1

Mitchell F. Thompson, Esq.

R. Todd Thompson, Esq.

Thompson Gutierrez & Alcantara, P.C.

3
4

|i

1 &;:: ?.* feS^

DISTRICT CO^RT Of GUAM

238 Archbishop Flores Street, Suite 801

Hagatfia, Guam 96910
Telephone: (671) 472-2089
Facsimile: (671)477-5206

APR 13 2015
JEANNE 6. QXnHAlA
CtR OF COyT

William D. Pesch, Esq.

Guam Family Law Office

173 Aspinall Avenue, Suite 203

Hagatfia, Guam 96910

Telephone: (671) 472-8472

Facsimile: (671)477-5873

8
9

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kathleen M. Aguero and

Loretta M. Pangelinan

10

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM

11

TERRITORY OF GUAM

12

KATHLEEN M. AGUERO and LORETTA

00009

CIVIL CASE NO.

M. PANGELINAN,
13

Plaintiffs,
14
v.

PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR

15

16
17

EDDIE BAZA CALVO in his official capacity as

Governor of Guam; and CAROLYN GARRIDO
in her official capacity as Registrar in the Office
of Vital Statistics, Department of Public

EXPEDITED RULING

Health and Social Services,

18

Defendants.
19
20

COME

NOW,

Plaintiffs

KATHLEEN

M.

AGUERO

and

LORETTA

M.

21

PANGELINAN, by and through their attorneys, and move pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(a) as
22
23
24

r(

ORIGINAL

Case 1:15-cv-00009 Document 9 Filed 04/13/15 Page 1 of 5

well as the Court's inherent authority to control its own docket, for this Court to expedite its

ruling in this matter.

Plaintiffs Kathleen M. Aguero and Loretta M. Pangelinan are legally qualified to marry

under the laws of Guam.

As articulated in their Complaint and companion memoranda

supporting their Motions for Summary Judgment and Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiffs

personally brought their application for a marriage license on April 8, 2015 to the Vital

Statistics Office of the Department of Public Health and Social Services ("DPHSS"), in

Mangilao, the office that processes marriage license applications on Guam.1 DPHSS officials

refused to accept the application and handed the women two documents: (1) a 2009 opinion

10

letter from the Acting Guam Attorney General regarding "common law" unions; and (2) a copy

11

of certain provisions from Tile 10 of the Guam Code Annotated, including 10 G.C.A.

12

3207(h), indicating, "[m]arriage means the legal union of persons of the opposite sex."2 At

13

no time has any government official articulated any reason for failing to issue a marriage

14

license to Plaintiffs aside from their status as a same sex couple.

15

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief on April 13, 2015

16

seeking to secure the fundamental right to marry as guaranteed to them by the Fourteenth

17

Amendment to the United States Constitution as set forth in controlling Ninth Circuit

18

precedent, Latta v. Otter. 771 F.3d 456 (9th Cir. 2014),pet. for reh'g en banc denied, 779 F.3d

19

902 (9th Cir. Jan 9, 2015). Also on April 13, Plaintiffs filed and caused to be served Summons

20

on the Defendants herein, as well as the Office of the Attorney General, together with a motion

21

for summary judgment and supporting papers and exhibits.

22

23

1 Declaration of Kathleen M. Aguero ("Aguero Decl."), at f 12 (Apr. 13, 2015); Declaration of

Loretta M. Pangelinan ("Pangelinan Decl."), at ^ 12 (Apr. 13,2015).

2 Aguero Decl., at^113, Pangelinan Decl. atU13.

24

Case 1:15-cv-00009 Document 9 Filed 04/13/15 Page 2 of 5

Plaintiffs now request an expedited ruling on the grounds that (1) they suffer irreparable

harm by any delay in the disposition of this matter due to the deprivation of their

Constitutionally-guaranteed rights; (2) the law of the case is well-established by binding

precedent of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Latta; (3) the harm to Plaintiffs caused by

delay far exceeds any likelihood of success by Defendants; (4) the facts of this case are simple,

well-known and undisputed, and there is no necessity for discovery or trial; and (5) an

expedited ruling serves both judicial economy and the public interest in resolving an important

issue.

Defendants might claim that the relief Plaintiffs seek is somehow premature in this

10

newly-filed case.

They would be mistaken.

In the following marriage-ban cases, courts

11

granted injunctive relief less than one month after issuance of binding circuit authority on

12

point. Condon v. Haley. 2014 WL 5897175 (D. S.C. Nov. 12, 2014) (granting injunctive relief

13

and summary judgment regarding South Carolina marriage ban less than one month after

14

initiation of action); Guzzo v. Mead. 2014 WL 5317797 (D. Wyo. Oct. 17, 2014) (granting

15

preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of Wyoming's ban on marriage for same-sex

16

couples a mere ten days after the filing of the original complaint); Marie v. Moser. 2014 WL

17

5598128 (D. Kan. Nov. 4,2014) (enjoining enforcement of Kansas's ban on marriage for same-

18

sex couples less than one month after the commencement of the action "[bjecause Tenth Circuit

19

precedent is binding on this Court. . ."). Likewise, in the instant case, there is absolutely no

20

principled reason to delay granting injunctive relief in the face of controlling Ninth Circuit

21

precedent on point.

22

District courts have likewise granted expedited summary judgments in favor of same-

23

sex plaintiffs. See Rolando v. Fox. 2014 WL 6476196, *4 (D. Mont. Nov. 19, 2014) (granting
3

24

Case 1:15-cv-00009 Document 9 Filed 04/13/15 Page 3 of 5

summary judgment invalidating Montana's constitutional ban on same sex marriage because

"Latta represents binding Ninth Circuit precedent and provides the framework that this Court

must follow"); Majors v. Home. 141 F. Supp. 3d 1313 (D. Ariz. 2014) (promptly granting

pending summary judgment motions challenging Arizona's same-sex marriage ban just ten

. 5

days after issuance of the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Latta); Hambv v. Parnell. 2014 WL

5089399 (D. Alaska Oct. 12,2014) ("Latta is the controlling law of this Circuit").

Based on these authorities and other authorities more fully set forth in their April 13,

2015 memoranda supporting Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment and Preliminary

Injunction, expedited treatment of this matter is appropriate based on the Ninth Circuit's

10

controlling ruling in Latta. Rather than reiterate all those authorities at length, Plaintiffs hereby

11

incorporate them by this reference as if fully set forth herein.

12

Defendants have no legitimate justification to continue to deny or delay justice to

13

Plaintiffs, or similarly situated same-sex couples. This Court can rule expeditiously, as a

14

matter of law, that the purported Guam marriage license ban violates Plaintiffs' fundamental

15

constitutional rights to marry the person they choose by faithful application of controlling law

16

as set out by the Ninth Circuit in Latta.

17

This case is ripe for review without further delay; and this Court should put an end to

18

the unnecessary suffering, humiliation, stigma, and anxieties attendant to Guam's purported

19

marriage ban on Plaintiffs and all committed same-sex couples and their children who want,

20

and need, the security of marriage. As discussed below, every conceivable "justification" for

21

same-sex marriage bans has been considered and rejected by the Ninth Circuit in Latta. Thus,

22

it would be a colossal waste ofjudicial resources to prolong this case.

23

24

Case 1:15-cv-00009 Document 9 Filed 04/13/15 Page 4 of 5

CONCLUSION
2

There is no effective or meaningful remedy for the loss of Constitutional rights; the only

remedy of any value is swift justice. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant an

expedited ruling.

Respectfully submitted this 13th day ofApril, 2015.

THOMPSON GUTIERREZ & ALCANTARA, P.C.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kathleen M. Aguero and

Loretta M. Pangelinan

By.

RANDALL T0DD THOMPSON

10
11

P15I025.RTT

12

13
14
15
16
17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24

Case 1:15-cv-00009 Document 9 Filed 04/13/15 Page 5 of 5