Erik Strindberg (Bar No.

4154)
Lauren I. Scholnick (Bar No. 7776)
Kathryn Harstad (Bar No. 11012)
STRINDBERG & SCHOLNICK, LLC
675 East 2100 South, Ste. 350
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Telephone: (801) 359-4169
Facsimile: (801) 359-4313
erik@utahjobjustice.com
lauren@utahjobjustice.com
kass@utahjobjustice.com


John Mejia (Bar No. 13965)
Leah Farrell (Bar No. 13696)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
UTAH FOUNDATION, INC.
355 N. 300 W.
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103
Telephone: 801.521.9862
Facsimile: 801.532.2850
aclu@acluutah.org

Joshua A. Block*
ACLU LGBT Project
125 Broad Street, Floor 18
New York, New York, 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2593
Facsimile: (212) 549-2650
jblock@aclu.org
*Admitted pro hac vice
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

Plaintiffs respectfully seek leave to file the following second supplement to apprise the
Court of additional facts presented in connection with Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary
injunction and certification.

JONELL EVANS, et al.
Plaintiffs
v.
STATE OF UTAH, et al.,
Defendants.

MOTION TO FILE SECOND
SUPPLEMENT AND [PROPOSED]
SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
CERTIFICATION


Case No. 2:14-cv-55 DAK

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 43 Filed 05/17/14 Page 1 of 6
2
FACTS
1. On April 10, 2014, Plaintiffs submitted a motion for leave to file a supplement to
apprise the Court of additional facts in connection with Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary
injunction. Doc. Nos. 31-32. That motion was subsequently granted on May 13, 2014. Doc.
No. 41.
2. In that supplement, Plaintiffs apprised the Court that, inter alia, (a) Judge Stone of
the Utah State Court had granted a petition by Plaintiffs Matthew Barraza and Tony Milner to
adopt their son, J., (b) as part of that order, Judge Stone ordered Defendants to issue an amended
birth certificate for J., and (c) Defendants had filed a Petition for Emergency Extraordinary
Relief in the Utah Supreme Court asking that Court to stay enforcement of Judge Stones order
to issue an amended birth certificate.
3. On April 16, 2014, Defendants filed a response that did not oppose Plaintiffs
motion to supplement. Doc. No 33.
4. In addition, on April 16, 2014, Defendants in a reversal of their previous
position moved to certify Plaintiffs state-law claims to the Utah Supreme Court. In that
motion Defendants informed the Court that they had filed similar petitions for extraordinary
relief in three other cases in which state courts had granted adoption petitions. Doc. No. 34.
5. On April 17, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendants motion for
certification. Doc. No. 35. In that response, Plaintiffs reiterated their position that the Court
may, in its discretion, certify state-law questions to the Utah Supreme Court. But Plaintiffs also
reiterated that, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the state law claims, this Court should issue
a preliminary injunction based on Plaintiffs federal claims so Plaintiffs federal rights would
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 43 Filed 05/17/14 Page 2 of 6
3
remain protected during the pendency of any additional proceedings.
6. On May 7, 2014, according to news reports, in a separate case involving a
different same-sex couple who had been granted an adoption petition, Judge Stone issued an
order for the Attorney General and other state officials to show cause why they should not be
held in contempt for refusing to comply with the courts order to issue an amended birth
certificate. See http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57949865-78/utah-state-court-
adoption.html.csp.
7. On May 16, 2014, the Utah Supreme Court issued an order stating that
[e]nforcement of the district court orders mandating or authorizing Petitioner to issue birth
certificates is stayed until the Court can address the petitions for extraordinary relief. (Attached
as Exhibit A.) The Court also stated that the clerk would issue a schedule for full briefing and
oral argument.
8. The Utah Supreme Court order did not state that the Defendants petition for
extraordinary relief was procedurally proper or that Defendants had standing to collaterally
attack a court judgment issued in connection with a final adoption decree. The court simply
stayed enforcement of the lower courts decisions while it considers those issues after briefing
and oral argument.
DISCUSSION
In light of the foregoing events, Plaintiffs respectfully reiterate their requests for the
Court to (a) certify Plaintiffs state-law claims to the Utah Supreme Court and (b) issue a
preliminary injunction based, inter alia, on Plaintiffs federal law claims to ensure that Plaintiffs
marriages continue to be recognized during the pendency of any additional proceedings.
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 43 Filed 05/17/14 Page 3 of 6
4
The Utah Supreme Courts order confirms the appropriateness of certification of the
state-law claims. Although the parties disagree on the precise wording of such a certified
question, both parties agree that certification of the state-law claims is appropriate to enable to
Utah Supreme Court to provide a definitive resolution of state law. In light of the Utah Supreme
Courts recent order, certification may also enable Plaintiffs to participate in the pending briefing
and oral argument at the Utah Supreme Court in connection with the petitions for extraordinary
relief filed by the attorney general.
In addition the Utah Supreme Courts order confirms the need for a preliminary
injunction based, inter alia, on Plaintiffs federal law claims.
1
Regardless of how the Utah
Supreme Court ultimately rules with respect to the proper interpretation of Utahs marriage
amendment under principles of state law, Defendants decision to strip recognition from
Plaintiffs legally valid marriages violates their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Because Plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed on their federal claims, the Court should
issue a preliminary injunction to ensure that Plaintiffs do not continue to suffer irreparable harm
during the pendency of any remaining proceedings before this Court or the Utah Supreme Court.
If Plaintiffs ultimately prevail on their state-law claims, this Court could then enter final
judgment on those claims without the need to enter final judgment based on the federal
Constitution. But regardless of whether the final judgment is ultimately issued based on state or

1
Although Defendants may argue otherwise, the Utah Supreme Courts stay does not foreclose
this Court from granting a preliminary injunction based on Plaintiffs state-law claims too. The
Utah Supreme Court issued its stay on an emergency basis without the benefit of full briefing or
oral argument. In contrast, this Court has received ample briefing and oral argument on the
state-law claims. The Utah Supreme Courts temporary stay does not prevent this Court from
making an independent assessment of whether a preliminary injunction should be issued on the
state-law claims based on the different procedural posture and developed arguments in this case.
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 43 Filed 05/17/14 Page 4 of 6
5
federal claims, it is critical that this Court issue a preliminary injunction based, inter alia, on
Plaintiffs federal law claims to protect Plaintiffs rights under the Fourteenth Amendment in the
interim.
DATED this 17
th
day of May, 2014.
/s/ John Mejia___

John Mejia
ACLU of Utah
Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 43 Filed 05/17/14 Page 5 of 6
6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing pleading was served upon the following via the
CM/ECF electronic delivery system.

JONI J. JONES
KYLE K. KAISER
Office of the Utah Attorney General
160 East 300 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
jonijones@utah.gov
kkaiser@utah.gov

/s/ John Mejia


Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 43 Filed 05/17/14 Page 6 of 6
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 43-1 Filed 05/17/14 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:14-cv-00055-DAK Document 43-1 Filed 05/17/14 Page 2 of 2