Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 14-CV-2518-DDC-TJJ
)
)
ROBERT MOSER, M.D., in his official capacity )
as Secretary of the Kansas Department of
)
Health and Environment and
)
DOUGLAS A. HAMILTON, in his official
)
th
)
Capacity as Clerk of the District Court for the 7
Judicial District (Douglas county), and
)
BERNIE LUMBRERAS, in her official capacity )
as Clerk of the District Court for the 18th
)
Judicial District (Sedgwick County),
)
NICK JORDAN, in his official capacity as
)
Secretary of the Kansas Department of Revenue, )
LISA KASPAR, in her official capacity as Director )
of the Kansas Department of Revenues Division )
of Vehicles, and MIKE MICHAEL, in his official )
capacity as Director of the State Employee
)
Health Plan,
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________________)
MOTION OF DEFENDANT MOSER TO
DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendant Robert Moser, M.D. hereby moves for dismissal of all claims against him
based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, including Eleventh Amendment immunity, lack of an
Article III case or controversy, and mootness.
1. Dr. Moser has resigned his position as Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health
and Environment, effective November 30, 2014. Because he no longer holds any
official position with the agency that supplies marriage-related forms to Kansas
1
district courts, the relief sought against him is unavailable as a matter of law.
2. New gender-neutral forms have already been distributed by KDHE to Kansas district
courts for use by same-sex marriage applicants. Prospective injunctive relief is
therefore unavailable against Dr. Mosers successor.
3. For the reasons set forth in the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the defendant
court clerks, the plaintiffs who seek relief against Dr. Moser lack Article III standing
to litigate the issues they raise. These plaintiffs have not taken advantage of their
opportunity to marry one another, despite the fact that the courts where they applied
for marriage licenses before filing suit are now accepting same-sex applications. Any
supposed controversy between these plaintiffs and any of the defendants is therefore a
sham. If these plaintiffs have taken advantage of the availability of the marriage
process in other counties, then their claims have become moot because they are no
longer unmarried persons.
4. Attached hereto are affidavits from the defendant court clerks, Dr. Moser, and Deputy
Chief Counsel Tim Keck setting forth the factual basis for the above defenses.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
1. ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction is presumed. The
burden of establishing federal court jurisdiction falls on the party asserting that jurisdiction exists.
See Devon Energy Production Co., L.P. v. Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, Inc., 693 F.3d 1195, 1201
(10th Cir. 2012); Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct.
1673, 1675, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). Invocation of the remedy of declaratory judgment does not
itself provide a basis for federal jurisdiction. See Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball
aff'd sub nom. Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2014) cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 271 (2014)
The sole claims now asserted against Dr. Moser are made by the original Plaintiffs, Marie,
Brown, Wilks and DiTrani. The allegations in the Complaint that they are being prevented from
seeking or receiving a license by these Clerks is demonstrably false, and is an apparent attempt
to create federal jurisdiction where none exists. The claim that any Kansas district court clerk is
acting under orders from Dr. Moser or any other KDHE executive director in deciding whether to
issue a marriage license to same-sex applicants is also a demonstrably incorrect statement of
Kansas law.
3. MOOTNESS
No Kansas statute requires the use of marriage-related forms that make explicit reference
to the sex of the applicants for a marriage license. Dr. Moser clearly had the discretion under
Kansas law to distribute gender-neutral forms, and he exercised that discretion shortly before he
left office. There is no reason to assume that his successors will recall the new forms. To the
extent that Dr. Moser was ever a proper party (a dubious conclusion at best) he certainly is not
now, nor would his successor be a proper party. Whatever supposed controversy may have
existed between plaintiffs and Dr. Moser is therefore undeniably moot.
Plaintiffs are not allowed to continue litigating a moot case just because they seek
declaratory relief:
[W]hat makes a declaratory judgment action a proper judicial resolution of a case or
controversy rather than an advisory opinion is the settling of some dispute which affects
the behavior of the defendant toward the plaintiff. Rio Grande Silvery Minnow, 601 F.3d
at 110910. The crucial question is whether granting a present determination of the
issues offered will have some effect in the real world. Id. at 1110 (internal citation
omitted); see also Rezaq, 677 F.3d at 1008 ([I]n the context of an action for declaratory
relief, a plaintiff must be seeking more than a retrospective opinion that he was wrongly
harmed by the defendant.); Wirsching, 360 F.3d at 1196 (same).
*
*
4
s/Steve R. Fabert
Steve R. Fabert, #10355
Assistant Attorney General
120 S.W. 10th Avenue
Topeka, Kansas 66612-1597
Tel: (785) 368-8420
Fax: (785) 296-6296
Email: steve.fabert@ag.ks.gov
Attorney for Defendant Moser
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on this 18th day of November, 2014, a true and correct copy of the
above and foregoing Answer was filed by electronic means via the Courts electronic filing system which serves a copy upon Plaintiffs counsel of record, Stephen Douglas Bonney, ACLU
Foundation of Kansas, 3601 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111 and Mark P. Johnson, Dentons
US, LLP, 4520 Main Street, Suite 1100, Kansas City, MO 64111, dbonney@aclukansas.org and
Mark.johnson@dentons.com and Joshua A. Block, American Civil Liberties Foundation, 125
Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY 100004, jblock@aclu.org.
s/Steve R. Fabert
Steve R. Fabert
Attorney for Defendant Moser
* PLEASE NOTE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATES ARE ON FILE FROM May 1, 1913 TO PRESENT
Today's Date:
Name of Requestor:
(person requesting the certificate)
Address:
City/State:
Zip:
Email:
Phone Number:
Requestor's Signature:
*IMPORTANT: The person requesting the vital record must submit a copy of their identification. See list on reverse side.
Self
Mother
Sister
Current Spouse
Paternal Uncle
Maternal Uncle
Paternal Aunt
Maternal Aunt
Fees
Marriage Information
Party A
Name of Record:
Date of Birth:
FIRST
MIDDLE
MO/DAY/YEAR
LAST
Party B
Name of Record:
Date of Birth:
FIRST
MIDDLE
MO/DAY/YEAR
Date of Marriage:
MONTH
DAY
YEAR
COUNTY
STATE(MUST BE KANSAS)
$Total:
0.00
Walk-in Hours:
9:00a.m.-4:00 p.m.
Monday-Friday
Detailed Information
Identification
Requestor's current ID required To Get a Certificate:
Who's Eligible to Obtain Most Certificates: Must provide ID and proof of direct interest
Eligibility
Parents
Current Spouse
Adult Children
Grandparents
Siblings
Aunts/Uncles
Niece/Nephew
Must be age 18 or older
If legal guardianship has been established through the courts, please provide a
copy of the guardianship papers.
If you do not have a government issued photo ID, you must send photocopies of any two of the following: *Photocopies must be
of the complete document, able to be read and be the Requestor's with current address
PARTY A:
Bride
Spouse (This is the label that will appear on the marriage license.)
MIDDLE
LAST
5.
6.
COUNTY OR PROVINCE
7.
8.
9.
BIRTHPLACE (State or
Foreign Country)
PARTY B:
Bride
SUFFIX
CITY OR TOWN
Spouse (This is the label that will appear on the marriage license.)
MIDDLE
LAST
SUFFIX
PARTY B
Yes
Yes
No
Emancipated
Parent(s) Deceased
No
Emancipated
Parent(s) Deceased
26. TITLE
27. ADDRESS OF PERSON PERFORMING CEREMONY (Street and No. or Rural Route, City or Town, State, Zip Code)
This section is to be completed if either party desires to designate a new legal name at the time of marriage.
28. PARTY A: NAME- FIRST
MIDDLE
LAST
MIDDLE
LAST
Page 1 of 2
30a. PARTY A
31a. PARTY A
31b PARTY A
30b. PARTY B
31c. PARTY B
31d. PARTY B
34b. PARTY B
35a. PARTY A
White
Black or
African American
American Indian or
Alaska Native
(Name of the enrolled
or principal tribes)
Yes, Cuban
Yes, Central American
Yes, South American
Yes, other Spanish/
Hispanic/Latina
(Specify)
(Specify)
Unknown
35. COUPLES RACE (Check one or more boxes to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.)
Unknown
Asian Indian
Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Other (Specify)
35b. PARTY B
Vietnamese
Korean
White
Black or
African American
American Indian or
Alaska Native
(Name of the enrolled
or principal tribes)
Samoan
Other Pacific Islander
(Specify)
Native Hawaiian
Guamanian or Chamorro
Asian Indian
Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Other (Specify)
Unknown
Korean
Vietnamese
Other Asian (Specify)
Native Hawaiian
Guamanian or Chamorro
Samoan
Other Pacific Islander
(Specify)
Unknown
36. EDUCATION (Check the box that best describes the highest degree or level of school completed.)
36a. PARTY A - EDUCATION
Unknown
Unknown
Doctorate (e.g., PhD, EdD) or Professional degree (e.g., MD, DDS, DVM, LLB, JD)
9th - 12th grade; no diploma
Associate degree (e.g., AA,AS)
Doctorate (e.g., PhD, EdD) or Professional degree (e.g., MD, DDS, DVM, LLB, JD)
PARTY A GENDER
PARTY B GENDER
Male
Male
Female
Female
PARTY A SIGNATURE
PARTY B SIGNATURE
Page 2 of 2
Marriage License
State File number
1.
GROOM
MIDDLE
LAST/SUFFIX
5.
6.
COUNTY OR PROVINCE
7.
8.
9.
BIRTHPLACE (State or
Foreign Country)
12. BRIDE
CITY OR TOWN
MIDDLE
LAST/SUFFIX
23a. GROOM
23c. BRIDE
23b. GROOM
23d. BRIDE
Yes
No
Emancipated
BRIDE
Parent(s) Deceased
Yes
No
Parent(s) Deceased
Emancipated
Completed marriage license is to be returned to Issuing District Court within 10 days after marriage:
24. DISTRICT COURT OF ISSUANCE
25. DATE LICENSE ISSUED (Month, Day, Year)
This License Authorizes the Marriage in This State of the Parties Named Above By Any Person Duly Authorized to Perform a Marriage Ceremony Under the Laws of the State of Kansas.
30. I CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE NAMED PERSONS
31. WHERE MARRIED COUNTY
32. CITY OR TOWN
WERE MARRIED ON: (Month, Day, Year)
33. SIGNATURE OF PERSON PERFORMING CEREMONY
34. NAME AND PHONE NO. OF PERSON PERFORMING CEREMONY (Please type or print)
35. TITLE
36. ADDRESS OF PERSON PERFORMING CEREMONY (Street and No. or Rural Route, City or Town, State, Zip Code)
MIDDLE
LAST
39.
MIDDLE
LAST
BRIDE
NAME FIRST
STATE OF KANSAS
COUNTY OF SEDGWICK
) ss:
)
I, Bernie Lumbreras, being first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say that:
1. I am the Clerk of the District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas, Eighteenth
Judicial District. I was appointed to this position on December 18, 2005. In that
capacity, I supervise deputy clerks in performing the functions imposed by law
on clerks of the district court in Kansas. My deputy clerks and I are judicial
officers of the State of Kansas and are employed by the State of Kansas as part of
the Kansas Judicial Branch.
2. As clerks of the court, we perform our duties in accordance with legal
requirements as per K.S.A. 20-3102 and as communicated to us under the
supervision of the Chief Judge, at this point, Chief Judge James R. Fleetwood.
3. One of the functions of my office is to issue marriage licenses as per K.S.A.
2014 Supp. 23-2505. Under K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 23-2505, marriage licenses may
be issued by either judges or clerks. In performing this function, I and the clerks
operating under my supervision act as an aide to the twenty-eight (28) judges of
the 18th Judicial District who would otherwise be performing this function.
4. If there is a question about whether a person is legally entitled to a marriage
license, the applicant is referred to a judge for determination.
5. On November 13,2014, Judge Fleetwood issued Administrative Order 14-08, a
certified copy of which is attached as Exhibit A hereto. In that Order, Judge
Fleetwood directs the Clerks to issue marriage licenses without consideration of
gender of the applicants.
6. According to records maintained in my office, the Plaintiffs in this case, Kerry
Wilks and Donna DiTrani, applied for a marriage license on October 9,2014.
We did take the application on that date. We keep applications on file for one
year.
7. To date, neither Wilks nor DiTrani have returned to the Clerk's Office to submit
a completed worksheet or to request issuance of a marriage license.
Bernie Lumbreras
Subscribed and Sworn to before the undersigned this
2014.
=:
TINA L. HARRIS N
My Appt Expires I
0
1_
My Appointment Expires:
-k~~J
Notary Public
/1 /10/..;101-;;
I
~aay of December,
)
)
)
v.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
-------------------------------- )
AFFIDAVIT OF BERNIE LUMBRERAS
STATE OF KANSAS
COUNTY OF SEDGWICK
) ss:
)
I, Bernie Lumbreras, being first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say that:
1. I am the Clerk of the District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas, Eighteenth
Judicial District. I was appointed to this position on December 18, 2005. In that
capacity, I supervise deputy clerks in performing the functions imposed by law
on clerks of the district court in Kansas. My deputy clerks and I are judicial
officers of the State of Kansas and are employed by the State of Kansas as part of
the Kansas Judicial Branch.
2. Neither I nor the clerks operating under my supervision discriminate against any
person or operate under any sort of personal belief or animus. We perform our
duties in accordance with legal requirements as per K.S.A. 20-3102 and as
communicated to us under the supervision of the Chief Judge, at this point, Chief
Judge James R. Fleetwood.
3. One of the functions of my office is to issue marriage licenses as per K.S.A.
2014 Supp. 23-2505. Under K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 23-2505, marriage licenses may
be issued by either judges or clerks. In performing this function, I and the clerks
operating under my supervision act as an aide to the twenty-eight (28) judges of
the 18th Judicial District who would otherwise be performing this function.
4. If there is a question about whether a person is legally entitled to a marriage
license, the applicant is referred to a judge for determination.
5. I do not authorize persons to perform marriage rites; the Clerks have no role in
the function set forth in K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 23-2504.
6. Any determination as to the issuance of a license to Kerry Wilks or Donna
DiTrani was made by Chief Judge James R Fleetwood or Judge Eric Yost acting
in Chief Judge Fleetwood's absence. It was not made by me or by my clerks.
7. My office is also in compliance with the Supreme Court's October 10,2014,
Order in State ex rei. Schmidt v. Moriarty which is consistent with the directions
of Chief Judge Fleetwood.
8. Neither I nor my clerks have any role in deciding whether a person is authorized
to file a joint tax return in Kansas.
9. Neither I nor my clerks have any role in determining whether a person is entitled
to inherit property through intestate succession in Kansas.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT.
Bernie Lumbreras
Subscribed and Sworn to before the undersigned this 0"
C~-ad
No
ubc
My Appointment Expires: :? -/-18
CATHY STEPPPRATT
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF KANSAS
My Appl Exp .
.3 -1-18
"
14MV 618
18th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER It..{ -t:)
"
.~-fL9.
./\
is
th
nf:rriag~'
licenses. As Chief Judge it is recognized that a suit naming the clerk of the 18th judicial
district as a party has been brought in the United States District Court for the District of
Kansas challenging the constitutionality ~f Article 15 Section 16 of the Kansas
Constitution that prohibits the issuance of same sex marriage licenses in the State of
Kansas. Said legal action is known as Kail Marie, et aI, v. Robert Moser et al.
In Kail Marie the United States District Court issued an injunction prohibiting the
Clerk of the Court of Douglass and Sedgwick County, Kansas from denying the
marriage applications of same sex couples. Central to the court's ruling was a finding
that the continual denial of said license was a violation of the United States Constitution
because it resulted in discrimination and a violation of the equal protection clause of the
constitution.
Appeal from this order was taken to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. A panel of
the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the action of the District Court. This issue was
then appealed to the United States Supreme Court. By a vote of seven to two, The
United States Supreme Court refused to grant a further stay of the original order
prohibiting the issuance of same sex marriage licenses in the State of Kansas. The
order of the United States Supreme Court directs the State of Kansas and parties to the
Kail Marie lawsuit to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
niJ
Therefore the clerk of the court and her staff are hereby ordered and directed to
issue marriage licenses without consideration of gender of the applicants in accordance
with the order of the United States Supreme Court and to otherwise comply with all
other requirements related to issuing said marriage licenses generally.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
1.!