Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 26 Filed 03/31/14 Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SHAWN K. AIKEN 2390 East Camelback Road Suite 400 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Telephone: (602) 248-8203 docket@ashrlaw.com ska@ashrlaw.com ham@ashrlaw.com whk@ashrlaw.com sml@ashrlaw.com Shawn K. Aiken - 009002 Heather A. Macre - 026625 William H. Knight - 030514 Stephanie McCoy Loquvam - 029045 DILLON LAW OFFICE PO Box 97517 Phoenix, Arizona 85060 Telephone: (602) 224-4468 dillonlaw97517@gmail.com Mark Dillon - 014393
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

HERB ELY 3200 North Central Avenue Suite 1930 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: 602-230-2144 HerbEly@eburlaw.com Herb Ely 000988 MIKKEL (MIK) JORDAHL P.C. 114 North San Francisco Suite 206 Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 Telephone: (928) 214-0942 mikkeljordahl@yahoo.com Mikkel Steen Jordahl - 012211 GRIFFEN & STEVENS LAW FIRM, PLLC 609 North Humphreys St. Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 Telephone: (928) 226-0165 stevens@flagstaff-lawyer.com Ryan J. Stevens - 026378

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Joseph Connolly and Terrel L. Pochert; Suzanne Cummins and Holly N. Mitchell; Clark Rowley and David Chaney; R. Mason Hite IV and Christopher L. Devine; Meagan and Natalie Metz; Renee Kaminski and Robin Reece; Jeffrey Ferst and Peter Bramley, v. Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:14-cv-00024-JWS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASE WITH CONNOLLY ET AL. V. ROCHE [ET AL.], No. 2:14-CV-0024

Chad Roche, In His Official Capacity As Clerk Of The Superior Court Of Pinal County, Arizona; Michael K. Jeanes, In His Official Capacity As Clerk Of The Superior Court Of Maricopa County, Arizona; and Deborah Young, In Her Official Capacity As Clerk Of The Superior Court Of Coconino County, Arizona, Defendants.

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 26 Filed 03/31/14 Page 2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

On March 24, 2014, plaintiffs in another, similar case pending in this district, Majors v. Horne (2:14-cv-00518-NVW), moved for consolidation with this case (and transfer to this Court). In response, plaintiffs in this action point out that the parties in this case will shortly begin briefing dispositive motions; in the Majors case, by contrast, the defendants have not answered (or otherwise responded). The Majors plaintiffs have also sued different defendantsthere is only one common defendantand sought temporary injunctive relief. These distinctions between the two cases may not affect the decision to transfer, but should weigh against consolidation. Under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, consolidation is appropriate [i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact. Hall v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., 2009 WL 648626, at *1 (D.Ariz. March 11, 2009). In determining whether consolidation is appropriate, a district court must balance the interest of judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice that may result from such consolidation. Sapiro v. Sunstone Hotel Investors, L.L.C., 2006 WL 898155, at *1 (D. Ariz. April 4, 2006). Factors such as differing trial dates or stages of discovery usually weigh against consolidation. Sapiro, 2006 WL 898155, *1 (citing Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 2383 (1995)). In their motion for consolidation, the Majors plaintiffs correctly point out that both cases raise the same legal issue whether the State of Arizonas ban on same-sex marriage should be stricken under the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. And, they also point out, [n]o substantive briefing has occurred in either case. Motion, at 3. But, the parties in this case have suggested briefing crossmotions for summary judgment that would be completed in 90 days. See Joint Initial Case Status Report (3.31.14)(Doc. 25). More important, the two cases have only one defendant in commonMaricopa County Superior Court Clerk Michael Jeanes. The Majors plaintiffs sued Attorney General Thomas Horne who was not named in the amended complaint in this action and who may well engage in protracted pre-answer motion practice. The Majors plaintiffs have also described claims for temporary injunctive relief
Connolly et. al. v. Roche et al.

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 26 Filed 03/31/14 Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

that the plaintiffs here have not sought. Plaintiffs here concede that transfer of the Majors case from Judge Wakes court to this Court makes good sense. But, because the cases involve different defendants and times to resolution, the Court should defer any decision on consolidation until at least conclusion of early motion practice in the Majors case. DATED: March 31, 2014. By s/ Shawn K. Aiken 009002 Shawn K. Aiken Heather A. Macre William H. Knight Stephanie McCoy Loquvam 2390 East Camelback Road, Suite 400 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 By s/ Herb Ely -- 000988 Herb Ely 3200 North Central Avenue Suite 1930 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 By s/ Ryan J. Stevens 026378 Ryan J. Stevens GRIFFEN & STEVENS LAW FIRM, PLLC 609 North Humphreys Street Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 By s/ Mikkel Steen Jordahl -- 012211 Mikkel Steen Jordahl

MIKKEL (MIK) JORDAHL PC

114 North San Francisco, Suite 206 Flagstaff, Arizona 86001

By s/ Mark Dillon -- 014393 Mark Dillon DILLON LAW OFFICE PO Box 97517 Phoenix, Arizona 85060 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Connolly et. al. v. Roche et al.

Case 2:14-cv-00024-JWS Document 26 Filed 03/31/14 Page 4 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I hereby certify that on this 31st day of March, 2014 I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and a copy was electronically transmitted to the following: Kathleen P. Sweeney Todd M. Allison Assistant Attorneys General 1275 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997 kathleen.sweeney@azag.gov todd.allison@azag.gov Attorneys for Defendants Jonathan Caleb Dalton Byron J. Babione Special Assistant Attorney General Alliance Defending Freedom 15100 North 90th Street Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 CDalton@alliancedefendingfreedom.org BBabione@alliancedefendingfreedom.org Attorneys for Defendants

s/ DeAnn M. Buchmeier
S:\Connolly - Pochert\21401001\Pleadings\RspMTConsolidate 140331.docx

Connolly et. al. v. Roche et al.