1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO


ADA MERCEDES CONDE VIDAL and
IVONNE LVAREZ VLEZ; MARITZA
LPEZ AVILS 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. GARCA 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 DAZ, 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 RESPONSE TO PROPOSED INTERVENORS MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE [DKT. 50]
Pursuant to Rule 7(b), Plaintiffs Ada M. Conde Vidal and Ivonne lvarez Vlez, by and
through their attorney; and Plaintiffs Maritza Lpez Avils 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 the organization Puerto Rico Para
Case 3:14-cv-01253-PG Document 52 Filed 10/09/14 Page 1 of 8

2

Tod@s, by and through their attorneys (collectively Plaintiffs), hereby respond to Proposed
Intervenor Capellanes Internacionales Cristianos Len de Jud, Inc.s Motion for Leave to File
Reply to Opposition to Motion to Intervene. Dkt. 50.
1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On August 28, 2014, Capellanes Internacionales Cristianos Len de Jud, Inc. (Christian
Chaplains or Proposed Intervenor), filed a motion to intervene in this case pursuant to Rule
24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the eight members of its organization
who allegedly reside in Puerto Rico. Dkt. 32. On September 22, 2014, Plaintiffs timely filed
their opposition to Christian Chaplains motion to intervene. Dkt. 46. In that opposition,
Plaintiffs demonstrated that Proposed Intervenor has no protectable interest at stake in this
litigation, does not meet the standards for intervention as of right or permissive intervention, and
does not have Article III standing. Now, Proposed Intervenor seeks leave to file a reply to
Plaintiffs opposition. Although Plaintiffs do not oppose the filing of a reply brief should the
Court believe such briefing may be useful in its determination of the intervention motion,
Plaintiffs note that Proposed Intervenors request is both untimely and irrelevant to the issue of
intervention, for the reasons explained below.
ARGUMENT
I. Proposed Intervenors Motion for Leave Is Untimely.
Local Rule 7(c) provides that, With prior leave of Court and within seven (7) days of the
service of any objection to a motion, the moving party may file a reply memorandum, which
shall not exceed ten (10) pages in length and which shall be strictly confined to replying to new
matters raised in the objection or opposing memorandum. In addition, Local Rule 5(e) provides

1
Per Docket Entry No. 50, Suggestions in opposition/response [to Proposed Intervenors motion are] due by
10/23/2014.
Case 3:14-cv-01253-PG Document 52 Filed 10/09/14 Page 2 of 8

3

for an additional three (3) days whenever service is made through electronic means, such as the
use of the Courts CM/ECF system. Thus, Proposed Intervenor should have filed any motion for
leave to file a reply within ten days of the service of Plaintiffs opposition to the motion to
intervene, meaning that any motion seeking leave to file a reply should have been filed by
October 2, 2014, at the latest. Proposed Intervenor filed its motion the evening of October 6,
2014. Dkt. 50. Therefore, Proposed Intervenors motion is untimely.
II. Proposed Intervenors Motion for Leave to File a Reply Is Not Strictly
Confined to New Matters Raised in the Opposing Memorandum and Raises
Issues Irrelevant to Intervention.

[P]ursuant to Local Rule 7(c), a reply memorandum shall be strictly confined to
replying to new matters raised in the objection or opposing memorandum. Irizarry-Santiago v.
Essilor Indus., 929 F. Supp. 2d 30, 32 n.4 (D. P.R. 2013) (quoting Local Rule 7(c)). As such,
the court should disregard all sections in the reply briefs that do not address new matters that
might have been raised by plaintiff[s] after opposing Proposed Intervenors motion. Colon-
Fontanez v. Municipality of San Juan, 671 F. Supp. 2d 300, 308 (D.P.R. 2009) (court
disregarded sections of defendants reply memorandum containing arguments already made).
Here, Proposed Intervenors motion for leave to file a reply does not addressand thus certainly
is not strictly confined toany of the arguments made by Plaintiffs in their opposition to the
motion to intervene.
In their opposition, Plaintiffs demonstrated that Proposed Intervenor fails to meet all four
requirements for intervention as of right, including the fact that Proposed Intervenor lacks any
protectable interest at stake in this case. Dkt. 46 at 3-10. Plaintiffs also showed that Proposed
Intervenor fails to meet the standard for permissive intervention, because Proposed Intervenor
presents no common question of law or fact warranting intervention. Dkt. 46 at 10-12. Finally,
Case 3:14-cv-01253-PG Document 52 Filed 10/09/14 Page 3 of 8

4

Plaintiffs argued that Proposed Intervenor fails to meet the Article III standing requirement
necessary for it to intervene. Dkt. 46 at 12-15.
Proposed Intervenors proposed reply does not address any of these points; indeed, it
does not address any issue relevant to its motion to intervene. It seeks to discuss a recent
decision that does not even address the issue of intervention, but that is relevant (if at all) only to
the underlying merits of the claims by Plaintiffs against Defendants.
The proposed reply seeks to discuss the decision in Robicheaux v. Caldwell, No. 13-
5090, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122528 (E.D. La. Sept. 3, 2014), appeal docketed, No. 14-31037
(5th Cir. Sept. 5, 2014), which, as explained in Plaintiffs opposition to Defendants motion to
dismiss, Dkt. 45 at 25 n.6, is the only federal court decision to have upheld a state marriage ban
since the Supreme Courts decision in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013). The
decision in Robicheaux contrasts with the decisions of the four federal circuit courts and over
fifteen federal district courts invalidating similar laws as unconstitutional
2
so much so, that the
district court itself acknowledged its departure from the near-unanimity of federal courts post-
Windsor striking down state marriage bans as violating the federal constitution. Robicheaux,
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122528, at *37. Indeed, just days later, a state court in Louisiana

2
See, e.g., Latta v. Otter, Nos. 12-17668, 14-35420, 14-35421, slip op. (9th Cir. Oct. 7, 2014), revg Sevcik v.
Sandoval, 911 F. Supp. 2d 996 (D. Nev. 2012), and affg Latta v. Otter, No. 13-cv-482, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
66417 (D. Idaho May 13, 2014); Baskin v. Bogan, No. 14-2386, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17294 (7th Cir. Sept. 4,
2014), affg Baskin v. Bogan, No. 14-cv-355, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86114 (S.D. Ind. June 25, 2014), and Wolf v.
Walker, 986 F. Supp. 2d 982 (W.D. Wis. 2014); Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir.), affg Bostic v. Rainey,
970 F. Supp. 2d 456 (E.D. Va. 2014); Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir.), affg Bishop v. United States ex
rel. Holder, 962 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (N.D. Okla. 2014); Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014), affg 961
F. Supp. 2d 1181 (D. Utah 2013); Brenner v. Scott, No. 14-cv-107, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116684 (N.D. Fla. Aug.
21, 2014); Burns v. Hickenlooper, No. 14-cv-1817, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100894 (D. Colo. July 23, 2014); Love v.
Beshear, No. 13-cv-750, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36076 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 19, 2014); Whitewood v. Wolf, 992 F. Supp.
2d 410 (M.D. Pa. 2014); Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 994 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (D. Or. 2014); Henry v. Himes, No. 14-cv-129,
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51211 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 14, 2014); DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E.D. Mich.
2014); Tanco v. Haslam, No. 13-cv-1159, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33463 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 14, 2014); De Leon v.
Perry, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632 (W.D. Tex. 2014); Lee v. Orr, No. 13-cv-8719, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21620 (N.D. Ill.
Feb. 21, 2014); Bourke v. Beshear, 996 F. Supp. 2d 542 (W.D. Ky. 2014); Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 962 F. Supp. 2d
968 (S.D. Ohio 2013).
Case 3:14-cv-01253-PG Document 52 Filed 10/09/14 Page 4 of 8

5

invalidated the very same laws at issue. See Constanza v. Caldwell, No. 2013-0052-D2 (La. 15th
Jud. Dist. Ct. Sept. 22, 2014). The appeal in Robicheaux is currently pending before the Fifth
Circuit, which has granted expedited briefing on the issue. See Robicheaux v. Caldwell, No. 14-
31037 (5th Cir. Sept. 25, 2015). In that regard, Plaintiffs note that on October 6, 2014, the
Supreme Court of the United States denied petitions for certiorari in seven actions, leaving in
place decisions by the Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits that
invalidated state laws barring same-sex couples from marrying.
3

Robicheaux has nothing to do withand does not even mentionintervention. Proposed
Intervenors motion for leave to reply on the basis that it wishes to discuss Robicheaux is
therefore entirely misguided and unsupported.
CONCLUSION
While Plaintiffs do not object to the filing of Proposed Intervenors purported reply if the
Court believes that the proposed filing should be allowed, Plaintiffs note that the request is
procedurally flawed and substantively inapposite. In any event, Plaintiffs oppose Christian
Chaplains motion to intervene for the reasons set forth in their memorandum in opposition, Dkt.
46, and respectfully request that this Court deny intervention.

Dated: October 9, 2014



3
See Herbert v. Kitchen, No. 14-124 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014); Smith v. Bishop, No. 14-136 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014); Rainey v.
Bostic, No. 14-153 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014); Schaefer v. Bostic, No. 14-225 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014); McQuigg v. Bostic, No.
14-251 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014); Bogan v. Baskin, No. 14-277 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2014); Walker v. Wolf, No. 14-278 (U.S. Oct.
6, 2014).
Case 3:14-cv-01253-PG Document 52 Filed 10/09/14 Page 5 of 8

6

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Omar Gonzalez-Pagan
Omar Gonzalez-Pagan*
Hayley Gorenberg*
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

Celina Romany-Siaca (USDCPR 121811)
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
Case 3:14-cv-01253-PG Document 52 Filed 10/09/14 Page 6 of 8

7

Garca and Faviola Melndez Rodrguez;
and Puerto Rico Para Tod@s.

AND

/s/ Ada M. Conde Vidal
Ada M. Conde Vidal (USDCPR 206209)
Conde Attorney at Law, PSC
P.O. Box 13268
San Juan, PR 00908-3268
T: (787) 721-0401 | F: (787) 977-8072
condelawpr@gmail.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs Ada M. Conde Vidal
and Ivonne lvarez Vlez

* Admitted pro hac vice.
Case 3:14-cv-01253-PG Document 52 Filed 10/09/14 Page 7 of 8


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, an attorney, certify that on October 9, 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/ Omar Gonzalez-Pagan



Case 3:14-cv-01253-PG Document 52 Filed 10/09/14 Page 8 of 8