Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO


ADA MERCEDES CONDE VIDAL and
IVONNE LVAREZ VLEZ; MARITZA
LPEZ AVILES and IRIS DELIA RIVERA
RIVERA; JOS A. TORRUELLAS
IGLESIAS and THOMAS J. ROBINSON;
ZULMA OLIVERAS VEGA and
YOLANDA ARROYO PIZARRO;
JOHANNE VLEZ GARCA and FAVIOLA
MELNDEZ RODRGUEZ; and PUERTO
RICO PARA TOD@S,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALEJANDRO J. GARCIA PADILLA, in his
official capacity as Governor of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; ANA RIUS
ARMENDARIZ, in her official capacity as
Secretary of the Health Department of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; WANDA
LLOVET DIAZ, in her official capacity as
Director of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Registrar of Vital Records; and MELBA
ACOSTA FEBO, in her official capacity as
Director of the Treasury in Puerto Rico,
Defendants.




Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01253-PG


PLAINTIFFS PARTIAL OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR AN
EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE PLEAD

This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants motion asking that the Court
nearly triple their standard 21-day time to respond to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint -- until
August 27, 2014. Defendants sole reason for requesting the extension of time is that this is a
case of public policy. Def.s Mot. at 1. Plaintiffs do not oppose a reasonable extension to
accommodate Defendants, but the requested extension is excessive given the ongoing harm to
Plaintiffs, which accrues and deepens each day. As explained below, allowing Defendants an
Case 3:14-cv-01253-PG Document 29 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 7
2

additional 25 days, more than doubling the standard time, to August 15, 2014, would be
consistent with the orderly and appropriate progress of this case.
I. Facts
On March 25, 2014, Plaintiffs Ada Conde and Ivonne Alvarez, representing themselves,
filed their Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, challenging the constitutionality of
those provisions of Puerto Rico law that deny recognition of marriages lawfully entered into by
same-sex couples in other jurisdictions. On June 25, 2014, the Original Complaint was amended
to include the claims of two same-sex couples seeking the right to marry in Puerto Rico, Maritza
Lopez Aviles and Iris Rivera Rivera, and Zulma Oliveras Vega and Yolanda Arroyo Pizarro; two
additional couples seeking recognition of their legally valid marriages, Johanne Velez Garcia and
Faviola Melendez Rodriguez, and Jose Torruellas Iglesias and Thomas Robinson; and Puerto
Rico Para Tod@s, an organizational plaintiff with LGBT members in Puerto Rico. Plaintiffs
also added Governor Alejandro J. Garcia Padilla and Secretary of the Treasury Melba Acosta
Febo, in their official capacities, as Defendants. Plaintiffs timely served each of the Defendants
on June 30, 2014. Defendants Answer was due July 21, 2014. One business day before the
deadline, however, Defendants have asked this Court to triple the time to respond, without
explaining why the time is needed or attempting to confer with Plaintiffs attorneys.
II. Argument
Defendants request is excessive, not justified by good cause and does not comport with
the requirements of local rules.
Time is of the essence in this constitutional rights litigation. Every day that the
Commonwealths Marriage Ban remains in place causes undue hardship and constitutional injury
Case 3:14-cv-01253-PG Document 29 Filed 07/21/14 Page 2 of 7
3

to Plaintiffs and other Banned Couples.
1
As set forth in the Amended Complaint, each Plaintiff
experiences on a daily basis both the tangible and intangible ramifications of Defendants refusal
to extend equal treatment, dignity, and respect to Plaintiffs. See Doc. 7 at 16-71. As this
Court has stated, constitutional violations constitute per se irreparable harm for purposes of
preliminary injunction. Sanchez v. McClintock, No. 11-1542, 2013 WL 1429434 (D.P.R. Apr.
8, 2013) (citing Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (the loss of constitutional freedoms,
for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury). See also Wal-
Mart Stores v. Rodriguez, 238 F. Supp. 2d 395, 421 (D.P.R. 2002) (A presumption of
irreparable harm flows from and is triggered by an alleged deprivation of constitutional rights.).
In some tragic cases, a delay could permanently deprive a decades-long partner, children and
other family members of marital protections if incapacity or even death of a partner were to
occur. As but one example of the harms Plaintiffs face, unmarried Plaintiffs would, in such a
situation, be barred forever from protections that depend upon validly consented-to matrimony.
In addition, Defendants request for an extension of time fails to comply with this
Courts Rules. Local Rule 6 provides that, All motions for extension of time shall specifically
set forth the purpose of the extension sought, the expiration date for the period sought to be
extended, and the expiration date of the proposed extension. In their motion, Defendants fail to
identify the purpose of the extension sought (as well as the original expiration date for the period
sought to be extended), other than their assertion that this is a case of public policy, Def.s
Mot. at 1, which is insufficient to justify tripling the time to respond. However, this case is not
one of mere disagreement over a public policy; it involves the continued deprivation of
Plaintiffs fundamental rights and equal protection of the laws. Since the Supreme Court decided

1
Capitalized terms not defined herein are used with the same meaning as in the Amended Complaint.
Case 3:14-cv-01253-PG Document 29 Filed 07/21/14 Page 3 of 7
4

United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), dozens of state and federal courts have
vindicated similar claims and struck down marriage bans.
2
Recognizing how time-sensitive the
protections at issue are for those who seek them, federal courts have denied stays in some of the
cases (e.g., district courts in Kitchen, DeBoer, Geiger, Whitewood, and Bagin, and the Court of
Appeals in Kitchen) and even disallowed legislative provisions that imposed a waiting period
before marriages could begin (e.g., Lee). Defendants request for an extension of time would
unjustifiably delay the progress toward resolution of Plaintiffs claims.
More than doubling the time Defendants would otherwise receive to respond, to August
15, 2014, would be a reasonable accommodation, given the importance of the issues presented
and where no specific good cause has been identified by the Defendants. Such an extension
should provide ample time for Defendants to decide their course of action with regards to this
case. Plaintiffs counsel will be available during this period to discuss with Defendants counsel
a proposed schedule for moving this case forward.



2
See Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 1195 (D. Utah 2013), affd, No. 13-4178, 2014 WL 2868044
(10th Cir. June 25, 2014); Love v. Beshear, No. 3:13-CV-750-H, 2014 WL 2957671 (W.D. Ky. July 1, 2014);
Baskin v. Bogan, No. 1:14-CV-00355-RLY-TAB, 2014 WL 2884868 (S.D. Ind. June 25, 2014); Wolf v. Walker,
No. 14-CV-64-BBC, 2014 WL 2558444 (W.D. Wis. June 6, 2014); Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 1:13-CV-1861,
2014 WL 2058105 (M.D. Pa. May 20, 2014); Geiger v. Kitzhaber, No. 6:13-CV-01834-MC, 2014 WL 2054264
(D. Or. May 19, 2014); Latta v. Otter, No. 1:13-CV-00482-CWD, 2014 WL 1909999 (D. Idaho May 13, 2014);
Henry v. Himes, No. 1:14-cv-129, 2014 WL 1418395 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 14, 2014); Tanco v. Haslam, No. 3:13-
cv-01159, 2014 WL 997525 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 20, 2014); De Leon v. Perry, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632 (W.D. Tex.
2014); DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E.D. Mich. 2014); Lee v. Orr, No. 1:13-cv-08719, 2014 WL
683680 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2014); Bourke v. Beshear, No. 3:13-CV-750-H, 2014 WL 556729 (W.D. Ky. Feb.
12, 2014); Bostic v. Rainey, 970 F. Supp. 2d 456 (E.D. Va. 2014); Bishop v. United States ex rel. Holder, 962 F.
Supp. 2d 1252, 1277 (N.D. Okla. 2014); Obergefell v. Wymyslo, No. 13-cv-501, 2013 WL 6726688 (S.D. Ohio
Dec. 23, 2013); Huntsman v. Heavilin, No. 2014-CA-305-K (Fla. Dist. Ct., Monroe Cnty. July 17, 2014);
Brinkman v. Long, No. 13 -CV-32572 (Colo. Dist. Ct., Cook Cnty. July 9, 2014); Wright v. Arkansas, No.
60CV-13-2662 (Ark. Cir. Ct. 2d Div. May 9, 2014); A.L.F.L. v. K.L.L., No. 2014-CI-02421 (Tex. 438th Jud.
Dist., Bexar Cnty, Apr. 22, 2014); Griego v. Oliver, 316 P.3d 865 (N.M. 2013); Darby v. Orr, No. 12-CH-
19718 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cnty. Sept. 27, 2013); Garden State Equality v. Dow, 79 A.3d 1036 (N.J. 2013).
Case 3:14-cv-01253-PG Document 29 Filed 07/21/14 Page 4 of 7
5

CONCLUSION
For all the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court deny
Defendants Motion for Extension of Time, and instead issue an order allowing Defendants to
file an answer or otherwise plead by August 15, 2014.

Dated: July 22, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Hayley Gorenberg .
Hayley Gorenberg
Omar Gonzalez-Pagan
Jael Humphrey-Skomer
LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE &
EDUCATION FUND, INC.
120 Wall Street, 19
th
Floor
New York, New York 10005-3904
T: (212) 809-8585 | F: (212) 809-0055
ogonzalez-pagan@lambdalegal.org
hgorenberg@lambdalegal.org
jhumphrey@lambdalegal.org

Gary W. Kubek
Harriet M. Antczak
Jing Kang
DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
919 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
T: (212) 909-6000 | F: (212) 909-6836
gwkubek@debevoise.com
hmantcza@debevoise.com
jkang@debevoise.com

Ryan M. Kusmin
DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
555 13th Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
T: (202) 383-8000 | F: (202) 383-8118
rmkusmin@debevoise.com



Case 3:14-cv-01253-PG Document 29 Filed 07/21/14 Page 5 of 7
6

Celina Romany-Siaca
Celina Romany Law Offices
268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1500
San Juan, PR 00918
T: (787) 754-9304 | F: (787) 754-9324
bufetecelinaromany@gmail.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs MARITZA LPEZ
AVILES and IRIS DELIA RIVERA
RIVERA; JOS A. TORRUELLAS
IGLESIAS and THOMAS J. ROBINSON;
ZULMA OLIVERAS VEGA and
YOLANDA ARROYO PIZARRO;
JOHANNE VLEZ GARCA and
FAVIOLA MELNDEZ RODRGUEZ;
and PUERTO RICO PARA TOD@S


/s/ Ada M. Conde Vidal .
ADA M. CONDE-VIDAL, ESQ.
P.O. Box 13268
San Juan, PR 00908-3268
T: (787) 721-0401 | F: (787) 977-8072
CONDELAWPR@GMAIL.COM
USDCPR 206209

Attorney for Plaintiffs ADA M. CONDE-
VIDAL and IVONNE LVAREZ VLEZ



Case 3:14-cv-01253-PG Document 29 Filed 07/21/14 Page 6 of 7


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Celina Romany-Siaca, an attorney, certify that on July 21, 2014, I served upon counsel
for all parties by electronically filing the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the
CM/ECF system.

/s/ Celina Romany-Siaca



Case 3:14-cv-01253-PG Document 29 Filed 07/21/14 Page 7 of 7

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen