themselves and all Others Simililarly Situated, Holly N Mitchell, Each for Themselves and all Others Simililarly Situated, Clark Rowley, Each for Themselves and all Others Simililarly Situated, David Chaney, Each for Themselves and all Others Simililarly Situated, R Mason Hite, IV, Each for Themselves and all Others Simililarly Situated, Christopher L Devine, Each for Themselves and all Others Simililarly Situated, Plaintiffs: Ellen Kristine Aiken, LEAD ATTORNEY, Sacks Tierney PA, Scottsdale, AZ; Heather Ann Macre, Shawn Keith Aiken, Stephanie McCoy Loquvam, William Henry Knight, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Aiken Schenk Hawkins & Ricciardi PC, Phoenix, AZ; Herbert L Ely, LEAD ATTORNEY, Ely Bettini Ulman & Rosenblatt, Phoenix, AZ; Mikkel Steen Jordahl, LEAD ATTORNEY, Mikkel (Mik) Jordahl PC, Flagstaff, AZ; Ryan J Stevens, Griffen & Stevens Law Firm PLLC, Flagstaff, AZ.

For Robin Reece, Jeffrey Ferst, Peter Bramley, Renee Kaminski, Meagan Metz, Natalie Metz, Plaintiffs: Herbert L Ely, LEAD ATTORNEY, Ely Bettini Ulman & Rosenblatt, Phoenix, AZ; Stephanie McCoy Loquvam, LEAD ATTORNEY, Shawn Keith Aiken, Aiken Schenk Hawkins & Ricciardi PC, Phoenix, AZ; Mark Douglas Dillon, Dillon Law Office, Phoenix, AZ; Mikkel Steen Jordahl, LEAD ATTORNEY, Mikkel (Mik) Jordahl PC, Flagstaff, AZ; Ryan J Stevens, Griffen & Stevens Law Firm PLLC, Flagstaff, AZ.

For Michael K Jeanes, In His Official Capacity as Clerk of the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, Chad Roche, Chad Roche, In His Official Capacity As Clerk of the Superior Court of Pinal County, Arizona, Deborah Young, Deborah Young, In Her Official Capacity As Clerk of the Superior Court of Coconino County, Arizona, Defendants: Byron Jeffords Babione, James Andrew Campbell, Kenneth John Connelly, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Alliance Defending Freedom - Scottsdale, AZ, Scottsdale, AZ; Jonathan Caleb Dalton, LEAD ATTORNEY, Alliance Defending Freedom, Scottsdale, AZ; Kathleen Patricia Sweeney, LEAD ATTORNEY, Office of the Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ; Robert Lawrence Ellman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Office of the Attorney General - Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ.

For Unknown Parties, named as: Does 1-25, Defendant: Byron Jeffords Babione, LEAD ATTORNEY, Alliance Defending Freedom - Scottsdale, AZ, Scottsdale, AZ; Jonathan Caleb Dalton, LEAD ATTORNEY, Alliance Defending Freedom, Scottsdale, AZ.

Page 1095

ORDER AND OPINION [Re: Motions at dockets 47 and 58]

JOHN W. SEDWICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

I. MOTIONS PRESENTED

At docket 47 plaintiffs move for summary judgment. Defendants respond at docket 59. Plaintiffs' reply is at docket 70. Plaintiffs' supplemental brief is at docket 86. Defendants move for summary judgment at docket 58. Plaintiffs' respond at docket 70. Defendants' reply is at docket 80. Defendants' supplemental brief is at docket 87. Oral argument has not been requested by either side and, particularly in light of recent developments in the law of the Ninth Circuit, would not be of assistance to the court.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are same-sex couples who either were married in another jurisdiction and seek to have Arizona recognize their marriages or are same-sex couples who wish to wed in Arizona. Certain provisions of Arizona law make it impossible for either group of plaintiffs to achieve their goal. They are Article 30, Section 1, of the Arizona Constitution which states that only a marriage between one man and one woman is valid and recognizable in Arizona; A.R.S. § 25-101(C) which provides that same-sex marriage is prohibited in Arizona; and A.R.S. § 25-125(A) which defines marriage as between a male and female person (collectively " the challenged laws" ). Plaintiffs ask the court to declare that the challenged laws deny them equal protection of the law and therefore are invalid under the United States Constitution. They also ask the court to permanently enjoin the enforcement of the challenged laws. Defendants deny that the laws violate the United States Constitution.

III. DISCUSSION

When the pending motions were filed, their resolution would ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.