Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 1 of 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

SLOAN GRIMSLEY a nd J OYCE A LBU; BOB COL LIER and CHUCK H UNZIKER; LINDSAY MYERS a nd S ARAH HUMLIE; ROBERT LOUPO and JOHN FITZGERALD; DENISE H UESO a nd S ANDRA NEWSON; JUAN DEL HIERRO and THOMAS GANTT, JR.; CHRISTIAN UL VERT a nd CARL OS ANDRADE; RICHARD M ILSTEIN a nd ERIC HAN KIN; and SAVE F OUNDATION, INC.,

Case No. __________________

Plaintiffs,

v.

RICK S COTT, in h is o fficial capacity as Governor for the State of Florida; PAM B ONDI, i n h er o fficial c apacity as Attorney General for the State of Florida, JOHN H. ARM STRONG, i n his o fficial capacity as Surgeon G eneral and S ecretary o f Health for the State of Florida; and CRAIG J . NICHOLS, in h is o fficial c apacity as t he A gency S ecretary f or t he F lorida Department of Management Services,

Defendants.

Page 1 of 21

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 2 of 21
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs are sam e-sex co uples w ho w ere l awfully m arried outside the S tate of Florida. They bring this action to challenge the constitutionality of Article I, § 27 of the Florida Constitution and § 741.212, Fla. Stat., which prohibit the State of Florida from recognizing the marriages o f sam e-sex c ouples that w ere e ntered i nto i n o ther jurisdictions. Florida, lik e o ther states, encourages and regulates marriage through hundreds of laws that provide benefits to and impose obl igations on married c ouples. I n e xchange, Florida r eceives t he w ell-established benefits th at marriage b rings: s table, s upportive f amilies th at c ontribute to b oth the s ocial a nd economic well-being of the State. It is because of the well-recognized benefits of marriage that Florida has traditionally recognized lawful marriages performed in other states. 2. Florida’s refusal to recognize Plaintiffs’ marriages unlawfully denies them many of t he l egal pr otections a vailable t o di fferent-sex c ouples, including, but not l imited to, the automatic right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, access to health insurance and retirement benefits, property protections, and inheritance. 3. The refusal to recognize Plaintiffs’ marriages undermines the couples’ ability to achieve their life goals and dreams, threatens their mutual economic stability, and denies them “a dignity and status of immense import.” United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2692 ( 2013). Moreover, they and their families are stigmatized and relegated to a second-class status by being barred from marriage, a bar that serves no legitimate state interest. The exclusion “tells [samesex] c ouples a nd a ll t he w orld t hat t heir ot herwise va lid r elationships a re un worthy” of recognition. Id. at 2694. And it “humiliates . . . c hildren now being raised by same-sex couples” and “ makes i t e ven more di fficult f or t he c hildren t o unde rstand t he i ntegrity a nd c loseness of
Page 2 of 21

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 3 of 21
their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Id.
4. Florida’s exclusion of m arried s ame-sex c ouples f rom t he pr otections and responsibilities of marriage violates the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the F ourteenth A mendment to th e U nited S tates C onstitution. T his d iscriminatory tre atment directly impacts the fundamental right to marry and is not necessary to serve a compelling state interest.
5. Florida’s r efusal to r ecognize t he m arriages of same-sex co uples d iscriminates against such couples on the basis of sexual orientation. It also discriminates against such couples on the basis of sex because the discrimination is based on the sexes of the spouses.
6. The State’s discrimination against Plaintiffs and other married same-sex couples is not necessary to serve a compelling state interest, nor is it substantially related to an important state interest. Indeed, it is not rationally related to the furtherance of any legitimate state interest.
7. Pursuant to 42 U .S.C. § 1983 , Plaintiffs seek : ( a) a de claration t hat Florida’s refusal to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples validly entered into outside of the State violates the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to th e U nited States C onstitution insofar as Florida r efuses to t reat sa me-sex couples l egally married in other jurisdictions the same as different-sex couples; and (b) a permanent injunction directing Defendants to legally recognize Plaintiffs’ marriages and the marriages of other samesex couples validly entered into outside of Florida.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. Plaintiffs bring t his a ction pur suant t o 42 U .S.C. § 1983 f or vi olations of c ivil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Page 3 of 21

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 4 of 21
9. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) (civil rights).
10. Venue i s pr oper i n t he Northern D istrict of F lorida unde r 28 U .S.C. § 1391( b) because Defendants reside in this district.
THE PARTIES A. Plaintiffs Sloan Grimsley and Joyce Albu
11. Plaintiffs S loan G rimsley a nd J oyce A lbu w ere m arred i n N ew Y ork i n A ugust 2011. They ha ve be en together for 9 ye ars a nd live in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. They are raising two young daughters, ages 2 and 5, whom they adopted. Joyce also has two grown sons. Sloan is a f irefighter and paramedic for the City of Palm Beach Gardens. Joyce is a consultant for c hildren l iving w ith a utism, A sperger’s S yndrome, A DHD, a nd ot her n eurodevelopmental disorders. Joyce and Sloan also own a f arm where families in which some members are living with ne urodevelopmental di sorders can e ngage i n a va riety of t herapeutic activities. Jo yce an d Sloan are concerned that if something were to happen to Sloan in the line of duty, Joyce would not receive the same support provided by t he State to surviving spouses of first responders who might be ki lled i n the line of du ty—Joyce would thus be una ble t o fully pr ovide f or th eir family’s needs. Bob Collier and Chuck Hunziker
12. Plaintiffs Chuck H unziger a nd B ob C ollier w ere m arried i n N ew Y ork i n J uly 2013. They have been together for over 50 years and live in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Bob is 79
Page 4 of 21

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 5 of 21
years old, and Chuck is 81 ye ars old. Bob served as a Captain in the U.S. Army in the medical corps in t he 82 nd Airborne D ivision a nd S pecial F orces d uring t he V ietnam War. C huck i s a disabled veteran; he served as an enlisted man in the Navy during the Korean War and spent 18 months in Naval and VA hospitals. For most of their professional lives, Bob and Chuck worked in New York, Chuck for Mobil Corporation and Bob for MetLife, Inc. Having retired in Florida, they are now involved in local charities, including Tuesday’s Angels (which provides emergency assistance to individuals living with HIV/AIDS).
Lindsay Myers and Sarah Humlie 13. Plaintiffs Lindsay Myers and Sarah Humlie were married in Washington, D.C., in
December 2012. They have been together for 3 ½ ye ars and live in Pensacola, Florida. Lindsay has a m aster’s d egree i n t heology and c urrently w orks f or t he U niversity o f West F lorida a s a digital content producer for WUWF, a university-licensed NPR affiliate. Sarah is the Executive Director of the Pensacola Humane Society. Sarah does not receive health insurance through her employer. Because state law prohibits public employers from providing insurance for same-sex spouses of employees, Lindsay cannot get coverage for Sarah on her health insurance plan. As a result, the couple must pay hundreds of dollars per month for private health insurance for Sarah.
Robert Loupo and John Fitzgerald 14. Plaintiffs R obert L oupo a nd J ohn F itzgerald w ere married i n N ew Y ork i n
November 2013. T hey ha ve be en together f or 1 2 ye ars a nd l ive in C oconut G rove in M iami, Florida. R obert ha s be en a s chool c ounselor f or M iami-Dade C ounty P ublic S chools f or approximately fourteen years and served before that for fourteen years as a high school English
Page 5 of 21

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 6 of 21
teacher. John is retired and worked previously in customer service for Delta Airlines and in the Administrative Office of the Courts for Miami-Dade County in the Traffic Division. Denise Hueso and Sandra Newson
15. Plaintiffs D enise H ueso and S andra N ewson were m arried i n Massach usetts in August 2009. I n A pril 2014, t hey will ha ve b een t ogether f or 17 ye ars. T hey l ive i n M iami, Florida. Denise is the lead clinical care coordinator for the Alliance for GLBTQ Youth, which offers support services for LGBT youth. Sandra is the Vice President of Residence Services at Carrfour S upportive H ousing, a n organization t hat c onfronts hom elessness by de veloping affordable housing and providing supportive services as a pathway to self-sufficiency. Together they have a 15-year-old son whom they have cared for since he was 10 years old, first as foster parents and t hen as adoptive pa rents. Sandra an d D enise u sed t o l ive in Massa chusetts, w here their marriage was recognized, but they lost that recognition when they moved to Florida to be closer to family to help care for their son. Juan del Hierro and Thomas Gantt, Jr.
16. Plaintiffs J uan de l H ierro a nd T homas Gantt, Jr., w ere m arried i n W ashington, D.C., in December 2010. Before that, they held a symbolic ceremony before friends and family in M iami i n J uly 2010. They ha ve been t ogether f or 6 ye ars a nd l ive in N orth M iami B each, Florida. J uan is the D irector o f M inistry E mpowerment fo r U nity o n th e B ay, a s piritual community i n M iami. Tom t eaches s cience a t a vi rtual s chool, ha ving t aught f or m ore t han a decade in public schools. Their son Lucas, whom they adopted, is fourteen months old. Christian Ulvert and Carlos Andrade
Page 6 of 21

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 7 of 21
17. Plaintiffs Christian Ulvert and Carlos Andrade were married in Washington, D.C., in J uly 201 3. T hey ha ve be en t ogether f or f our ye ars a nd l ive in M iami, F lorida. C hristian previously worked in the state legislature and now works as a political consultant. Carlos is the new media director of EDGE Communications and also owns an online jewelry store. Christian and Carlos would like to have children one day.
Richard Milstein and Eric Hankin
18. Plaintiffs Richard Milstein and Eric Hankin were married in Iowa in March 2010. They have been together for 12 years and live in Miami Beach, Florida. Richard is an attorney who sp ecializes i n t rusts, est ates, a nd f amily s ervices, w ith a p articular f ocus o n v ulnerable adults and children. Richard has been an active leader in the Florida and Dade County Bars and in th e M iami-Dade c ommunity f or de cades, v olunteering numerous hour s t o a va riety of c ivic causes. E ric i s an ar chitect w ho cu rrently t eaches ar chitecture an d d esign i n a nationally recognized magnet public school in Miami.
SAVE Foundation, Inc.
19. Plaintiff S AVE F oundation, I nc. is one of t he l eading or ganizations i n F lorida dedicated t o promoting, pr otecting, and de fending equality f or pe ople w ho a re l esbian, gay, bisexual, and t ransgender. Established i n 1993, S AVE Foundation accomplishes t his m ission through e ducation initiatives, ou treach, gr assroots or ganizing, a nd a dvocacy. Starting w ith th e landmark p assage o f Mi ami’s H uman R ights O rdinance i n 1998 to r ecent e nactments of domestic p artner b enefit p olicies, SAVE Foundation continues t o f ight f or L GBT e quality through grassroots action. Plaintiff SAVE Foundation brings this suit on behalf of its members who are same-sex couples who have entered into lawful marriages outside of Florida.
Page 7 of 21

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 8 of 21
B. Defendants
20. Defendant Rick Scott is sued in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Florida. The supreme executive power is vested in the Governor. Fl. Const. Art. IV, § 1(a). It is his duty to take care that the laws, including the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, are faithfully executed in Florida. Id.
21. Defendant Pam Bondi is sued in her official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Florida. As Attorney General, Bondi is the State’s chief legal officer. She is required to “appear in and attend to, in behalf of the state, all suits or prosecutions, civil or criminal or in equity, in w hich t he s tate m ay be a party, o r in anywise i nterested, in t he S upreme C ourt a nd district courts of appeal of this state.” § 16.01(4), Fla. Stat.
22. Defendant John H . A rmstrong i s sued i n h is o fficial ca pacity a s t he Surgeon General and Secretary of Health for the State of Florida. As the head of the Florida Department of H ealth, A rmstrong m ust “ [p]lan, di rect, c oordinate, a nd e xecute the pow ers, dut ies, a nd functions vested in that department.” § 20.05, F la. Stat. In his official capacity, he is responsible for cr eating f orms f or cer tificates o f d eath, see § 382.008(1), F la. S tat., as w ell as r egistering, recording, c ertifying, a nd pr eserving t he S tate’s vi tal records, see § 382.003( 7), F la. S tat., including certificates of death.
23. Defendant Craig J. Nichols is sued in his official capacity as the Agency Secretary for the Florida Department of Management Services. As the head of the Florida Department of Management Services, Nichols must “[p]lan, direct, coordinate, and execute the powers, duties, and f unctions ve sted i n t hat de partment.” § 20.05, F la. Stat. In h is o fficial capacity, h e is responsible f or administering F lorida’s publ ic r etirement a nd pe nsion s ystems. See § 121.02 5, Fla. Stat; see also § 121.021, Fla. Stat. (definitions).
Page 8 of 21

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 9 of 21
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
24. In Florida, marriage is governed by Chapter 741 of the Florida Statutes, captioned
“Marriage; Domestic V iolence.” In 1997, C hapter 741 w as r evised to pr ohibit marriage f or
same-sex couples. The relevant statute, § 741.212, provides:
(1) Marriages b etween p ersons o f t he same sex en tered i nto in an y jurisdiction, whether w ithin or out side t he S tate of F lorida, t he U nited S tates, o r any ot her jurisdiction, e ither d omestic o r f oreign, o r any o ther place o r lo cation, o r relationships between persons of the same sex which are treated as marriages in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, are not recognized for any purpose in this state.
(2) The st ate, i ts ag encies, and i ts p olitical s ubdivisions m ay n ot gi ve e ffect t o a ny public a ct, r ecord, o r judicial p roceeding of a ny s tate, territory, pos session, o r tribe of the United States or of any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or a ny ot her pl ace o r l ocation respecting either a m arriage o r re lationship n ot recognized under su bsection ( 1) o r a cl aim ar ising f rom such a m arriage o r relationship.
(3) For purposes of interpreting any state statute or rule, the term “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the term “spouse” applies only to a member of such a union.
25. In a ddition, in a s tark departure f rom Florida’s usual r ecognition of marriages
entered into in other states, Florida’s Constitution was amended in 2008 to prevent recognition of
same-sex marriages e ntered in to in o ther s tates. A rticle I, § 27 o f th e F lorida C onstitution
provides:
Inasmuch a s marriage is t he l egal union of on ly one m an a nd one w oman a s husband a nd w ife, no ot her legal uni on that i s treated a s m arriage or th e substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.
26. As a r esult, marriage in Florida is legally available only to different-sex couples.
Same-sex couples may not marry in Florida, and if they are married elsewhere, their marriages
are not recognized in Florida.
Page 9 of 21

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 10 of 21

27. Florida’s re fusal to re cognize th e marriages of s ame-sex co uples denies t hose

couples nu merous pr otections a fforded t o different-sex married co uples. B y w ay of e xample

only:

a. The State of Florida’s retirement system provides benefits to the different-

sex surviving s pouses o f publ ic e mployees. See, e.g., S urvivor B enefits,

https://www.myfrs.com/portal/server.pt/community/comparing_the_plans/

235/survivor_benefits/1843 (accessed M arch 12,

2014);

The F lorida

Retirement S ystem P ension P lan,

http://www.myfrs.com/portal/server.pt/community/pension_plan/233

(accessed M arch 12, 20 14). S uch be nefits a re not a vailable t o s ame-sex

surviving spouses in Florida.

b. The different-sex surviving spouse of a first responder in Florida receives

financial support f rom t he S tate if t he f irst r esponder d ies in th e lin e o f

duty. See § 112.191, Fla. Stat. Such s upport is not a vailable t o same-sex

surviving spouses in Florida.

c. The di fferent-sex s urviving s pouse of a t eacher or s chool a dministrator

receives support from the State if the teacher of administrator is killed or

injured on the job under certain circumstances. See § 112.1915, Fla. Stat.

Such support is not available to same-sex surviving spouses in Florida.

d. Death certificates in Florida include information regarding the decedent’s

marital status and identify the surviving different-sex spouse. See State of

Florida B ureau V ital S tatistics, V ital R ecords R egistration, D ecember

2012 R

evision, a

t 83, a

vailable a

t

Page 10 of 21

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 11 of 21

http://www.floridahealth.gov/certificates-and-

registries/certificates/EDRS/_documents/HB2012Final.pdf

(accessed

March 12, 2012) . A s urviving s ame-sex s pouse i s not n amed on de ath

certificates in Florida.

e. A d ifferent-sex s urviving s pouse ha s a utomatic pr iority w ith r espect to

numerous r ights pe rtaining t o t he d isposition o f a de ceased i ndividual’s

remains. See § 497.171(5), Fla. Stat. (identification of human remains); §

497.384(3), F la. Stat. (disinterment a nd r einterment); § 497.607( 1), F la.

Stat. (cremation); § 497.152( 8)(c)-(d), Fla. Stat. (prohibiting the taking of

possession or em balming ab sent a uthorization f rom a l egally authorized

person); see a lso § 4 97.005, F la. S tat. (defining “ legally a uthorized

person,” i ncluding l isting of pr iority). S uch a utomatic pr iority i s n ot

granted to same-sex surviving spouses in Florida.

f. A d ifferent-sex s urviving s pouse m ay r eceive c ertain w orkers’

compensation benefits for his or her deceased spouse who died in a work-

related accident. See § 440.16, Fla. Stat. This protection does not apply to

surviving same-sex spouses in Florida.

g. If a n i ndividual dies without a will, his or he r different-sex spouse has a

right to inherit a share of the estate, see § 732.102, Fla. Stat., and receives

automatic p reference i n ap pointment as p ersonal representative of t he

estate, see § 733.301, Fla. Stat. These protections do not apply to same-sex

spouses in Florida.

Page 11 of 21

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 12 of 21
h. If a n in dividual d ies w ith a w ill, his o r h er different-sex spouse may receive an elective sh are o f t he e state, see § 732.201, F la. S tat. This protection does not apply to same-sex spouses in Florida.
i. Different-sex s pouses a re g enerally n ot re quired to te stify a gainst th eir spouse regarding confidential communications made during the marriage. See § 90.504, Fla. Stat. This protection is not afforded to same-sex spouses in Florida.
j. In a wrongful-death action, different-sex spouses may recover for loss of the de cedent’s “ companionship a nd pr otection and f or m ental pa in a nd suffering from the date of injury.” § 768.21, Fla. Stat. This protection does not apply to same-sex surviving spouses in Florida.
k. A different-sex spouse has a right to financial support during marriage, § 61.09, Fla. Stat., enforced by criminal penalties for non-support, § 856.04, Fla. S tat. T his pr otection a nd r esponsibility d oes not a pply t o s ame-sex spouses in Florida.
l. A c hild bor n t o a married c ouple by means o f artificial o r in v itro insemination i s irrebuttably p resumed t o be the c hild of t he c ouple. § 742.11(a), F la. S tat. T his pr otection a nd responsibility doe s n ot a pply to same-sex married couples in Florida.
m. If a n i ncapacitated i ndividual ha s no t e xecuted a n a dvance d irective, the patient’s sp ouse h as p riority to make h ealth car e d ecisions f or t he individual over every other class other than the patient’s guardian, if one
Page 12 of 21

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 13 of 21
exists. § 76 5.401(1), Fla. Stat. This protection and responsibility does not apply to same-sex spouses in Florida. n. Upon di ssolution of t heir m arriage, couples in F lorida m ay obt ain courtordered equitable di stribution of pr operty. See § 61.075, Fla. S tat. T his protection does not apply to same-sex couples in Florida. o. Some of the federal protections for different-sex married couples are only available to couples if their marriages are legally recognized in the state in which t hey l ive. See, e.g., 42 U .S.C. § 416( h)(1)(A)(i) ( marriage for eligibility for social security benefits based on law of state where couple resides a t t ime o f a pplication); 29 C.F.R. § 82 5.122(b) ( same for F amily Medical Leave A ct). T hus, e ven though P laintiffs were married in other states, they cannot access such federal protections while living in Florida because Florida refuses to recognize their existing marriages.
28. The S upreme C ourt h as c alled m arriage “the m ost im portant r elation in life,” Zablocki v . Redhail, 4 34 U .S. 374, 384 ( 1978) ( internal quot ation marks o mitted), a nd an “expression[] of emotional support and public commitment,” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987); see also Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free [people].”). It is “a far-reaching legal acknowledgement of the intimate relationship between two people . . . .” Windsor, 133 S . C t. a t 2692. T his i s a s t rue f or s ame-sex co uples as it is f or different-sex couples.
29. Same-sex married couples such as Plaintiffs are similarly situated to different-sex married couples in all of the characteristics relevant to the recognition of their legal marriages.
Page 13 of 21

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 14 of 21
30. When they marry, same-sex couples make the same commitment to one another as different-sex couples do. Like married different-sex couples, married same-sex couples build their l ives together, pl an t heir f utures together, a nd hope to grow ol d together. L ike m arried different-sex couples, married same-sex couples support one another emotionally and financially and take care of one another physically when faced with injury or illness.
31. Like many married different-sex couples, many married same-sex couples—such as Plaintiffs Sloan Grimsley, Joyce Albu, Juan del Hierro, Thomas Gantt, Jr., Denise Hueso, and Sandra Newson—are parents raising children together.
32. Plaintiffs have accepted and are willing to assume the legal obligations that would flow from having their marriages recognized under Florida law.
33. Plaintiffs were all married legally under the laws of other jurisdictions, and their marriages would be recognized by the State but for the fact that each is married to a person of the same sex.
34. Refusing t o r ecognize t he m arriages o f sa me-sex c ouples ha rms t he c hildren raised by lesbian a nd g ay c ouples—including t he children of Plaintiffs Sloan G rimsley, J oyce Albu, Juan del Hierro, Thomas Gantt, Jr., Denise Hueso, and Sandra Newson—by denying their families si gnificant b enefits an d b y b randing t heir f amilies a s in ferior to f amilies h eaded b y different-sex co uples and l ess de serving of r espect, thereby encouraging pr ivate bi as a nd discrimination.
35. By r efusing t o r ecognize t he l egal m arriages o f sam e-sex c ouples, F lorida excludes those couples from the myriad of protections the State affords other married couples.
Page 14 of 21

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 15 of 21
36. Article I, § 27 of t he F lorida C onstitution a nd § 741.21 2, Fla. S tat., have t he “purpose a nd e ffect t o disparage a nd i njure” l esbian a nd ga y c ouples. Windsor, 133 S. C t. at 2696.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I
Deprivation of the Fundamental Right to Marry in Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 37. Plaintiffs i ncorporate b y r eference a ll of t he pr eceding pa ragraphs of t his
Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 38. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution precludes any State
from “ depriv[ing] a ny pe rson of l ife, l iberty, or pr operty, w ithout du e pr ocess o f law.” U. S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Governmental interference with a fundamental right may be sustained only upon a showing that the legislation is closely tailored to serve an important governmental interest.
39. Florida law states that “[m]arriages between persons of the same sex . . . are not recognized for any purpose in this state.” § 741.212(1), Fla. Stat.
40. In a ddition, F lorida law pr ovides that “ [f]or pur poses of i nterpreting a ny s tate statute or rule, the term ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband a nd w ife, a nd t he term ‘ spouse’ a pplies onl y to a m ember of s uch a uni on.” § 741.212(3), Fla. Stat.
41. The F lorida C onstitution also provides t hat “ [i]nasmuch as m arriage i s the l egal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.” Fla. Const. Art. I, § 27.
Page 15 of 21

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 16 of 21
42. Marriage is a fundamental right, and choices about whom to marry are a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
43. Florida law denies Plaintiffs and other same-sex couples this fundamental right by refusing to recognize the lawful marriages they entered into in other jurisdictions.
44. Florida’s refusal t o r ecognize P laintiffs’ marriages an d t he marriages o f o ther same-sex couples entered into in other jurisdictions is not necessary to serve a compelling state interest.
45. Florida’s refusal to recognize marriages entered into by same-sex couples in other jurisdictions violates the Due Process Clause.
46. Defendants, a cting und er c olor of s tate l aw, a re de priving Plaintiffs o f rig hts secured by t he D ue Process C lause of t he F ourteenth A mendment t o t he United States Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
47. As a result, Plaintiffs have been or will be harmed and therefore seek the relief set forth in the Prayer for Relief below.
COUNT II Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation in Violation of the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
48. Plaintiffs i ncorporate b y r eference a ll of t he pr eceding pa ragraphs of t his Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
49. The Equal Protection Clause of t he Fourteenth A mendment t o the United States Constitution provides that “no State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
Page 16 of 21

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 17 of 21
50. Florida law states that “[m]arriages between persons of the same sex . . . are not recognized for any purpose in this state.” § 741.212(1), Fla. Stat.
51. In a ddition, F lorida law pr ovides that “ [f]or pur poses of i nterpreting a ny s tate statute or rule, the term ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband a nd w ife, a nd t he term ‘ spouse’ a pplies onl y to a m ember of s uch a uni on.” § 741.212(3), Fla. Stat.
52. The F lorida C onstitution also provides t hat “ [i]nasmuch as m arriage i s the l egal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.” Fla. Const. Art. I, § 27.
53. Same-sex married couples and different-sex married couples are similarly situated for purposes of marriage.
54. By denying Plaintiffs and other lesbian and gay couples the ability to have their out-of-state m arriages recognized, t he State discriminates ag ainst lesbians and ga y men on t he basis of their sexual orientation by denying them significant legal protections.
55. Classifications based on sexual orientation demand heightened scrutiny. 56. Lesbians and g ay m en ar e m embers o f a d iscrete an d i nsular m inority t hat ha s suffered a history of discrimination in Florida and across the United States. 57. Sexual or ientation be ars no r elation t o a n i ndividual’s a bility t o pe rform o r contribute to society. 58. Sexual orientation is a core, defining trait that is so fundamental to one’s identity that a p erson may not l egitimately be r equired to a bandon it ( even i f t hat w ere po ssible) a s a condition of e qual treatment. Sexual or ientation ge nerally i s f ixed a t a n e arly a ge and hi ghly
Page 17 of 21

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 18 of 21
resistant to change through intervention. Efforts to change a person’s sexual orientation through interventions b y m edical p rofessionals h ave n ot b een sh own t o b e effective. N o mainstream mental he alth pr ofessional or ganization a pproves interventions t hat a ttempt t o c hange sexual orientation, a nd many—including the A merican P sychological A ssociation an d t he A merican Psychiatric Association—have adopted policy statements cautioning professionals and the public about these treatments.
59. Prejudice against lesbians and gay men continues to seriously curtail the operation of the political process, preventing this group from obtaining redress through legislative means. Lesbians a nd ga y men lack s tatutory pr otection a gainst di scrimination in e mployment, publ ic accommodations, and housing at the federal level and in more than half of the states, including Florida. They ha ve be en s tripped of t he r ight t o m arry t hrough 30 s tate c onstitutional amendments a nd ha ve be en t argeted t hrough t he vot er initiative pr ocess more t han a ny ot her group.
60. Florida’s refusal to re cognize P laintiffs’ marriages and t he marriages of ot her same-sex couples entered into in other jurisdictions is not necessary to serve a compelling state interest.
61. Florida’s refusal to r ecognize P laintiffs’ marriages an d t he marriages o f o ther same-sex c ouples e ntered i nto i n other j urisdictions i s not s ubstantially related t o an i mportant state interest.
62. Florida’s refusal t o r ecognize Plaintiffs’ marriages an d t he marriages o f o ther same-sex c ouples e ntered i nto i n ot her j urisdictions is not rationally re lated to a ny le gitimate state interest.
Page 18 of 21

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 19 of 21
63. Florida’s refusal t o r ecognize Plaintiffs’ marriages an d t he marriages o f o ther same-sex couples entered into in other jurisdictions violates the Equal Protection Clause.
64. Defendants, a cting und er c olor of s tate l aw, a re de priving P laintiffs o f rig hts secured by the E qual P rotection C lause of t he F ourteenth A mendment t o t he U nited S tates Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
65. As a result, Plaintiffs have been or will be harmed and therefore seek the relief set forth in the Prayer for Relief below.
COUNT III Discrimination on the Basis of Sex in Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 66. Plaintiffs i ncorporate b y r eference a ll of t he pr eceding pa ragraphs of t his Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 67. The Equal Protection Clause of t he Fourteenth A mendment to the United States Constitution provides that “no State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. 68. Florida law states that “[m]arriages between persons of the same sex . . . are not recognized for any purpose in this state.” § 741.212(1), Fla. Stat. 69. In a ddition, Florida l aw provides t hat “[f]or pur poses of i nterpreting a ny s tate statute or rule, the term ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband a nd w ife, a nd t he term ‘ spouse’ a pplies onl y to a m ember of s uch a uni on.” § 741.212(3), Fla. Stat. 70. The F lorida C onstitution also provides t hat “ [i]nasmuch as m arriage i s the l egal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated
Page 19 of 21

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 20 of 21
as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.” Fla. Const. Art. I, § 27.
71. If Plaintiffs had different-sex spouses, the State would recognize their marriages. As a result, Plaintiffs would enjoy the legal protections and be subject to the legal obligations of different-sex married couples.
72. By li miting th e re cognition o f marriage in F lorida to different-sex couples, t he State is discriminating against Plaintiffs on the basis of sex.
73. The State’s unequal treatment of Plaintiffs based on t heir sex is not substantially related to an important state interest. State law prohibiting recognition of marriage for same-sex couples thus violates the Equal Protection Clause.
74. Defendants, a cting und er c olor of s tate l aw, a re de priving P laintiffs o f rig hts secured by the E qual P rotection C lause of t he F ourteenth A mendment t o t he United S tates Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
75. As a result, Plaintiffs have been or will be harmed and therefore seek the relief set forth in the Prayer for Relief below.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
1. Enter a declaratory judgment that § 741.212, Fla. Stat., and Fla. Const. Art. I, § 27 violate the D ue P rocess C lause o f t he F ourteenth Amendment t o t he United S tates C onstitution insofar as they r efuse to t reat same-sex c ouples legally married in other jurisdictions the same as different-sex couples;
2. Enter a declaratory judgment that § 741.212, Fla. Stat., and Fla. Const. Art. I, § 27 violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Page 20 of 21

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/12/14 Page 21 of 21

United S tates C onstitution insofar as they r efuse to t reat same-sex c ouples legally married in other jurisdictions the same as different-sex couples; 3. Enter a pe rmanent i njunction di recting Defendants t o r ecognize marriages validly e ntered i nto by Plaintiffs and ot her s ame-sex couples out side o f t he State of Florida; 4. Award c osts of s uit, i ncluding r easonable a ttorneys’ f ees un der 42 U .S.C. § 1988; and 5. Enter all further relief to which Plaintiffs may be justly entitled.

Dated: March 12, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Daniel B. Tilley Daniel B. Tilley Florida Bar No. 102882 ACLU Foundation of Florida 4500 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 340 Miami, FL 33137 (786) 363-2700 dtilley@aclufl.org
Maria Kayanan Florida Bar No. 305601 ACLU Foundation of Florida 4500 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 340 Miami, FL 33137 (786) 363-2700 mkayanan@aclufl.org
Benjamin James Stevenson Florida Bar. No. 598909 ACLU Foundation of Florida P.O. Box 12723 Pensacola, FL 32591-2723 (786) 363-2738 bstevenson@aclufl.org
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Stephen F. Rosenthal* Florida Bar No. 131458 Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 (305) 358-2800 srosenthal@podhurst.com
Leslie Cooper* ACLU Foundation 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, New York 10004 (212) 549-2627 LCooper@aclu.org
*Admission to N.D. Fla. forthcoming

Page 21 of 21

 </s> Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/28/14 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JAMES DOMER BRENNER and CHARLES DEAN JONES,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Case No.:

RICK SCOTT, in his official capacity as Governor of Florida, and PAMELA BONDI, in her official capacity as Attorney General of Florida,

Defendants.

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiffs, James Domer Brenner and Charles Dean Jones, by and through undersigned
counsel, hereby sue the Defendants and allege as follows: INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs bring this action to challenge the constitutionality of Florida's laws voiding or otherwise refusing to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples entered in other states or countries. In United States v. Windsor, --- U.S. ---, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), the United States Supreme Court held that withholding federal recognition and benefits from legally married samesex couples, as required by Section 3 ofthe Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), violates the Federal Constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. Plaintiffs seek to apply this

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/28/14 Page 2 of 16
holding, andlor the reasoning underlying it, to invalidate and enjoin the enforcement of Florida's State Constitutional provision and statute prohibiting recognition of legally married same-sex couples.
THE PLAINTIFFS 1. Plaintiffs James Domer Brenner and Charles Dean Jones are adult, male residents of Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 2. Plaintiff Brenner has lived in Tallahassee since 1984. 3. Plaintiff Jones has lived in Tallahassee since 1985. 4. PlaintiffBrenner has worked for the Florida Forest Service since 1981 and currently serves as a Fire Management Administrator. 5. Plaintiff Jones has worked for the Florida Department of Education since 2003 and currently serves as an Operations and Management Consultant. 6. Plaintiffs have been domestic partners in a long term, stable relationship since 1988. 7. Plaintiffs, seeking recognition oftheir relationship, were lawfully married in Alberta, Canada on September 3,2009 and immediately returned to Tallahassee, Florida to reside as spouses. 8. Like other couples who have made a lifetime commitment to each other, the Plaintiff couple are spouses in every sense, except that their marriage is not currently recognized by the State of Florida. 9. The situation faced by this couple is similar to that faced by many other legally married same-sex couples.
2

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/28/14 Page 3 of 16
10. Plaintiffs seek to have their legal marriage recognized in the State ofFlorida in order to have the same legal protections afforded to legally married opposite-sex couples, including those who married in other jurisdictions.
11. While in emolling in Florida's Deferred Retirement Option Program, Plaintiff Brenner was unable to designate Plaintiff Jones, his lawful husband, as his spouse or joint annuitant under Florida law solely because Plaintiffs are both men.
12. When a state employee, who is in an opposite-sex marriage, enters retirement, he may designate his spouse as a joint annuitant.
13. The joint annuitant, upon the retiree's death, is entitled to the retiree's monthly benefits under certain retirement options.
14. However, because Florida refuses to recognize Plaintiffs' legal marriage, Plaintiff Brenner was prohibited for selecting a retirement option that would continue to provide for his husband after his death.
THE DEFENDANTS 15. Defendant Rick Scott is the Governor of the State of Florida. In his official capacity, Governor Scott is the chief executive officer ofthe State of Florida and is responsible for the faithful execution of the laws of the State of Florida, including the laws that exclude same-sex couples from having their out-of-state marriages recognized. 16. Defendant Pamela Bondi is the Attorney General of the State of Florida. In her official capacity, Ms. Bondi is the chief legal officer of the State of Florida and is charged with advising state and local officials on questions of Florida and federal law. 17. Defendants are, and at all relevant times have been, acting under color of state law,
3

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/28/14 Page 4 of 16
and are sued in their official capacities. 18. By implementing and enforcing the Statute and Florida Constitutional Amendment
discussed below, Defendants have deprived, and continue to deprive, Plaintiffs of rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 19. Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.c. §§1983 and 1988 to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of their rights secured by the United States Constitution. 20. ThisCourthasjurisdictionpursuantt028U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343. 21. This Court has the authority to enter a declaratory judgment and to provide preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Rules 57 and 65 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 22. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because the Defendants have offices within the district, because Plaintiffs reside in this district, and because the events giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims occurred, continue to occur, and will occur, in this district.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS CHALLENGED 23. Article I, Section 27, Florida Constitution, adopted in 2008 provides:
Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized. 24. Section 741.212(1),(2), and (3), Florida Statutes (2013) provides: (1) Marriages between persons of the same sex entered
into in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the 4

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/28/14 Page 5 of 16
State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, or relationships between persons of the same sex which are treated as marriages in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, are not recognized for any purpose in this state.
(2) The state, its agencies, and its political subdivisions may not give effect to any public act, or judicial proceeding of any state, territory, possession, or tribe ofthe United States or ofany other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location respecting either a marriage or relationship not recognized under subsection (1) or a claim arising from such a marriage or relationship.
(3) For purposes of interpreting any state statute or rule, the term "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the term "spouse" applies only to a member of such a umon.
25. The above-described provisions of Florida law are in violation of the United States
Constitution, insofar as they deny Plaintiffs and same-sex couples the rights, privileges,
responsibilities and immunities extended to similarly situated opposite-sex couples.
26. Legally married same-sex couples such as the Plaintiff couple are similarly situated
to legally married opposite-sex couples in all of the characteristics relevant to recognition of their
legal marriages.
27. Florida has no legitimate state interest in treating legally married same-sex couples
any differently from legally married opposite-sex couples.
28. Florida has no legitimate state interest III enforcing the statute or Florida
constitutional amendment challenged by Plaintiffs in this case.
5

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/28/14 Page 6 of 16
29. Any purported identifiable state interest is not served in an adequately and narrowly tailored manner by Article I, Section 27, Florida Constitution, or the statutes challenged in this litigation.
30. The purposes underlying Article I, Section 27, Florida Constitution, and §741.212, Fla. Stat. (2013) are specifically forbidden by the United States Supreme Court in that they are designed specifically to carry out a desire to harm a politically unpopular group.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I:
DEPRIVATION OF DUE PROCESS 31. Paragraphs 1-30, above, are adopted and incorporated by reference herein. 32. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process oflaw." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. 33. The right to marry is a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution and is protected by the Due Process Clause. 34. Same-sex spouses who have entered into legal marriages have a protected liberty interest in their marital status, and the State's refusal to recognize their marital status impermissibly deprives legally married same-sex spouses of that protected liberty interest. 35. Same-sex spouses who have entered into legal marriages in other jurisdictions have a reasonable expectation that they will continue to be protected by the rights and protections conferred by marriage when they relocate to another jurisdiction. 36. Same-sex spouses have a protected property interest in their marital status and in the comprehensive network of legal protections that marriage provides, including the accrual of
6

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/28/14 Page 7 of 16
certain marital benefits over time. 37. The Due Process Clause also protects choices central to personal dignity and
autonomy, including each individual's rights to family integrity and association. 38. Article I, Section 27, Florida Constitution, and§741.212 Fla. Stat. (2013) violate
the due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment facially and/or as applied to Plaintiffs by infringing upon their right to have their marriage recognized in the State of Florida.
39. In addition, Article I, Section 27, Florida Constitution, and §741.212, Fla. Stat. (2013) conflict with other portions of the Florida Constitution, thereby depriving same-sex couples of rights otherwise granted to all Florida citizens and thus depriving them of Due Process rights under both the state and federal constitutions.
40. Specifically, Article I, Sections 2,3,4, 5, 9, and 23 of the Florida Constitution guarantee the rights to equal protection, religious freedom, freedom of speech, right to associate, due process, the right to be free from governmental intrusions into a person's private life, and the right to enjoy life, all of which are infringed upon by Article I, Section 27, Florida Constitution, and §741.212, Fla. Stat. (2013) .
COUNT II: EQUAL PROTECTION 41. Paragraphs 1-30, above, are adopted and incorporated by reference herein. 42. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. 43. The State of Florida has no legitimate interest in discriminating against citizens on the basis of sexual orientation.
7

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/28/14 Page 8 of 16
44. The State of Florida has no legitimate interest in discriminating against citizens on the basis of sex.
45. There is no rational basis for the State of Florida to treat same- sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples.
46. There is no rational basis for the State of Florida to treat Florida citizens differently based solely on their sexual orientation.
47. Sexual orientation bears no relation to a person's ability to perform III or contribute to society.
48. By restricting the definition of marriage to one man and one woman," and recognizing foreign marriages between opposite sex spouses while failing to recognize foreign marriages between same sex spouses, the State of Florida engages in sex-based discrimination without rational basis or a legitimate interest in doing so.
49. Gay and lesbian people have experienced a history of discrimination in the United States and in the State of Florida.
50. Sexual orientation, including homosexuality, is an immutable trait. 51. Gay and lesbian people represent a small minority ofthe population and thus lack the political power to assert their rights to equal treatment under the law. 52. The purpose of Article I, Section 27, Florida Constitution, and §741.212, Fla. Stat. (2013) is to impose restrictions and disabilities on same-sex couples. 53. Article I, Section27,FloridaConstitution, and §741.212,Fla. Stat. (2013) are motivated by a desire to harm a politically unpopular group. 54. Article I, Section 27, Florida Constitution, and §741.212, Fla. Stat. (2013) also serve
8

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/28/14 Page 9 of 16
the impermissible purpose of enforcing and perpetuating sex stereotypes by excluding Plaintiffs from being recognized as validly married because Plaintiffs have failed to conform to sex-based stereotypes that men should marry women, and women should marry men.
55. Article I, Section 27, Florida Constitution, and §741.212, Fla. Stat. (2013) violate the equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment facially and/or as applied to Plaintiffs by infringing their right to have their legal marriage recognized in the State of Florida.
COUNT III: FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION 56. Paragraphs 1-30, above, are adopted and incorporated by reference herein. 57. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, ensures the right to freedom of association. 58. Article I, Section 27, Florida Constitution, and §741.212, Fla. Stat. (2013) violate the freedom of association guarantees of the First Amendment facially and/or as applied to Plaintiffs by discriminating against them and penalizing them based solely upon the sex of the person they choose to marry, and/or their sexual orientation.
COUNT IV: SUPREMACY CLAUSE 59. Paragraphs 1-30, above, are adopted and incorporated by reference herein. 60. Article VI, Section II of the United States Constitution provides: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
9

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/28/14 Page 10 of 16
61. By virtue of the Supremacy Clause, state statutes, constitutions and amendments thereto are subject to applicable prohibitions and limitations of the Federal Constitution.
62. Article I, Section 27, Florida Constitution, and §741.212, Fla. Stat. (2013) violate the Supremacy Clause by contravening the United States Supreme Court's holding in Windsor.
63. The Fourteenth Amendment protects the liberty of individuals to travel throughout the nation, uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations that unreasonably burden or restrict their movement.
64. The right to travel prohibits both laws that affirmatively interfere with or prevent a citizen's travel, and also laws that penalize those who choose to migrate to another state.
65. The right extends not only to temporary visits to other states, but also to becoming a permanent resident of another state.
66. Article I, Section 27, Florida Constitution, and §741.212, Fla. Stat. (2013) violate the right to travel as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment facially and/or as applied to Plaintiffs by imposing a penalty on Plaintiffs for choosing to move to and/or reside in the State of Florida in that their residence in Florida requires them to relinquish all rights, privileges, benefits, and responsibilities of marriage.
COUNT V: ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE 67. Paragraphs 1-30, above, are adopted and incorporated by reference herein. 68. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." 69. This prohibition is extended to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. 70. Article I, Section 27, Florida Constitution, and §741.212 Fla. Stat. (2013) were
10

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/28/14 Page 11 of 16
enacted for the purpose of establishing a definition of marriage based upon religious beliefs of the majority, and not for a secular legislative purpose.
71. The primary effect ofthe above legislation is to advance the religious beliefs ofthe legislative majority.
72. The constitutional amendment and above statutes result in an excessive government entanglement with religion.
COUNT VI: HARM TO THE PLAINTIFFS AND NEED FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 73. Paragraphs 1-30, above, are adopted and incorporated by reference herein. 74. This case presents an actual controversy because Defendants' present and ongoing denial of equal treatment to Plaintiffs subjects them to serious and immediate harms, warranting the issuance of a declaratory judgment. 75. By refusing to recognize their legal marriage from Canada, the State of Florida's laws deprive Plaintiffs of numerous legal protections that are available to legally married opposite-sex couples who reside in Florida but were married in Canada. 76. The tangible and intangible harm to Plaintiffs created by Florida's failure to recognize their legal marriage affect virtually every aspect of Plaintiffs' lives, including but not limited to the following:
a. The right to designate a spouse to receive retirement benefits upon the retiree's death, such as with the benefits for Deferred Retirement Options Program participants. See generally §121.091, Fla. Stat. (2013);
b. The right to be supported financially during marriage, enforced by criminal penalties for non-support. Killian v. Lawson, 387 So.2d 960,962 (Fla. 1980);
11

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/28/14 Page 12 of 16

§§61.09, 856.04, Fla. Stat. (2013);

c. The right to spousal benefits under The State Group Insurance Program

provided in §110.123, Fla. Stat. (2013);

d. The right to make medical decisions for an ill or incapacitated spouse without

an advance health care directive. §765.401, Fla. Stat. (2013);

e. The right for spouses of qualified employees to also be exempt from public

records. §119.071, Fla. Stat. (2013);

f.

The right to a court-ordered equitable distribution of property upon the

dissolution of marriage. §61.075, Fla. Stat. (2013);

g. The right to receive certain workers' compensation benefits for a deceased

spouse who has died as a result of a work-related accident. Fla. Stat. §440.16

(2013).

h. The right to inherit a share ofthe estate of a spouse who died without a will.

Fla. Sta. §732.102 (2013).

1.

The right to priority in appointment as the personal representative of the

estate ofa spouse who dies without a will. §733.301, Fla. Stat. (2013).

j.

The privilege not to have a spouse testify in a court proceeding about

confidential communications made during the marriage. §90.504, Fla. Stat.

(2013).

k. The right to claim certain homestead protections. Art. 10, §4, Florida

Constitution; and

1.

The right to hold property as a tenancy by the entirety.

12

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/28/14 Page 13 of 16
77. Under the laws of the State of Florida, Plaintiffs are treated differently from legally married opposite-sex couples solely because they are in same-sex relationships.
78. If Plaintiffs were legally married opposite-sex couples, they would not suffer any ofthe harms or potential harms enumerated above.
79. Defendants' deprivation ofPlaintiffs' constitutional rights under color ofstate law violates 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
80. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, which are of a continuing nature and will cause them irreparable harm.
81. The State of Florida will incur little to no burden in recognizing the valid marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions on the same terms as opposite-sex couples, whereas the hardship for Plaintiffs of being denied equal treatment IS severe, subjecting them to an irreparable denial of their constitutional and statutory rights.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
A. Enter a declaratory judgment that Article I, Section 27 of the Florida Constitution violates the Due Process, Equal Protection, Freedom of Association, Supremacy, and/or other clauses of the United States Constitution;
B. Enter a declaratory judgment that §741.212, Fla. Stat. (2013), violates the Due Process, Equal Protection, Freedom of Association, Supremacy, and/or other clauses of the United States Constitution;
C. Enter an order directing Defendants to recognize marriages validly entered into by the Plaintiff couples and other same-sex couples outside of the State of Florida;
13

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/28/14 Page 14 of 16
D. Enter an Order allowing Plaintiff Brenner to designate his spouse, Plaintiff Jones, as a recognized spouse or annuitant for purposes of his state retirement benefits;
E. Award costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
F. Enter any and all further relief this Court deems just and proper.

Elizabeth L. White, Esquire

Florida Bar No.: 314560

Matthew R. Kachergus, Esquire

Florida Bar No.: 503282

Bryan E. DeMaggio, Esquire

Florida Bar No.: 055712

Jonathan W. Graessle, Esquire

Florida Bar No.: 102640

Sheppard, White & Kachergus, P.A.

215 Washington Street

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

Telephone: (904) 356-9661

Facsimile: (904) 356-9667

Email:

sheplaw@att.net

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

Samuel Jacobson, Esquire Florida Bar No.: 39090 Bledsoe, Jacobson, Schmidt, Wright
Lang & Wilkinson 1301 Riverplace Blvd., Suite 1818 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Telephone: (904) 398-1818 Facsimile: (904) 398-7073 Email: sam@jacobsonwright.com CO-COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
14

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/28/14 Page 15 of 16

VERIFICATION

!
;
STATE OF FLORIDA }

} ss.

COUNTY OF LEON

}

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, this day personally appeared James Domer Brenner and Charles Dean Jones, who first being duly sworn, say they are the Plaintiffs in this cause; they have read the foregoing Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; have personal knowledge of the facts and matters set forth and alleged; and state that each and all these matters are true and correct.

s:rL.:~of Tbeforegoing instrumentwas acknowledgedbeforemethis

f<.brWHIj .

2014, by James Domer Brenner and Charles Dean Jones, who are l~ersonally known to me or

who provided _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ as identification and who did/did not take an oath.

\£a:r~~' fL-Notary Public - State of Florida
NATAliE S BROWN MY COMMISSION :lEE195746
EXPIRES: JUN 23. 2016 .

mlh[brenner.james.complaint]

15 1 ! I"

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 02/28/14 Page 16 of 16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished to Governor Rick Scott, State of Florida, The Capitol, 400 S. Monroe St., Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001; and two copies have been furnished to the Office ofAttorney General, State ofFlorida, The Capitol PL-O 1, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 by Certified Mail on this 28th day of February, 2014.
mlh[brenner.james.complaint]
16

 </s> Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 1 of 33
Page 1 of 33
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JAMES DOMER BRENNER et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CASE NO. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS

RICK SCOTT, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

SLOAN GRIMSLEY et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CASE NO. 4:14cv138-RH/CAS

RICK SCOTT, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS, GRANTING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND
TEMPORARILY STAYING THE INJUNCTION

Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 2 of 33
Page 2 of 33
The issue in these consolidated cases is the constitutionality of Florida’s refusal to allow same-sex marriages or to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully entered elsewhere.
The founders of this nation said in the preamble to the United States Constitution that a goal was to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. Liberty has come more slowly for some than for others. It was 1967, nearly two centuries after the Constitution was adopted, before the Supreme Court struck down state laws prohibiting interracial marriage, thus protecting the liberty of individuals whose chosen life partner was of a different race. Now, nearly 50 years later, the arguments supporting the ban on interracial marriage seem an obvious pretext for racism; it must be hard for those who were not then of age to understand just how sincerely those views were held. When observers look back 50 years from now, the arguments supporting Florida’s ban on same-sex marriage, though just as sincerely held, will again seem an obvious pretext for discrimination. Observers who are not now of age will wonder just how those views could have been held.
The Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act last year. United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013). Since that decision, 19 different federal courts, now including this one, have ruled on the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage. The result: 19 consecutive
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 3 of 33
Page 3 of 33
victories for those challenging the bans. Based on these decisions, gays and lesbians, like all other adults, may choose a life partner and dignify the relationship through marriage. To paraphrase a civil-rights leader from the age when interracial marriage was first struck down, the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.
These consolidated cases are here on the plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction and the defendants’ motions to dismiss. This order holds that marriage is a fundamental right as that term is used in cases arising under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, that Florida’s same-sex marriage provisions thus must be reviewed under strict scrutiny, and that, when so reviewed, the provisions are unconstitutional. The order dismisses the claims against unnecessary defendants but otherwise denies the motions to dismiss. The order grants a preliminary injunction but also grants a temporary stay.
All of this accords with the unbroken line of federal authority since Windsor. Indeed, except for details about these specific parties, this opinion could end at this point, merely by citing with approval the circuit decisions striking down state bans on same-sex marriage: Bostic v. Schaefer, Nos. 14–1167, 14–1169, 14–1173, 2014 WL 3702493 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014); Bishop v. Smith, Nos. 14–5003, 14–5006, 2014 WL 3537847 (10th Cir. July 18, 2014); and Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 13–4178, 2014 WL 2868044 (10th Cir. June 25, 2014).
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 4 of 33
Page 4 of 33
I. Background This order addresses two cases that have been consolidated for pretrial purposes. The order sometimes refers to Case No. 4:14cv107 as the “Brenner case.” The order sometimes refers to Case No. 4:14cv138 as the “Grimsley case.” A. The Plaintiffs The combined total of 22 plaintiffs in the two cases includes 9 sets of samesex spouses who were lawfully married in New York, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Massachusetts, or Canada; the surviving spouse of a New York same-sex marriage; 2 individuals who have been in a same-sex relationship for 15 years, are not married, but wish to marry in Florida; and an organization asserting the rights of its members who lawfully entered same-sex marriages outside Florida. All the individual plaintiffs live in Florida. The details follow. The first two Brenner-case plaintiffs are James D. Brenner and Charles D. Jones. Mr. Brenner has worked for the Florida Forest Service since 1981. Mr. Jones has worked for the Florida Department of Education since 2003. They were married in Canada in 2009. Mr. Brenner asserts that the state’s refusal to recognize their marriage eliminates a retirement option that would provide for Mr. Jones after Mr. Brenner’s death. Brenner-case plaintiffs Stephen Schlairet and Ozzie Russ live in Washington County, Florida. They are not married in any jurisdiction. They meet all
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 5 of 33
Page 5 of 33
requirements for marriage in Florida except that they are both men. They wish to marry and have applied to the defendant Washington County Clerk of Court for a marriage license. During breaks in employment, they have been unable to obtain healthcare coverage under one another’s insurance plans because of Florida’s challenged marriage provisions. Based solely on those provisions, the Clerk refuses to issue a license.
Grimsley-case plaintiffs Sloan Grimsley and Joyce Albu have been together for 9 years and were married in New York in 2011. They have two adopted minor children. Ms. Grimsley is a firefighter and paramedic for the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Ms. Grimsley and Ms. Albu are concerned that if something happens to Ms. Grimsley in the line of duty, Ms. Albu will not receive the same support the state provides to surviving opposite-sex spouses of first responders.
Grimsley-case plaintiffs Chuck Hunziker and Bob Collier have been together for over 50 years. They lived most of their lives in New York and were married there in 2013. They now are retired and live in Florida.
Grimsley-case plaintiffs Lindsay Myers and Sarah Humlie have been together for nearly 4 years and were married in the District of Columbia in 2012. They live in Pensacola, Florida. Ms. Myers works for the University of West Florida. Ms. Myers seeks the option to designate Ms. Humlie as her joint annuitant for pension purposes. Ms. Humlie does not receive health insurance through her
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 6 of 33
Page 6 of 33
employer. Because state law prohibits public employers from providing insurance for same-sex spouses, Ms. Myers cannot get coverage for Ms. Humlie on Ms. Myers’s health plan. The couple makes substantial payments each month for private health insurance for Ms. Humlie.
Grimsley-case plaintiffs Robert Loupo and John Fitzgerald have been together for 12 years. They were married in New York in 2013. Mr. Loupo is employed with the Miami-Dade County public schools. Mr. Fitzgerald is retired but previously worked for Miami-Dade County. Mr. Loupo wishes to designate Mr. Fitzgerald as his retirement-plan joint annuitant.
Grimsley-case plaintiffs Denise Hueso and Sandra Newson were married in Massachusetts in 2009. They lived in Massachusetts, but now they live in Miami. They have had custody of their now 15-year-old son for 5 years, first as foster parents and now as adoptive parents.
Grimsley-case plaintiffs Juan del Hierro and Thomas Gantt, Jr., have been together for 6 years and were married in Washington, D.C., in 2010. They live in North Miami Beach. They have an adopted son under age 2. Mr. Gantt taught for more than a decade in public schools but now works at a virtual school. If their marriage were recognized, Mr. Gantt would designate Mr. del Hierro as his pension beneficiary.
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 7 of 33
Page 7 of 33
Grimsley-case plaintiffs Christian Ulvert and Carlos Andrade live in Miami. They have been together for 4 years and were married in the District of Columbia in 2013. Mr. Ulvert previously worked for the Florida Legislature and wishes to designate Mr. Andrade as his pension beneficiary. They wish to someday adopt children.
Grimsley-case plaintiffs Richard Milstein and Eric Hankin live in Miami Beach. They have been together for 12 years and were married in Iowa in 2010.
Grimsley-case plaintiff Arlene Goldberg married Carol Goldwasser in New York in 2011. Ms. Goldwasser died in March 2014. The couple had been together for 47 years. Ms. Goldwasser was the toll-facilities director for Lee County, Florida, for 17 years. Ms. Goldberg is retired but works part time at a major retailer. The couple had been living with and taking care of Ms. Goldwasser’s elderly parents, but now Ms. Goldberg cares for them alone. Social-security benefits are Ms. Goldberg’s primary income. Florida’s refusal to recognize the marriage has precluded Ms. Goldberg from obtaining social-security survivor benefits. Ms. Goldberg says that for that reason only, she will have to sell her house, and Ms. Goldwasser’s parents are looking for another place to live. Ms. Goldberg also wishes to amend Ms. Goldwasser’s death certificate to reflect their marriage.
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 8 of 33
Page 8 of 33
Grimsley-case plaintiff SAVE Foundation, Inc. was established in 1993 and is dedicated to promoting, protecting, and defending equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people. SAVE’s activities include education initiatives, outreach, grassroots organizing, and advocacy. In this action SAVE asserts the rights of its members who are same-sex couples and have lawfully married outside of Florida.
B. The Defendants The Brenner and Grimsley cases have four defendants in common. The Brenner case adds a fifth. The defendants in common are State of Florida officers, all in their official capacities: the Governor, the Attorney General, the Surgeon General, and the Secretary of the Department of Management Services. This order sometimes refers to these four defendants as the “state defendants.” The order sometimes refers to the Secretary of the Department of Management Services as “the Secretary.” The fifth defendant in the Brenner case is the Clerk of Court of Washington County, Florida, again in his official capacity. This order sometimes refers to him as the “Clerk of Court” or simply “the Clerk.”
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 9 of 33
Page 9 of 33
C. The Claims In each case, the plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint. Each amended complaint asserts that the Florida same-sex marriage provisions violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. On the Equal Protection claim, the Brenner plaintiffs say the challenged provisions improperly discriminate based on sexual orientation, while the Grimsley plaintiffs assert improper discrimination based on both sexual orientation and sex (that is, gender). The Brenner plaintiffs assert additional claims based on the First Amendment’s right of association, the Establishment Clause, and the Supremacy Clause. D. The Challenged Provisions The Brenner and Grimsley plaintiffs all challenge Article I, § 27, of the Florida Constitution, and Florida Statutes § 741.212. The Brenner plaintiffs also challenge Florida Statutes § 741.04(1). Article I, § 27 provides:
Marriage defined.—Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized. Florida Statutes § 741.212 provides:
(1) Marriages between persons of the same sex entered into in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction, either
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 10 of 33
Page 10 of 33
domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, or relationships between persons of the same sex which are treated as marriages in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, are not recognized for any purpose in this state.
(2) The state, its agencies, and its political subdivisions may not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any state, territory, possession, or tribe of the United States or of any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location respecting either a marriage or relationship not recognized under subsection (1) or a claim arising from such a marriage or relationship.
(3) For purposes of interpreting any state statute or rule, the term “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the term “spouse” applies only to a member of such a union.
Florida Statutes § 741.04(1) provides:
No county court judge or clerk of the circuit court in this state shall issue a license for the marriage of any person . . . unless one party is male and the other party is female.
E. The Pending Motions
In each case, the plaintiffs have moved for a preliminary injunction barring
enforcement of the challenged provisions. The defendants oppose the motions and
assert that if a preliminary injunction is granted, it should be stayed pending
appeal.
In each case, the state defendants have moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. They do not contest the standing of most of the plaintiffs to bring these
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 11 of 33
Page 11 of 33
cases. They acknowledge that the Secretary of the Department of Management Services is a proper defendant, but they assert that the Governor, Attorney General, and Surgeon General are not. They say these defendants have no role in enforcing the challenged provisions. On the merits, the state defendants say the state’s samesex marriage provisions are constitutional.
The Clerk of Court has moved to dismiss the Brenner amended complaint— the only one in which the Clerk is named as a defendant—on the ground that he has done nothing more than comply with state law, that he therefore is not a proper defendant, and that, in any event, the state’s same-sex marriage provisions are constitutional.
All parties have agreed that these motions should be decided based on the existing record, without further evidence.
II. Standing The plaintiffs whose financial interests are directly affected by the Florida marriage provisions plainly have standing to challenge them. This apparently includes most or all of the individual plaintiffs. The effect is the most direct for current or former public employees who are unable to obtain for themselves or their spouses the same benefits—primarily retirement benefits and healthcare coverage—as are available to opposite-sex couples. The defendants do not challenge the plaintiffs’ standing in this respect.
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 12 of 33
Page 12 of 33
The defendants question only Ms. Goldberg’s standing to pursue a change in Ms. Goldwasser’s death certificate or to seek social-security benefits based on their marriage. But Ms. Goldberg has standing on each basis. The death certificate says Ms. Goldwasser was “never married” and, in the blank for listing a spouse, says “none.” That a spouse would find this offensive and seek to have it changed is neither surprising nor trivial. Ms. Goldberg has a sufficient personal stake in pursuing this relief to have standing.
III. The Proper Defendants Under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), a plaintiff may pursue a federal constitutional claim for prospective relief against an official-capacity state defendant who “is responsible for the challenged action” or who, “ ‘by virtue of his office, has some connection’ with the unconstitutional act or conduct complained of.” Luckey v. Harris, 860 F.2d 1012, 1015-16 (11th Cir. 1988) (quoting Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. at 157). The state defendants acknowledge that the Secretary meets this test. The Secretary administers the retirement and healthcare provisions that apply to current and former state employees. As required by the challenged provisions, the Secretary refuses to recognize same-sex marriages. The plaintiffs assert that the Secretary thus violates the United States Constitution.
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 13 of 33
Page 13 of 33
The Surgeon General also meets the test. The Surgeon General is the head of the Department of Health. The Surgeon General thus must “execute the powers, duties, and functions” of the department. Fla. Stat. § 20.05(1)(a). Those functions include establishing the official form for death certificates, which must include the decedent’s “marital status.” Id. § 382.008(6). The official form includes a blank for listing the decedent’s spouse. The Department may change a death certificate’s marital information when the name of a “surviving spouse” is omitted or based on an order from “a court of competent jurisdiction.” Id. § 382.016(2). This is a court of competent jurisdiction, Ms. Goldberg seeks such an order, and the person to whom such an order should properly be directed is the Surgeon General. He is a proper defendant in this action.
Whether the Governor and Attorney General are proper defendants is less clear. It also makes no difference. As the state defendants acknowledge, an order directed to the Secretary—or, for matters relating to the death certificate, to the Surgeon General—will be sufficient to provide complete relief. The Eleventh Circuit has held that a district court may dismiss claims against redundant officialcapacity defendants. See Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764, 776 (11th Cir. 1991) (approving the dismissal of official-capacity defendants whose presence was merely redundant to the naming of an institutional defendant). The prudent course here is to dismiss the Governor and Attorney General on this basis. See generally
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 14 of 33
Page 14 of 33
Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 341, 345-46 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring) (setting out fundamental principles of constitutional adjudication, including that, “The Court will not ‘anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it’ ”) (quoting earlier authorities in part); see also Lyng v. Nw. Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n, 485 U.S. 439, 445 (1988) (“A fundamental and longstanding principle of judicial restraint requires that courts avoid reaching constitutional questions in advance of the necessity of deciding them.”), quoted with approval in United States v. $242,484.00, 318 F.3d 1240, 1242 n.2 (11th Cir. 2003).
If it turns out later that complete relief cannot be afforded against the Secretary and Surgeon General, any necessary and proper additional defendant can be added.
Finally, the Clerk of Court for Washington County is plainly a proper defendant. The Clerk denied a marriage license to Mr. Schlairet and Mr. Russ and would properly be ordered to issue the license if they prevail on their claims in this action. That the Clerk was acting in accordance with state law does not mean he is not a proper defendant. Quite the contrary. The whole point of Ex parte Young is to provide a remedy for unconstitutional action that is taken under state authority, including, as here, a state constitution or laws.
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 15 of 33
Page 15 of 33
In sum, this action will go forward against the Secretary, the Surgeon General, and the Clerk. The claims against the Governor and Attorney General will be dismissed without prejudice as redundant.
IV. The Merits The Fourteenth Amendment provides, among other things, that a state shall not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The amendment was added to the Constitution after the Civil War for the express purpose of protecting rights against encroachment by state governments. By that time it was well established that a federal court had the authority—indeed, the duty—to strike down an unconstitutional statute when necessary to the decision in a case or controversy properly before the court. The State of Florida has itself asked federal courts to do so. So the suggestion that this is just a federalism case— that the state’s laws are beyond review in federal court—is a nonstarter. That this case involves marriage does not change this result. The Supreme Court recognized this in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). There the Court struck down a Virginia statute that prohibited interracial marriage. The defendants say interracial marriage is different from same-sex marriage. But on the question of whether a federal court has the authority—indeed, the duty—to strike down a state marriage provision if it conflicts with a party’s rights under the Fourteenth
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 16 of 33
Page 16 of 33
Amendment, Loving is on point and controlling. So are Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978), and Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), where the Court invalidated state provisions restricting marriage. Further, in Windsor, the Court said—three times—that a state’s interest “in defining and regulating marital relations” is “subject to constitutional guarantees.” 133 S. Ct. at 2691, 2692. In short, it is settled that a state’s marriage provisions must comply with the Fourteenth Amendment and may be struck down when they do not.
It bears noting, too, that the defendants’ invocation of Florida’s prerogative as a state to set the rules that govern marriage loses some of its force when the issue raised by 20 of the 22 plaintiffs is the validity of marriages lawfully entered in other jurisdictions. The defendants do not explain why, if a state’s laws on marriage are indeed entitled to such deference, the State of Florida is free to ignore the decisions of other equally sovereign states, including New York, Iowa, and Massachusetts.
In sum, the critical issue is whether the challenged Florida provisions contravene the plaintiffs’ rights to due process and equal protection. The general framework that applies to such claims is well settled.
First, the Due Process Clause includes a substantive element—a check on a state’s authority to enact certain measures regardless of any procedural safeguards the state may provide. Substantive due process is an exceedingly narrow concept
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 17 of 33
Page 17 of 33
that protects only fundamental rights. When governmental action impinges on fundamental rights and is challenged in a case properly before a court, the court reviews the governmental action with strict scrutiny. Whether some actions that impinge on fundamental rights are properly subject to a lower level of scrutiny— sometimes labeled intermediate scrutiny—is unsettled and ultimately makes no difference here.
Second, under the Equal Protection Clause, a court applies strict scrutiny to governmental actions that impinge on fundamental rights or employ suspect classifications. Most other governmental actions are subject to only rational-basis review. Some actions are properly subject to intermediate equal-protection scrutiny, but the scope of actions subject to intermediate scrutiny is unsettled and ultimately makes no difference here.
So the first step in analyzing the merits in these cases, as both sides agree, is determining whether the right asserted by the plaintiffs is a fundamental right as that term is used in due-process and equal-protection jurisprudence. Almost every court that has addressed the issue since the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Windsor has said the answer is yes. That view is correct.
The right asserted by the plaintiffs is the right to marry. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that this is a fundamental right. Thus, for example, in Loving, the Court held that Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage violated the Due
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 18 of 33
Page 18 of 33
Process and Equal Protection Clauses, even though similar bans were widespread and of long standing. The Court did not cast the issue as whether the right to interracial marriage was fundamental. See Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 1202 (D. Utah 2013) (“Instead of declaring a new right to interracial marriage, the Court held [in Loving] that individuals could not be restricted from exercising their existing right to marry on account of the race of their chosen partner.”).
Similarly, in Zablocki, the Court labeled the right to marry fundamental and struck down, on equal-protection grounds, a Wisconsin statute that prohibited residents with unpaid court-ordered child-support obligations from entering new marriages. The Court did not ask whether the right not to pay child support was fundamental, or whether the right to marry while owing child support was fundamental; the Court started and ended its analysis on this issue with the accepted principle that the right to marry is fundamental.
The Court took the same approach in Turner. A Missouri regulation prohibited prisoners from marrying other than for a compelling reason. The Court said the state’s interests in regulating its prisons were insufficient to overcome the prisoners’ fundamental right to marry. The Court did not ask whether there is a fundamental right to marry while in prison, as distinguished from the more general right to marry.
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 19 of 33
Page 19 of 33
In other cases, too, the Court has said the right to marry is fundamental. Indeed, the Court has sometimes listed marriage as the very paradigm of a fundamental right. See, e.g., Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997) (refusing to recognize assisted suicide as a fundamental right, listing rights that do qualify as fundamental, and placing the right to marry first on the list); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485–86 (1965) (including the right to marry in the fundamental right to privacy); Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942) (labeling marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man”); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923) (saying that “[w]ithout doubt” the right “to marry” is within the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause); Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205 (1888) (labeling marriage “the most important relation in life”).
Perhaps recognizing these authorities, the defendants do not, and could not plausibly, assert that the right to marry is not a fundamental right for due-process and equal-protection purposes. Few rights are more fundamental. The defendants assert, though, that the right at issue in the cases at bar is the right to marry a person of the same sex, not just the right to marry. In support of this assertion, the defendants cite a principle derived from Glucksberg: due-process analysis requires a “ ‘careful description’ of the asserted fundamental liberty interest.” 521 U.S. at 721 (citing Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 302 (1993)).
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 20 of 33
Page 20 of 33
A careful description means only an accurate one, determined at the appropriate level of generality. Indeed, Glucksberg itself said the right to marry is fundamental, describing the right at that level of generality. 521 U.S. at 720. And Loving, Zablocki, and Turner applied the right to marry at that level of generality, without asking whether the specific application of the right to marry— to interracial marriage or debtor marriage or prisoner marriage—was fundamental when viewed in isolation.
This approach makes sense. The point of fundamental-rights analysis is to protect an individual’s liberty against unwarranted governmental encroachment. So it is a two-step analysis: is the right fundamental, and, if so, is the government encroachment unwarranted (that is, does the encroachment survive strict scrutiny)? At the first step, the right to marry—to choose one’s own spouse—is just as important to an individual regardless of whom the individual chooses to marry. So the right to marry is just as important when the proposed spouse is a person of the same race and different sex (as in the most common marriages, those that have been approved without controversy for the longest period), or a person of a different race (as in Loving), or a person with unpaid child-support obligations (as in Zablocki), or a prisoner (as in Turner), or a person of the same sex (as in the cases at bar).
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 21 of 33
Page 21 of 33
It is only at the second step—on the question of whether the government encroachment is unwarranted—that the nature of the restriction becomes critical. The governmental interest in overriding a person’s fundamental right to marry may be different in these different situations—that certainly was the case in Zablocki and Turner, for example—but that is a different issue from whether the right itself is fundamental. The right to marry is as fundamental for the plaintiffs in the cases at bar as for any other person wishing to enter a marriage or have it recognized.
That leaves for analysis the second step, the application of strict scrutiny. A state may override a fundamental right through measures that are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. A variety of justifications for banning samesex marriages have been proffered by these defendants and in the many other cases that have plowed this ground since Windsor. The proffered justifications have all been uniformly found insufficient. Indeed, the states’ asserted interests would fail even intermediate scrutiny, and many courts have said they would fail rationalbasis review as well. On these issues the circuit decisions in Bostic, Bishop, and Kitchen are particularly persuasive. All that has been said there is not repeated here.
Just one proffered justification for banning same-sex marriage warrants a further note. The defendants say the critical feature of marriage is the capacity to procreate. Same-sex couples, like opposite-sex couples and single individuals, can
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 22 of 33
Page 22 of 33
adopt, but same-sex couples cannot procreate. Neither can many opposite-sex couples. And many opposite-sex couples do not wish to procreate.
Florida has never conditioned marriage on the desire or capacity to procreate. Thus individuals who are medically unable to procreate can marry in Florida. If married elsewhere, their marriages are recognized in Florida. The same is true for individuals who are beyond child-bearing age. And individuals who have the capacity to procreate when married but who voluntarily or involuntarily become medically unable to procreate, or pass the age when they can do so, are allowed to remain married. In short, the notion that procreation is an essential element of a Florida marriage blinks reality.
Indeed, defending the ban on same-sex marriage on the ground that the capacity to procreate is the essence of marriage is the kind of position that, in another context, might support a finding of pretext. It is the kind of argument that, in another context, might be “accompanied by a suspicion of mendacity.” St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 511 (1993). The undeniable truth is that the Florida ban on same-sex marriage stems entirely, or almost entirely, from moral disapproval of the practice. Properly analyzed, the ban must stand or fall on the proposition that the state can enforce that moral disapproval without violating the Fourteenth Amendment.
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 23 of 33
Page 23 of 33
The difficulty for the defendants is that the Supreme Court has made clear that moral disapproval, standing alone, cannot sustain a provision of this kind. Windsor so indicates. Further, in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), the Court upheld a state law prohibiting sodomy, basing the decision on the state’s prerogative to make moral choices of this kind. But later, in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), the Court revisited the issue, struck down a statute prohibiting gay sex, and expressly overruled Bowers. In his Lawrence dissent, Justice Scalia made precisely the point set out above—that a ban on same-sex marriage must stand or fall on the proposition that the state can enforce moral disapproval of the practice without violating the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Scalia put it this way: “State laws against . . . same-sex marriage . . . are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices.” Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 590 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Had we begun with a clean slate, one might have expected the defendants to lead off their arguments in this case by invoking the state’s moral disapproval of same-sex marriage. But the defendants did not start there, undoubtedly because any such defense would run headlong into the Supreme Court’s decisions in Lawrence and Windsor. See also Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (striking down a state constitutional amendment that discriminated based on sexual orientation). Each of these decisions rejected moral disapproval of same-sex
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 24 of 33
Page 24 of 33
orientation as a legitimate basis for a law. See also Bowers, 478 U.S. at 216 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.”).
In short, we do not write on a clean slate. Effectively stripped of the moraldisapproval argument by binding Supreme Court precedent, the defendants must fall back on make-weight arguments that do not withstand analysis. Florida’s same-sex marriage provisions violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
In reaching this conclusion, I have not overlooked the defendants’ reliance on Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), and Lofton v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2004).
In Baker, the Supreme Court dismissed for want of a substantial federal question an appeal from a state supreme court decision rejecting a constitutional challenge to the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Such a summary disposition binds lower federal courts unless “doctrinal developments” in the Supreme Court undermine the decision. See Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344-45 (1975) (holding that a summary disposition binds lower courts “except when doctrinal developments indicate otherwise”) (quoting Port Auth. Bondholders Protective
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 25 of 33
Page 25 of 33
Comm. v. Port of New York Auth., 387 F.2d 259, 263 n.3 (2d Cir. 1967) (Friendly,
J.)). The Eleventh Circuit has recognized this principle:
Doctrinal developments need not take the form of an outright reversal of the earlier case. The Supreme Court may indicate its willingness to reverse or reconsider a prior opinion with such clarity that a lower court may properly refuse to follow what appears to be binding precedent. Even less clearcut expressions by the Supreme Court can erode an earlier summary disposition because summary actions by the Court do not carry the full precedential weight of a decision announced in a written opinion after consideration of briefs and oral argument. The Court could suggest that a legal issue once thought to be settled by a summary action should now be treated as an open question, and it could do so without directly mentioning the earlier case. At that point, lower courts could appropriately reach their own conclusions on the merits of the issue.
Hardwick v. Bowers, 760 F.2d 1202 (11th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted), rev’d on
other grounds, Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), overruled by Lawrence
v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
Every court that has considered the issue has concluded that the intervening
doctrinal developments—as set out in Lawrence, Romer, and Windsor—have
sapped Baker’s precedential force.
In Lofton, the plaintiffs challenged a Florida statute that prohibited adoptions
by gays. Circuit precedent held, and both sides agreed, that adoption was not a
fundamental right. The court said sexual orientation was not a suspect
classification. With no fundamental right and no suspect classification, the court
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 26 of 33
Page 26 of 33
applied only rational-basis scrutiny, not strict or intermediate scrutiny. And the court said that, because of the primacy of a child’s welfare, “the state can make classifications for adoption purposes that would be constitutionally suspect in other arenas.” 358 F.3d at 810. The court criticized the Supreme Court’s Lawrence decision, 358 F.3d at 816-17, and apparently gave it little or no sway. The court upheld the Florida statute. The statute—the last in the nation banning gay adoption—was later struck down by Florida’s own courts. See Florida Dep’t of Children & Families v. Adoption of X.X.G., 45 So. 3d 79, 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
The plaintiffs argue, with considerable force, that Lofton does not square with Lawrence, Romer, and Windsor. But Lofton is the law of the circuit. It establishes that, at least for now, sexual orientation is not a suspect classification in this circuit for equal-protection purposes. But Lofton says nothing about whether marriage is a fundamental right. Lofton does not change the conclusion that Florida’s same-sex marriage provisions violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
The institution of marriage survived when bans on interracial marriage were struck down, and the institution will survive when bans on same-sex marriage are struck down. Liberty, tolerance, and respect are not zero-sum concepts. Those who enter opposite-sex marriages are harmed not at all when others, including these plaintiffs, are given the liberty to choose their own life partners and are
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 27 of 33
Page 27 of 33
shown the respect that comes with formal marriage. Tolerating views with which one disagrees is a hallmark of civilized society.
V. Preliminary Injunction As a prerequisite to a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction does not issue, that the threatened injury outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause a defendant, and that the injunction will not be adverse to the public interest. See, e.g., Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found., Inc. v. Cox, 408 F.3d 1349, 1354 (11th Cir. 2005); Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). For the reasons set out above, the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits. The plaintiffs also meet the other requirements for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not issued. Indeed, the ongoing unconstitutional denial of a fundamental right almost always constitutes irreparable harm. The threatened injury to the plaintiffs outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the defendants, that is, the state. And a preliminary injunction will not be adverse to the public interest. Vindicating constitutional rights almost always serves the public interest. This order requires the plaintiffs’ to give security for costs in a modest amount. Any party may move at any time to adjust the amount of security.
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 28 of 33
Page 28 of 33
VI. Stay A four-part test governs stays pending appeal: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). See also Venus Lines Agency v. CVG Industria Venezolana De Aluminio, C.A., 210 F.3d 1309, 1313 (11th Cir. 2000) (applying the same test). The four-part test closely tracks the four-part test governing issuance of a preliminary injunction. Because the governing four-part tests are so similar, it is a rare case in which a preliminary injunction is properly stayed pending appeal. This is the rare case. As set out above, the state’s interest in refusing to allow or recognize the plaintiffs’ same-sex marriages is insufficient to override the plaintiffs’ interest in vindicating their constitutional rights. The public interest does not call for a different result. So the preliminary injunction will issue, eliminating any delay in this court, and allowing an enjoined party to go forward in the Eleventh Circuit. But at the stay-pending-appeal stage, an additional public interest comes into play. There is a substantial public interest in implementing this decision just once—in not having, as some states have had, a decision that is on-again, off-
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 29 of 33
Page 29 of 33
again. This is so for marriages already entered elsewhere, and it is more clearly so for new marriages. There is a substantial public interest in stable marriage laws. Indeed, there is a substantial public interest in allowing those who would enter same-sex marriages the same opportunity for due deliberation that opposite-sex couples routinely are afforded. Encouraging a rush to the marriage officiant, in an effort to get in before an appellate court enters a stay, serves the interests of nobody.
A stay thus should be entered for long enough to provide reasonable assurance that the opportunity for same-sex marriages in Florida, once opened, will not again close. The stay will remain in effect until stays have been lifted in Bostic, Bishop, and Kitchen, and for an additional 90 days to allow the defendants to seek a longer stay from this court or a stay from the Eleventh Circuit or Supreme Court.
There is one exception to the stay. The exception is the requirement to correct Ms. Goldwasser’s death certificate. The correction is important to Ms. Goldberg. There is little if any public interest on the other side of the scale. There is no good reason to further deny Ms. Goldberg the simple human dignity of being listed on her spouse’s death certificate. Indeed, the state’s refusal to let that happen is a poignant illustration of the controversy that brings us here.
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 30 of 33
Page 30 of 33
VII. Filing Because this is an appealable order, it will be filed separately in each of the consolidated cases. Any notice of appeal must be filed separately in each case to which it applies.
VIII. Conclusion The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the fundamental right to marry. The Court applied the right to interracial marriage in 1967 despite state laws that were widespread and of long standing. Just last year the Court struck down a federal statute that prohibited federal recognition of same-sex marriages lawfully entered in other jurisdictions. The Florida provisions that prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages lawfully entered elsewhere, like the federal provision, are unconstitutional. So is the Florida ban on entering same-sex marriages. For the reasons set out in this order, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The state defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 50 in Case No. 4:14cv107, is granted in part and denied in part. All claims against the defendant Governor and Attorney General are dismissed without prejudice as redundant. I do not direct the entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). In all other respects the motion to dismiss is denied.
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 31 of 33
Page 31 of 33
2. The defendant Clerk of Court’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 49 in Case No. 4:14cv107, is denied.
3. The plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction, ECF Nos. 2, 11, and 42 in Case No. 4:14cv107, are granted against the remaining defendants.
4. The defendant Secretary of the Florida Department of Management Services and the defendant Florida Surgeon General must take no steps to enforce or apply these Florida provisions on same-sex marriage: Florida Constitution, Article I, § 27; Florida Statutes § 741.212; and Florida Statutes § 741.04(1). The preliminary injunction set out in this paragraph will take effect upon the posting of security in the amount of $500 for costs and damages sustained by a party found to have been wrongfully enjoined. The preliminary injunction binds the Secretary, the Surgeon General, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys—and others in active concert or participation with any of them—who receive actual notice of this injunction by personal service or otherwise.
5. The defendant Florida Surgeon General must issue a corrected death certificate for Carol Goldwasser showing that at the time of her death she was married to Arlene Goldberg. The deadline for doing so is the later of (a) September 22, 2014, or (b) 14 days after all information is provided that would be required in the ordinary course of business as a prerequisite to listing an oppositesex spouse on a death certificate. The preliminary injunction set out in this
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 32 of 33
Page 32 of 33
paragraph will take effect upon the posting of security in the amount of $100 for costs and damages sustained by a party found to have been wrongfully enjoined. The preliminary injunction binds the Surgeon General and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys—and others in active concert or participation with any of them—who receive actual notice of this injunction by personal service or otherwise.
6. The defendant Clerk of Court of Washington County, Florida, must issue a marriage license to Stephen Schlairet and Ozzie Russ. The deadline for doing so is the later of (a) 21 days after any stay of this preliminary injunction expires or (b) 14 days after all information is provided and all steps are taken that would be required in the ordinary course of business as a prerequisite to issuing a marriage license to an opposite-sex couple. The preliminary injunction set out in this paragraph will take effect upon the posting of security in the amount of $100 for costs and damages sustained by a party found to have been wrongfully enjoined. The preliminary injunction binds the Clerk of Court and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys—and others in active concert or participation with any of them—who receive actual notice of this injunction by personal service or otherwise. The preliminary injunctions set out in paragraphs 4 and 6 are stayed and will not take effect until 91 days after stays have been denied or lifted in Bostic v. Schaefer,
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 74 Filed 08/21/14 Page 33 of 33
Page 33 of 33
Nos. 14–1167, 14–1169, 14–1173, 2014 WL 3702493 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014); Bishop v. Smith, Nos. 14–5003, 14–5006, 2014 WL 3537847 (10th Cir. July 18, 2014); and Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 13–4178, 2014 WL 2868044 (10th Cir. June 25, 2014). The stay may be lifted or extended by further order.
SO ORDERED on August 21, 2014. s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

 </s> Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 16 Filed 04/10/14 Page 1 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

SLOAN GRIMSLEY a nd J OYCE A LBU; BOB COL LIER and CHUCK H UNZIKER; LINDSAY MYERS a nd S ARAH HUMLIE; ROBERT LOUPO and JOHN FITZGERALD; DENISE H UESO a nd S ANDRA NEWSON; JUAN DEL HIERRO and THOMAS GANTT, JR.; CHRISTIAN UL VERT a nd CARL OS ANDRADE; RICHARD M ILSTEIN a nd ERIC HA NKIN; ARLENE GO LDBERG; and SAVE FOUNDATION, INC.,

Case No. 4:14-CV-00138-RH-CAS

Plaintiffs, v.

RICK S COTT, i n his o fficial capacity as Governor for the State of Florida; PAM B ONDI, i n h er o fficial c apacity as Attorney General for the State of Florida, JOHN H. ARM STRONG, i n his o fficial capacity as Surgeon G eneral and S ecretary o f Health for the State of Florida; and CRAIG J . NICHOLS, in h is o fficial c apacity as t he A gency S ecretary f or t he F lorida Department of Management Services,

Defendants.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs are sam e-sex co uples w ho w ere l awfully m arried outside the S tate of Florida. They bring this action to challenge the constitutionality of Article I, § 27 of the Florida

Page 1 of 23

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 16 Filed 04/10/14 Page 2 of 23
Constitution and § 741.212, Fla. Stat., which prohibit the State of Florida from recognizing the marriages o f sam e-sex c ouples that w ere e ntered i nto i n o ther jurisdictions. Florida, lik e o ther states, encourages and regulates marriage through hundreds of laws that provide benefits to and impose obl igations on married c ouples. I n e xchange, Florida r eceives t he w ell-established benefits th at marriage b rings: s table, s upportive f amilies th at c ontribute to b oth the s ocial a nd economic well-being of the State. It is because of the well-recognized benefits of marriage that Florida has traditionally recognized lawful marriages performed in other states.
2. Florida’s refusal to recognize Plaintiffs’ marriages unlawfully denies them many of t he l egal pr otections a vailable t o di fferent-sex c ouples, including, but not l imited to, the automatic right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, access to health insurance and retirement benefits, property protections, and inheritance.
3. The refusal to recognize Plaintiffs’ marriages undermines the couples’ ability to achieve their life goals and dreams, threatens their mutual economic stability, and denies them “a dignity and status of immense import.” United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2692 ( 2013). Moreover, they and their families are stigmatized and relegated to a second-class status by being barred from marriage, a bar that serves no legitimate state interest. The exclusion “tells [samesex] c ouples a nd a ll t he w orld t hat t heir ot herwise va lid r elationships a re un worthy” of recognition. Id. at 2694. And it “humiliates . . . c hildren now being raised by same-sex couples” and “ makes i t e ven more di fficult f or t he c hildren t o unde rstand t he i ntegrity a nd c loseness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Id.
4. Florida’s exclusion of m arried s ame-sex c ouples f rom t he pr otections and responsibilities of marriage violates the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of
Page 2 of 23

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 16 Filed 04/10/14 Page 3 of 23
the F ourteenth A mendment to th e U nited S tates C onstitution. T his d iscriminatory tre atment directly impacts the fundamental right to marry and is not necessary to serve a compelling state interest.
5. Florida’s r efusal to r ecognize t he m arriages of same-sex co uples d iscriminates against such couples on the basis of sexual orientation. It also discriminates against such couples on the basis of sex because the discrimination is based on the sexes of the spouses.
6. The State’s discrimination against Plaintiffs and other married same-sex couples is not necessary to serve a compelling state interest, nor is it substantially related to an important state interest. Indeed, it is not rationally related to the furtherance of any legitimate state interest.
7. Pursuant to 42 U .S.C. § 1983 , Plaintiffs seek : ( a) a de claration t hat Florida’s refusal to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples validly entered into outside of the State violates the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to th e U nited States C onstitution insofar as Florida r efuses to t reat sa me-sex couples l egally married i n o ther j urisdictions t he same as d ifferent-sex c ouples; a nd (b ) preliminary a nd permanent injunctions directing Defendants t o legally recognize Plaintiffs’ marriages validly entered into outside of the State of Florida.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. Plaintiffs bring t his a ction pur suant t o 42 U .S.C. § 1983 f or vi olations of c ivil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
9. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) (civil rights).
10. Venue i s pr oper i n t he Northern D istrict of F lorida unde r 28 U .S.C. § 1391( b) because Defendants reside in this district.
Page 3 of 23

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 16 Filed 04/10/14 Page 4 of 23
THE PARTIES A. Plaintiffs
Sloan Grimsley and Joyce Albu 11. Plaintiffs S loan G rimsley a nd J oyce A lbu w ere m arred i n N ew Y ork i n A ugust
2011. They ha ve be en together for 9 ye ars a nd live in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. They are raising two young daughters, ages 2 and 5, whom they adopted. Joyce also has two grown sons. Sloan is a f irefighter and paramedic for the City of Palm Beach Gardens. Joyce is a consultant for c hildren l iving w ith a utism, A sperger’s S yndrome, A DHD, a nd ot her n eurodevelopmental disorders. Joyce and Sloan also own a f arm where families in which some members are living with ne urodevelopmental di sorders can e ngage i n a va riety of t herapeutic activities. Jo yce an d Sloan are concerned that if something were to happen to Sloan in the line of duty, Joyce would not receive the same support provided by t he State to surviving spouses of first responders who might be killed in the line of duty.
Bob Collier and Chuck Hunziker 12. Plaintiffs Chuck H unziker a nd B ob C ollier w ere m arried in N ew Y ork in J uly
2013. They have been together for over 50 years and live in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Bob is 79 years old, and Chuck is 81 ye ars old. Bob served as a Captain in the U.S. Army in the medical corps in t he 82 nd Airborne D ivision a nd S pecial F orces d uring t he V ietnam War. C huck i s a disabled veteran; he served as an enlisted man in the Navy during the Korean War and spent 18 months in Naval and VA hospitals. For most of their professional lives, Bob and Chuck worked in New York, Chuck for Mobil Corporation and Bob for MetLife, Inc. Having retired in Florida,
Page 4 of 23

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 16 Filed 04/10/14 Page 5 of 23
they are now involved in local charities, including Tuesday’s Angels (which provides emergency assistance to individuals living with HIV/AIDS). Lindsay Myers and Sarah Humlie
13. Plaintiffs Lindsay Myers and Sarah Humlie were married in Washington, D.C., in December 2012. They have been together for 3 ½ ye ars and live in Pensacola, Florida. Lindsay has a m aster’s d egree i n t heology and c urrently w orks f or t he U niversity of W est F lorida a s a digital content producer for WUWF, a university-licensed NPR affiliate. Lindsay would like the option of designating Sarah as her joint annuitant for pension purposes. Sarah is the Executive Director of the Pensacola Humane Society. Sarah does not receive health insurance through her employer. Because state law prohibits public employers from providing insurance for same-sex spouses of employees, Lindsay cannot get coverage for Sarah on her health insurance plan. As a result, the couple must pay hundreds of dollars per month for private health insurance for Sarah. Robert Loupo and John Fitzgerald
14. Plaintiffs R obert L oupo a nd J ohn F itzgerald w ere married i n N ew Y ork i n November 2013. T hey ha ve be en together f or 1 2 ye ars a nd l ive in C oconut G rove in M iami, Florida. R obert ha s be en a s chool c ounselor f or M iami-Dade C ounty P ublic S chools f or approximately fourteen years and served before that for fourteen years as a high school English teacher. John is retired and worked previously in customer service for Delta Airlines and in the Administrative Office of the Courts for Miami-Dade County in the Traffic Division.
Page 5 of 23

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 16 Filed 04/10/14 Page 6 of 23
Denise Hueso and Sandra Newson
15. Plaintiffs D enise H ueso an d S andra N ewson were m arried i n Massach usetts in August 2009. They have been together for 17 y ears. They live in Miami, Florida. Denise is the lead clinical care coordinator for the Alliance for GLBTQ Youth, which offers support services for L GBT youth. S andra i s t he V ice P resident of R esidence S ervices a t C arrfour S upportive Housing, a n or ganization t hat c onfronts hom elessness by d eveloping a ffordable hous ing a nd providing supportive services as a pathway to self-sufficiency. Together they have a 15-year-old son w hom they h ave ca red f or si nce h e w as 1 0 y ears o ld, f irst a s f oster pa rents and t hen as adoptive pa rents. Sandra an d D enise u sed t o l ive i n Massac husetts, w here t heir m arriage w as recognized, but they lost that recognition when they moved to Florida to be closer to family to help care for their son.
Juan del Hierro and Thomas Gantt, Jr.
16. Plaintiffs J uan de l H ierro a nd T homas Gantt, Jr., w ere m arried i n W ashington, D.C., in December 2010. Before that, they held a symbolic ceremony before friends and family in M iami i n J uly 2010. They ha ve been t ogether f or 6 years an d l ive in N orth M iami B each, Florida. J uan is the D irector o f M inistry E mpowerment fo r U nity o n th e B ay, a s piritual community i n M iami. Tom t eaches s cience a t a vi rtual s chool, ha ving t aught f or m ore t han a decade in public schools. Their son Lucas, whom they adopted, is fifteen months old. If Tom’s marriage to Juan were recognized, Tom would designate Juan as his pension beneficiary.
Christian Ulvert and Carlos Andrade
17. Plaintiffs Christian Ulvert and Carlos Andrade were married in Washington, D.C., in J uly 201 3. T hey ha ve be en t ogether f or f our ye ars a nd l ive in M iami, F lorida. C hristian
Page 6 of 23

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 16 Filed 04/10/14 Page 7 of 23
previously worked in the state legislature and now works as a political consultant; if given the option, C hristian w ould de signate Carlos a s h is pe nsion b eneficiary. C arlos is the n ew m edia director of EDGE Communications and also owns an online jewelry store. Christian and Carlos would like to have children one day.
Richard Milstein and Eric Hankin
18. Plaintiffs Richard Milstein and Eric Hankin were married in Iowa in March 2010. They have been together for 12 years and live in Miami Beach, Florida. Richard is an attorney who sp ecializes i n t rusts, est ates, a nd f amily s ervices, w ith a p articular f ocus o n v ulnerable adults and children. Richard has been an active leader in the Florida and Dade County Bars and in th e M iami-Dade c ommunity f or de cades, v olunteering numerous hour s t o a va riety of c ivic causes. E ric i s an ar chitect w ho cu rrently t eaches ar chitecture an d d esign i n a nationally recognized magnet public school in Miami.
Arlene Goldberg
19. Plaintiff A rlene G oldberg married C arol Goldwasser in N ew Y ork i n O ctober 2011. Carol died on March 13, 2014, a fter she and Arlene had been together for 47 years. Carol was t he t oll f acilities director for L ee C ounty, F lorida for 17 years. Arlene is re tired from h er previous position as a facilities manager for a call center and currently works part time at Target. Arlene and Carol had been living with and taking care of Carol’s parents, ages 89 and 92, b ut now Arlene is caring for them alone. Arlene’s primary income is her Social Security payment; Carol ha d been r eceiving a hi gher S ocial S ecurity pa yment. Because F lorida’s m arriage recognition ban pr ecludes A rlene f rom obt aining S ocial S ecurity s urvivor’s b enefits, s he has been concerned th at s he w ill n ot b e a ble to p roperly c are f or h erself o r C arol’s p arents, a nd
Page 7 of 23

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 16 Filed 04/10/14 Page 8 of 23
therefore—for that reason only—she will have to sell her home, and Carol’s parents are looking for another place to live. Further, Arlene would like to amend Carol’s death certificate—which lists, for marital status, “NEVER-MARRIED” and, for spouse, “NONE”—but in order to do so, she needs Fla. Const. Art. I, § 27, and § 741.212, Fla. Stat., to be declared unconstitutional. SAVE Foundation, Inc.
20. Plaintiff S AVE F oundation, I nc. is one of t he l eading or ganizations i n F lorida dedicated t o promoting, pr otecting, and de fending equality f or pe ople w ho a re l esbian, gay, bisexual, and t ransgender. Established i n 1993, S AVE Foundation accomplishes t his m ission through e ducation initiatives, ou treach, gr assroots or ganizing, a nd a dvocacy. Starting w ith th e landmark p assage o f Mi ami’s Human R ights O rdinance i n 1998 to r ecent e nactments of domestic p artner b enefit p olicies, SAVE Foundation continues t o f ight f or L GBT e quality through grassroots action. Plaintiff SAVE Foundation brings this suit on behalf of its members who are same-sex couples who have entered into lawful marriages outside of Florida. B. Defendants
21. Defendant Rick Scott is sued in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Florida. The supreme executive power is vested in the Governor. Fl. Const. Art. IV, § 1(a). It is his duty to take care that the laws, including Fla. Const. Art. I, § 27, and § 741.212, Fla. Stat., are faithfully executed in Florida. Id.
22. Defendant Pam Bondi is sued in her official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Florida. As Attorney General, Bondi is the State’s chief legal officer. She is required to “appear in and attend to, in behalf of the state, all suits or prosecutions, civil or criminal or in
Page 8 of 23

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 16 Filed 04/10/14 Page 9 of 23
equity, in w hich t he s tate m ay be a party, o r in anywise i nterested, in t he Supreme C ourt a nd district courts of appeal of this state.” § 16.01(4), Fla. Stat.
23. Defendant John H . A rmstrong i s sued i n h is o fficial ca pacity a s t he Surgeon General and Secretary of Health for the State of Florida. As the head of the Florida Department of H ealth, A rmstrong m ust “ [p]lan, di rect, c oordinate, a nd e xecute the pow ers, dut ies, a nd functions v ested in t hat de partment.” § 20.05 (1)(a), F la. Stat. In h is o fficial c apacity, h e i s responsible for cr eating f orms f or c ertificates o f d eath, see § 382.008( 1), F la. S tat., as w ell as registering, recording, certifying, and preserving the State’s vital records, see § 382.003(7), Fla. Stat., in cluding c ertificates o f d eath. All P laintiffs w ish th at w hen th ey d ie th eir m arriage and surviving spouse are recognized on their death certificate.
24. Defendant Craig J. Nichols is sued in his official capacity as the Agency Secretary for the Florida Department of Management Services. As the head of the Florida Department of Management Services, Nichols must “[p]lan, direct, coordinate, and execute the powers, duties, and functions vested in that department.” § 20 .05(1)(a), Fla. Stat. In his official capacity, he is responsible f or administering F lorida’s publ ic r etirement a nd pe nsion s ystems. See § 121.02 5, Fla. Stat; see also § 121.021, Fla. Stat. (definitions). Plaintiffs Sloan Grimsley, Lindsay Myers, Robert L oupo, Thomas G antt, J r., Christian U lvert, and E ric H ankin a re or have be en public employees, and upon vesting they and their spouses would be eligible for pension-related spousal protections but for the marriage ban.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
25. In Florida, marriage is governed by Chapter 741 of the Florida Statutes, captioned “Marriage; Domestic V iolence.” In 1 997, C hapter 7 41 w as r evised to prohibit m arriage for same-sex couples. The relevant statute, § 741.212, provides:
Page 9 of 23

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 16 Filed 04/10/14 Page 10 of 23
(1) Marriages b etween p ersons o f t he same sex en tered i nto in an y jurisdiction, whether w ithin or out side t he S tate of F lorida, t he U nited S tates, o r any ot her jurisdiction, e ither do mestic or f oreign, o r any ot her place o r l ocation, o r relationships between persons of the same sex which are treated as marriages in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, are not recognized for any purpose in this state.
(2) The st ate, i ts ag encies, and i ts p olitical su bdivisions m ay n ot g ive ef fect t o an y public a ct, r ecord, o r judicial p roceeding o f a ny s tate, territory, pos session, o r tribe of the United States or of any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or a ny o ther p lace o r l ocation respecting e ither a m arriage o r re lationship n ot recognized under su bsection ( 1) o r a cl aim ar ising f rom such a m arriage o r relationship.
(3) For purposes of interpreting any state statute or rule, the term “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the term “spouse” applies only to a member of such a union.
26. In a ddition, in a s tark departure f rom Florida’s usual r ecognition of marriages
entered into in other states, Florida’s Constitution was amended in 2008 to prevent recognition of
same-sex marriages e ntered in to in o ther s tates. A rticle I, § 27 of t he F lorida C onstitution
provides:
Inasmuch a s marriage is t he l egal union of on ly one m an a nd one w oman a s husband a nd w ife, no ot her legal uni on that i s treated a s m arriage or t he substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.
27. As a r esult, marriage in Florida is legally available only to different-sex couples.
Same-sex couples may not marry in Florida, and if they are married elsewhere, their marriages
are not recognized in Florida.
28. Florida’s re fusal to re cognize th e marriages of s ame-sex co uples denies t hose
couples nu merous pr otections a fforded t o different-sex married co uples. B y w ay of e xample
only:
a. The State of Florida’s retirement system provides benefits to the different-
sex surviving s pouses o f publ ic e mployees. See, e.g., S urvivor B enefits,
Page 10 of 23

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 16 Filed 04/10/14 Page 11 of 23

https://www.myfrs.com/portal/server.pt/community/comparing_the_plans/

235/survivor_benefits/1843 (accessed April 10, 2014) ;

The F lorida

Retirement S ystem P ension P lan,

http://www.myfrs.com/portal/server.pt/community/pension_plan/233

(accessed April 1 0, 201 4). S uch be nefits a re n ot a vailable t o s ame-sex

surviving spouses in Florida.

b. The different-sex surviving spouse of a first responder in Florida receives

financial support f rom t he S tate if t he f irst r esponder d ies in th e lin e o f

duty. See § 112.191, Fla. Stat. Such s upport is not a vailable t o same-sex

surviving spouses in Florida.

c. The di fferent-sex s urviving s pouse of a t eacher or s chool a dministrator

receives support from the State if the teacher of administrator is killed or

injured on t he job under certain circumstances. See § 112.1915, F la. Stat.

Such support is not available to same-sex surviving spouses in Florida.

d. Death certificates in Florida include information regarding the decedent’s

marital status and identify the surviving different-sex spouse. See State of

Florida B ureau V ital S tatistics, V ital R ecords R egistration, D ecember

2012 R

evision, a

t 83, a

vailable a

t

http://www.floridahealth.gov/certificates-and-

registries/certificates/EDRS/_documents/HB2012Final.pdf

(accessed

April 10, 2 014). A s urviving s ame-sex s pouse i s not na med on de ath

certificates in Florida.

Page 11 of 23

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 16 Filed 04/10/14 Page 12 of 23
e. A d ifferent-sex s urviving s pouse ha s a utomatic pr iority w ith r espect to numerous r ights pe rtaining t o t he d isposition o f a deceased i ndividual’s remains. See § 497.171(5), Fla. Stat. (identification of human remains); § 497.384(3), F la. Stat. (disinterment a nd r einterment); § 497.607( 1), F la. Stat. (cremation); § 497.152( 8)(c)-(d), Fla. Stat. (prohibiting the taking of possession or em balming ab sent a uthorization f rom a l egally authorized person); see a lso § 4 97.005, F la. S tat. (defining “ legally a uthorized person,” i ncluding l isting of pr iority). S uch a utomatic pr iority i s n ot granted to same-sex surviving spouses in Florida.
f. A d ifferent-sex su rviving sp ouse r eceives ce rtain h omestead p rotections under t he Florida C onstitution. See Fla. C onst. A rt. X , § 4. T hese protections do not apply to surviving same-sex spouses in Florida.
g. A d ifferent-sex s urviving s pouse m ay r eceive c ertain w orkers’ compensation benefits for his or her deceased spouse who died in a workrelated accident. See § 440.16, Fla. Stat. This protection does not apply to surviving same-sex spouses in Florida.
h. If a n i ndividual dies without a will, his or he r different-sex spouse has a right to inherit a share of the estate, see § 732.102, Fla. Stat., and receives automatic p reference i n ap pointment as p ersonal r epresentative o f t he estate, see § 733.301, Fla. Stat. These protections do not apply to same-sex spouses in Florida.
Page 12 of 23

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 16 Filed 04/10/14 Page 13 of 23
i. If a n in dividual d ies w ith a w ill, his o r h er different-sex spouse may receive an elective share o f t he e state. See § 732.201, F la. S tat. T his protection does not apply to same-sex spouses in Florida.
j. Different-sex s pouses a re g enerally n ot re quired to te stify a gainst th eir spouse regarding confidential communications made during the marriage. See § 90.504, Fla. Stat. This protection is not afforded to same-sex spouses in Florida.
k. In a wrongful-death action, different-sex spouses may recover for loss of the de cedent’s “ companionship a nd pr otection and f or m ental pa in a nd suffering from the date of injury.” § 768.21, Fla. Stat. This protection does not apply to same-sex surviving spouses in Florida.
l. A different-sex spouse has a right to financial support during marriage, § 61.09, Fla. Stat., enforced by criminal penalties for non-support, § 856.04, Fla. S tat. T his pr otection a nd r esponsibility d oes not a pply t o s ame-sex spouses in Florida.
m. A child bor n t o a married c ouple by means o f artificial o r in v itro insemination i s irrebuttably p resumed t o be the c hild of t he c ouple. § 742.11(a), F la. S tat. T his pr otection a nd responsibility doe s not apply t o same-sex married couples in Florida.
n. If a n i ncapacitated i ndividual ha s no t e xecuted a n a dvance d irective, the patient’s sp ouse h as p riority to make h ealth car e d ecisions f or t he individual over every other class other than the patient’s guardian, if one
Page 13 of 23

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 16 Filed 04/10/14 Page 14 of 23
exists. § 76 5.401(1), Fla. Stat. This protection and responsibility does not apply to same-sex spouses in Florida. o. Upon di ssolution of t heir m arriage, couples in F lorida m ay obt ain courtordered equitable di stribution of pr operty. See § 61.075, F la. S tat. T his protection does not apply to same-sex couples in Florida. p. Some of the federal protections for different-sex married couples are only available to couples if their marriages are legally recognized in the state in which t hey l ive. See, e.g., 42 U .S.C. § 416( h)(1)(A)(i) ( marriage for eligibility for social security benefits based on law of state where couple resides a t t ime o f a pplication); 29 C.F.R. § 82 5.122(b) ( same for F amily Medical Leave A ct). T hus, e ven though P laintiffs were married in o ther states, they cannot access such federal protections while living in Florida because Florida refuses to recognize their existing marriages. 29. The S upreme C ourt h as c alled m arriage “the m ost im portant r elation in life,” Zablocki v . Redhail, 4 34 U .S. 374, 384 ( 1978) ( internal quot ation marks o mitted), and a n “expression[] of emotional support and public commitment,” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987); see also Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free [people].”). It is “a far-reaching legal acknowledgement of the intimate relationship between two people . . . .” Windsor, 133 S . C t. a t 2692. T his i s a s t rue f or s ame-sex co uples as it is f or different-sex couples. 30. Same-sex married couples such as Plaintiffs are similarly situated to different-sex married couples in all of the characteristics relevant to the recognition of their legal marriages.
Page 14 of 23

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 16 Filed 04/10/14 Page 15 of 23
31. When they marry, same-sex couples make the same commitment to one another as different-sex couples do. Like married different-sex couples, married same-sex couples build their l ives together, pl an t heir f utures together, a nd hope to gr ow ol d together. L ike m arried different-sex couples, married same-sex couples support one another emotionally and financially and take care of one another physically when faced with injury or illness.
32. Like many married different-sex couples, many married same-sex couples—such as Plaintiffs Sloan Grimsley, Joyce Albu, Juan del Hierro, Thomas Gantt, Jr., Denise Hueso, and Sandra Newson—are parents raising children together.
33. Plaintiffs have accepted and are willing to assume the legal obligations that would flow from having their marriages recognized under Florida law.
34. Plaintiffs were all married legally under the laws of other jurisdictions, and their marriages would be recognized by the State but for the fact that each is married to a person of the same sex.
35. Refusing t o r ecognize t he m arriages o f sa me-sex c ouples ha rms t he c hildren raised by lesbian a nd g ay c ouples—including t he children of Plaintiffs Sloan G rimsley, J oyce Albu, Juan del Hierro, Thomas Gantt, Jr., Denise Hueso, and Sandra Newson—by denying their families si gnificant b enefits an d b y b randing t heir f amilies a s in ferior to f amilies h eaded b y different-sex co uples and l ess de serving of r espect, thereby encouraging pr ivate bi as a nd discrimination.
36. By r efusing t o r ecognize t he l egal m arriages o f sam e-sex c ouples, F lorida excludes those couples from the myriad of protections the State affords other married couples.
Page 15 of 23

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 16 Filed 04/10/14 Page 16 of 23
37. Article I, § 27 of t he F lorida C onstitution a nd § 741.21 2, Fla. S tat., have t he “purpose a nd e ffect t o disparage a nd i njure” l esbian a nd ga y c ouples. Windsor, 133 S. C t. at 2696.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I
Deprivation of the Fundamental Right to Marry in Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 38. Plaintiffs i ncorporate b y r eference a ll of t he pr eceding pa ragraphs of t his
Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 39. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution precludes any State
from “depriv[ing] a ny pe rson of l ife, l iberty, or pr operty, w ithout du e pr ocess o f law.” U. S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Governmental interference with a fundamental right may be sustained only upon a showing that the legislation is closely tailored to serve an important governmental interest.
40. Florida law states that “[m]arriages between persons of the same sex . . . are not recognized for any purpose in this state.” § 741.212(1), Fla. Stat.
41. In a ddition, F lorida law pr ovides that “ [f]or pur poses of i nterpreting a ny st ate statute or rule, the term ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband a nd w ife, a nd t he term ‘ spouse’ a pplies onl y to a m ember of s uch a uni on.” § 741.212(3), Fla. Stat.
42. The F lorida C onstitution also provides t hat “[i]nasmuch as m arriage i s the l egal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.” Fla. Const. Art. I, § 27.
Page 16 of 23

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 16 Filed 04/10/14 Page 17 of 23
43. Marriage is a fundamental right, and choices about whom to marry are a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
44. Florida law denies Plaintiffs and other same-sex couples this fundamental right by refusing to recognize the lawful marriages they entered into in other jurisdictions.
45. Florida’s refusal t o r ecognize P laintiffs’ marriages an d t he marriages o f o ther same-sex couples entered into in other jurisdictions is not necessary to serve a compelling state interest.
46. Florida’s refusal to recognize marriages entered into by same-sex couples in other jurisdictions violates the Due Process Clause.
47. Defendants, a cting und er c olor of s tate l aw, a re de priving Plaintiffs o f rig hts secured b y t he D ue Process C lause o f t he F ourteenth A mendment t o t he United States Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
48. As a result, Plaintiffs have been or will be harmed and therefore seek the relief set forth in the Prayer for Relief below.
COUNT II Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation in Violation of the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
49. Plaintiffs i ncorporate b y r eference a ll of t he pr eceding pa ragraphs of t his Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
50. The Equal Protection Clause of t he Fourteenth A mendment t o the United States Constitution provides that “no State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
Page 17 of 23

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 16 Filed 04/10/14 Page 18 of 23
51. Florida law states that “[m]arriages between persons of the same sex . . . are not recognized for any purpose in this state.” § 741.212(1), Fla. Stat.
52. In a ddition, F lorida law pr ovides that “ [f]or pur poses of i nterpreting a ny s tate statute or rule, the term ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband a nd w ife, a nd t he term ‘ spouse’ a pplies onl y to a m ember of s uch a uni on.” § 741.212(3), Fla. Stat.
53. The F lorida C onstitution also provides t hat “ [i]nasmuch as m arriage i s the l egal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.” Fla. Const. Art. I, § 27.
54. Same-sex married couples and different-sex married couples are similarly situated for purposes of marriage.
55. By denying Plaintiffs and other lesbian and gay couples the ability to have their out-of-state m arriages recognized, t he State discriminates ag ainst lesbians and ga y men on t he basis of their sexual orientation by denying them significant legal protections.
56. Classifications based on sexual orientation demand heightened scrutiny. 57. Lesbians and g ay m en ar e m embers o f a d iscrete an d i nsular m inority t hat h as suffered a history of discrimination in Florida and across the United States. 58. Sexual or ientation be ars no r elation t o a n i ndividual’s a bility t o pe rform o r contribute to society. 59. Sexual orientation is a core, defining trait that is so fundamental to one’s identity that a p erson may not l egitimately be r equired to a bandon it (even i f t hat w ere p ossible) as a condition of e qual treatment. Sexual or ientation ge nerally i s f ixed a t a n e arly a ge and hi ghly
Page 18 of 23

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 16 Filed 04/10/14 Page 19 of 23
resistant to change through intervention. Efforts to change a person’s sexual orientation through interventions by m edical pr ofessionals h ave n ot b een sh own t o b e effective. N o mainstream mental he alth pr ofessional or ganization a pproves i nterventions t hat a ttempt t o c hange sexual orientation, a nd many—including the A merican P sychological A ssociation an d t he A merican Psychiatric Association—have adopted policy statements cautioning professionals and the public about these treatments.
60. Prejudice against lesbians and gay men continues to seriously curtail the operation of the political process, preventing this group from obtaining redress through legislative means. Lesbians a nd ga y men lack s tatutory pr otection a gainst di scrimination in e mployment, publ ic accommodations, and housing at the federal level and in more than half of the states, including Florida. They ha ve be en s tripped of t he r ight t o m arry t hrough 30 s tate c onstitutional amendments a nd ha ve be en t argeted t hrough t he vot er i nitiative pr ocess more t han a ny ot her group.
61. Florida’s refusal to re cognize P laintiffs’ marriages and t he marriages of ot her same-sex couples entered into in other jurisdictions is not necessary to serve a compelling state interest.
62. Florida’s refusal t o r ecognize P laintiffs’ marriages an d t he marriages o f o ther same-sex c ouples e ntered i nto i n other j urisdictions i s not s ubstantially related t o an i mportant state interest.
63. Florida’s refusal t o r ecognize Plaintiffs’ marriages an d t he marriages o f o ther same-sex c ouples e ntered i nto i n ot her j urisdictions is not rationally re lated to a ny le gitimate state interest.
Page 19 of 23

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 16 Filed 04/10/14 Page 20 of 23
64. Florida’s refusal t o r ecognize Plaintiffs’ marriages an d t he marriages o f o ther same-sex couples entered into in other jurisdictions violates the Equal Protection Clause.
65. Defendants, a cting und er c olor of s tate l aw, a re de priving P laintiffs o f rig hts secured by the E qual P rotection C lause of t he F ourteenth A mendment t o t he U nited S tates Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
66. As a result, Plaintiffs have been or will be harmed and therefore seek the relief set forth in the Prayer for Relief below.
COUNT III Discrimination on the Basis of Sex in Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983) 67. Plaintiffs i ncorporate b y r eference a ll of t he pr eceding pa ragraphs of t his Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 68. The Equal Protection Clause of t he Fourteenth A mendment t o the United States Constitution provides that “no State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. 69. Florida law states that “[m]arriages between persons of the same sex . . . are not recognized for any purpose in this state.” § 741.212(1), Fla. Stat. 70. In a ddition, Florida l aw provides t hat “[f]or pur poses of i nterpreting a ny s tate statute or rule, the term ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband a nd w ife, a nd t he term ‘ spouse’ a pplies onl y to a m ember of s uch a uni on.” § 741.212(3), Fla. Stat. 71. The F lorida C onstitution also provides t hat “ [i]nasmuch as m arriage i s the l egal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated
Page 20 of 23

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 16 Filed 04/10/14 Page 21 of 23
as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.” Fla. Const. Art. I, § 27.
72. If Plaintiffs had different-sex spouses, the State would recognize their marriages. As a result, Plaintiffs would enjoy the legal protections and be subject to the legal obligations of different-sex married couples.
73. By l imiting t he r ecognition of m arriage in F lorida to different-sex couples, t he State is discriminating against Plaintiffs on the basis of sex.
74. The State’s unequal treatment of Plaintiffs based on t heir sex is not substantially related to an important state interest. State law prohibiting recognition of marriage for same-sex couples thus violates the Equal Protection Clause.
75. Defendants, a cting und er c olor of s tate l aw, a re de priving P laintiffs o f rig hts secured by the E qual P rotection C lause of t he F ourteenth A mendment t o t he United States Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
76. As a result, Plaintiffs have been or will be harmed and therefore seek the relief set forth in the Prayer for Relief below.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
1. Enter a declaratory judgment that § 741.212, Fla. Stat., and Fla. Const. Art. I, § 27 violate t he D ue P rocess C lause o f t he F ourteenth Amendment t o t he United S tates C onstitution insofar as they r efuse to t reat same-sex c ouples legally married in other jurisdictions the same as different-sex couples;
2. Enter a declaratory judgment that § 741.212, Fla. Stat., and Fla. Const. Art. I, § 27 violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Page 21 of 23

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 16 Filed 04/10/14 Page 22 of 23

United S tates C onstitution insofar as they r efuse to t reat same-sex c ouples legally married in other jurisdictions the same as different-sex couples; 3. Enter a p reliminary injunction di recting Defendants t o r ecognize m arriages validly entered into by Plaintiffs outside of the State of Florida; 4. Enter a pe rmanent i njunction di recting Defendants t o r ecognize marriages validly entered into by Plaintiffs outside of the State of Florida; 5. Award c osts of suit, i ncluding r easonable a ttorneys’ f ees un der 42 U .S.C. § 1988; and 6. Enter all further relief to which Plaintiffs may be justly entitled.

Dated: April 10, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Daniel B. Tilley Daniel B. Tilley Florida Bar No. 102882 ACLU Foundation of Florida 4500 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 340 Miami, FL 33137 (786) 363-2700 dtilley@aclufl.org
Maria Kayanan Florida Bar No. 305601 ACLU Foundation of Florida 4500 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 340 Miami, FL 33137 (786) 363-2700 mkayanan@aclufl.org
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Stephen F. Rosenthal Florida Bar No. 131458 Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 (305) 358-2800 srosenthal@podhurst.com
Leslie Cooper* ACLU Foundation 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, New York 10004 (212) 549-2627 LCooper@aclu.org
*Admission to N.D. Fla. forthcoming

Page 22 of 23

Case 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS Document 16 Filed 04/10/14 Page 23 of 23 Certificate of Service
I certify that on April 10, 2014, I electronically filed this document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF, which automatically serves all counsel of record via electronic transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
/s/ Daniel B. Tilley Daniel B. Tilley
Page 23 of 23

 </s> Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10 Filed 03/18/14 Page 1 of 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET and OZZIERUSS,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Case No.: 4:14-cv-OOl07-RH-CAS

RICK SCOTT, in his official capacity as Governor of Florida; PAMELA BONDI, in her official capacity as Attorney General of Florida; JOHN H. ARMSTRONG, in his official capacity as Surgeon General and Secretary of Health for the State of Florida; CRAIG J. NICHOLS, in his official capacity as Agency Secretary for the Florida Department of Management Services; and HAROLD BAZZELL, in his official capacity as Clerk of Court and Comptroller for Washington County, Florida,

Defendants.

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiffs, James Domer Brenner, Charles Dean Jones, Stephen Schlairet, and Ozzie Russ,
by and through undersigned counsel, hereby sue the Defendants and allege as follows:

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10 Filed 03/18/14 Page 2 of 22
INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs bring this action to challenge the constitutionality of Florida's laws voiding or otherwise refusing to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples entered in other states or countries. In United States v. Windsor, --- U.S. ---, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), the United States Supreme Court held that withholding federal recognition and benefits from legally married samesex couples, as required by Section 3 ofthe Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), violates the Federal Constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. Plaintiffs seek to apply this holding, and/or the reasoning underlying it, to invalidate and enjoin the enforcement of Florida's State Constitutional provision and statutes prohibiting the marriage of same-sex couples and the recognition of already legally married same-sex couples.
THE PLAINTIFFS a. Plaintiffs Brenner and Jones 1. Plaintiffs James Domer Brenner and Charles Dean Jones are adult, male residents of Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, having lived there since the mid-eighties. 2. PlaintiffBrenner has worked for the Florida Forest Service since 1981 and currently serves as a Fire Management Administrator. 3. Plaintiff Jones has worked for the Florida Department of Education since 2003 and currently serves as an Operations and Management Consultant. 4. Plaintiffs Brenner and Jones have been domestic partners in a long term, stable relationship since 1988.
2

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10 Filed 03/18/14 Page 3 of 22
5. Plaintiffs Brenner and Jones, seeking recognition oftheir relationship, were lawfully married in Alberta, Canada on September 3, 2009 and immediately returned to Tallahassee, Florida to reside as spouses.
6. Like other couples who have made a lifetime commitment to each other, Plaintiffs Brenner and Jones are spouses in every sense, except that their marriage is not currently recognized by the State of Florida.
7. The situation faced by Brenner and Jones is similar to that faced by many other legally married same-sex couples.
8. Plaintiffs Brenner and Jones seek to have their legal marriage recognized in the State of Florida in order to have the same legal protections afforded to legally married opposite-sex couples, including those who married in other jurisdictions.
9. While enrolling in Florida's Deferred Retirement Option Program, PlaintiffBrenner was unable to designate Plaintiff Jones, his lawful husband, as his spouse or joint annuitant under Florida law solely because Plaintiffs are both men.
10. When a state employee, who is in an opposite-sex marriage, enters retirement, he or she may designate his or her spouse as a joint annuitant.
11. The joint annuitant, upon the retiree's death, is entitled to the retiree's monthly benefits under certain retirement options.
12. However, because Florida refuses to recognize Plaintiffs Brenner and Jones' legal marriage, Plaintiff Brenner was prohibited for selecting a retirement option that would continue to provide for his spouse Jones after his death.
3

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10 Filed 03/18/14 Page 4 of 22
h. Plaintiffs Schlairet and Russ 13. Plaintiffs Stephen Schlairet and Ozzie Russ are adult, male residents of Chipley, Washington County, Florida. 14. Plaintiff Schlairet has a Masters Degree in Hospital Administration and over 40 years of healthcare management experience. 15. As of 2013, Plaintiff Schlairet is retired on Social Security and Medicare and volunteers as a horse trainer for a horse rescue in Marianna, Florida. 16. Plaintiff Russ currently works as a manager for McDonald's and has over 27 years of management and customer service experience. 17. Plaintiffs Schlairet and Russ have been in a long-term, stable relationship since 1999. 18. Plaintiffs Schlairet and Russ seek to have their love and commitment for each other recognized, but without being able to legally marry in the State of Florida, then registered as domestic partners in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on November 4,2001. 19. Plaintiffs Schlairet and Russ, wishing to publicly recognize their commitment to each other, held a public commitment ceremony with their families and 100 close friends after registering as domestic partners. 20. Since being together, Plaintiffs Schlairet and Russ have resided on a horse ranch in Chipley, Florida. 21. Plaintiffs Schlairet and Russ seek to marry each other, but the State ofFlorida refuses to issue Plaintiffs Schlairet and Russ a marriage license because both Plaintiffs are males.
4

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10 Filed 03/18/14 Page 5 of 22
22. Plaintiffs Schlairet and Russ, per Florida law, have completed an online premarital counseling course which entitles prospective spouses to the immediate issuance of a marriage license. See Exhibit "A," attached hereto.
23. However, because Plaintiffs Schlairet and Russ are both males, the Washington County Clerk ofCourt refused to issue Plaintiffs Schlairet and Russ a marriage license. See Exhibit "B," attached hereto.
24. Due to their status as a same-sex couple who cannot legally marry in Florida, Plaintiffs Schlairet and Russ have suffered injury they would not have suffered had they been an opposite-sex couple.
25. The house in which Plaintiffs Schlairet and Russ reside is only titled in Plaintiff Schlairet's name, and the two do not qualify for homestead protection and are unable to hold the property as tenants by entireties.
26. During interrupted periods ofemployment, Plaintiffs Schlairet and Russ were unable to have healthcare coverage under each other's insurance plans due to Florida prohibiting them from marrymg.
27. In sum, Plaintiffs Schlairet and Russ seek to legally marry in the State of Florida in order to have the same legal protections and recognition afforded to married opposite-sex couples.
THE DEFENDANTS 28. Defendant Rick Scott is the Governor of the State of Florida. In his official capacity, Governor Scott is the chief executive officer of the State of Florida and is responsible for the faithful execution of the laws of the State of Florida, including the laws that exclude same-sex couples from having their out-of-state marriages recognized.
5

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10 Filed 03/18/14 Page 6 of 22
29. Defendant Pamela Bondi is the Attorney General of the State of Florida. In her official capacity, Attorney General Bondi is the chief legal officer of the State of Florida and is charged with advising state and local officials on questions of Florida and federal law.
30. Defendant John H. Armstrong is sued in his official capacity as the Surgeon General and Secretary of Health for the State of Florida. As head of the Florida Department of Health, Armstrong must "[p]lan, direct, coordinate, and execute the powers, duties, and functions vested in that department." § 20.05, Fla. Stat. In his official capacity, he is responsible for creating forms for certificates of death, see § 382.008(1), Fla. Stat., as well as registering, recording, certifying, and preserving the State's vital records, see § 382.003(7), Fla. Stat., including certificates of death.
31. Defendant Craig J. Nichols is sued in his official capacity as the Agency Secretary for the Florida Department of Management Services. As the head of the Florida Department of Management Services, Nichols must "[p]lan, direct, coordinate, and execute the powers, duties, and functions vested in that department." § 20.05, Fla. Stat. In his official capacity, he is responsible for administering Florida's public retirement and pension systems. See §121.025, Fla. Stat; see also § 121.021, Fla. Stat. (definitions).
32. Defendant Harold Bazzell is the Clerk of Court and Comptroller for Washington County, Florida. In his official capacity, Harold Bazzell is responsible for issuing marriage licenses and performing civil marriage ceremonies in Washington County, Florida.
33. Defendants are, and at all relevant times have been, acting under color of state law, and are sued in their official capacities.
6

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10 Filed 03/18/14 Page 7 of 22
34. By implementing and enforcing the Statute and Florida Constitutional Amendment discussed below, Defendants have deprived, and continue to deprive, Plaintiffs of rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 35. Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1988 to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of their rights secured by the United States Constitution. 36. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343. 37. This Court has the authority to enter a declaratory judgment and to provide preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 57 and 65 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 38. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because the Defendants have offices within the district, because Plaintiffs reside in this district, and because the events giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims occurred, continue to occur, and will occur, in this district. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS CHALLENGED 39. Article I, section 27, of the Florida Constitution, adopted in 2008 provides:
Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized. 40. Section 741.04(1), Florida Statutes (2013) provides in part: No county court judge or clerk of the circuit court in this state shall issue a license for the marriage of any person unless there shall be first presented and filed with him or her an affidavit in writing, signed by both parties to the marriage, providing the social security numbers
7

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10 Filed 03/18/14 Page 8 of 22
or any other available identification numbers ofeach party, made and subscribed before some persons authorized by law to administer an oath, reciting the true and correct ages of such parties; unless both parties shall be over the age of 18, except as provided in s. 741.0405; and unless one party is a male and the other party is a female.
41. Section 741.212(1),(2), and (3), Florida Statutes (2013) provides:
(1) Marriages between persons of the same sex entered into in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, or relationships between persons of the same sex which are treated as marriages in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, are not recognized for any purpose in this state.
(2) The state, its agencies, and its political subdivisions may not give effect to any public act, or judicial proceeding of any state, territory, possession, or tribe ofthe United States or ofany other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location respecting either a marriage or relationship not recognized under subsection (1) or a claim arising from such a marriage or relationship.
(3) For purposes of interpreting any state statute or rule, the term "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the term "spouse" applies only to a member of such a umon.
42. The above-described provisions of Florida law are in violation ofthe United States
Constitution, insofar as they deny Plaintiffs and same-sex couples the rights, privileges,
responsibilities and immunities extended to similarly situated opposite-sex couples.
8

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10 Filed 03/18/14 Page 9 of 22
43. Legally married same-sex couples such as Plaintiffs Brenner and Jones are similarly situated to legally married opposite-sex couples in all of the characteristics relevant to recognition oftheir legal marriages.
44. Florida has no legitimate state interest in treating legally married same-sex couples any differently from legally married opposite-sex couples.
45. Florida has no legitimate state interest in prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying while allowing opposite-sex couples to marry.
46. Florida has no legitimate state interest in enforcing the statutes or Florida constitutional amendment challenged by Plaintiffs in this case.
47. Any purported identifiable state interest is not served in an adequately and narrowly tailored manner by Article I, Section 27, ofthe Florida Constitution, or the statutes challenged in this litigation.
48. The purposes underlying Article I, Section 27, ofthe Florida Constitution, §741.04, Fla. Stat. (2013) and §741.212, Fla. Stat. (2013) are specifically forbidden by the United States Constitution in that they are designed specifically to carry out a desire to harm a politically unpopular class of individuals based solely on their sexual orientation.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I:
DEPRIVATION OF DUE PROCESS 49. Paragraphs 1 through 48 above, are adopted and incorporated by reference herein. 50. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
9

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10 Filed 03/18/14 Page 10 of 22
51. The right to marry is a fundamental right under the United States Constitution and is protected by the Due Process Clause.
52. Same-sex spouses who have entered into legal marriages have a protected liberty interest in their marital status, and the State's refusal to recognize their marital status impermissibly deprives legally married same-sex spouses of that protected liberty interest.
53. Same-sex spouses who have entered into legal marriages in other jurisdictions have a reasonable expectation that they will continue to be protected by the rights and protections conferred by marriage when they relocate to another jurisdiction.
54. Same-sex spouses have a protected property interest in their marital status and in the comprehensive network of legal protections that marriage provides, including the accrual of certain marital benefits over time.
55. Refusing to allow same-sex couples to enter into the same officially sanctioned relationship as heterosexual individuals stigmatizes same-sex couples and denies the same dignity, respect, and legal standard afforded and officially recognized in heterosexual family relationships.
56. The Due Process Clause also protects choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, including each individual's rights to family integrity and association.
57. Article I, Section 27, ofthe Florida Constitution and §§ 741.04 and741.212, Fla. Stat. (2013) violate the due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment facially and/or as applied to Plaintiffs by infringing upon their right to have their marriage recognized in the State of Florida.
58. In addition, Article I, Section 27, ofthe Florida Constitution and §§ 741.04 and 741.212, Fla. Stat. (2013) conflict with other portions of the Florida Constitution, thereby
10

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10 Filed 03/18/14 Page 11 of 22
depriving same-sex couples of rights otherwise granted to all Florida citizens, thus depriving them of Due Process rights under both the state and federal constitutions.
59. Specifically, Article I, Sections 2,3,4, 5, 9, and 23 of the Florida Constitution guarantee the rights to equal protection, religious freedom, freedom of speech, right to associate, due process, the right to be free from governmental intrusions into a person's private life, and the right to enjoy life, all of which are infringed upon by article I, section 27, of the Florida Constitution, §§ 741.04 and 741.212, Fla. Stat. (2013).
COUNT II: EQUAL PROTECTION 60. Paragraphs 1 through 48, above, are adopted and incorporated by reference herein. 61. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection ofthe laws." 62. The State of Florida has no legitimate interest in discriminating against citizens on the basis of sexual orientation. 63. The State of Florida has no legitimate interest in discriminating against citizens on the basis of sex. 64. There IS no rational basis for the State of Florida to treat same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples. 65. There is no rational basis for the State of Florida to treat Florida citizens differently based solely on their sexual orientation.
11

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10 Filed 03/18/14 Page 12 of 22
66. Sexual orientation bears no relation to a person's ability to perform in or contribute to society.
67. By restricting the definition of marriage to "one man and one woman," and recognizing foreign marriages between opposite sex spouses while failing to recognize foreign marriages between same sex spouses, the State of Florida engages in sex-based discrimination without rational basis or a legitimate interest in doing so.
68. By restricting the definition of marriage to "one man and one woman," and prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying while allowing opposite-sex couples to marry, the State ofFlorida also engages in sex-based discrimination without rational basis or a legitimate interest in doing so.
69. Gay and lesbian people have experienced a history of discrimination in the United States and in the State of Florida.
70. Sexual orientation, including homosexuality, is an immutable trait. 71. Gay and lesbian people represent a small minority ofthe population and thus lack the political power to assert their rights to equal treatment under the law. 72. The purpose of Article I, Section 27, of the Florida Constitution, §§ 741.04 and 741.212, Fla. Stat. (2013) is to impose restrictions and disabilities on same-sex couples. 73. Article I, Section 27, of the Florida Constitution, §§ 741.04 and 741.212, Fla. Stat. (2013) are motivated by a desire to harm a politically unpopular group. 74. Article I, Section 27, of the Florida Constitution, §§ 741.04 and 741.212, Fla. Stat. (2013) also serve the impermissible purpose of enforcing and perpetuating sex stereotypes by
12

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10 Filed 03/18/14 Page 13 of 22
excluding Plaintiffs from being recognized as validly married because Plaintiffs have failed to conform to sex-based stereotypes that men should marry women, and women should marry men.
75. Article I, Section 27, of the Florida Constitution, §§ 741.04 and 741.212, Fla Stat. (2013) violate the equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment facially and/or as applied to Plaintiffs by infringing their right to have their legal marriage recognized in the State of Florida and refusing to allow Plaintiffs to marry.
COUNT III: FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION 76. Paragraphs 1 through 48, above, are adopted and incorporated by reference herein. 77. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, ensures the right to freedom of association. 78. Article I, Section 27, ofthe Florida Constitution, and §§ 741.04 and 741.212, Fla. Stat. (2013) violate the freedom of association guarantees of the First Amendment facially and/or as applied to Plaintiffs by discriminating against them and penalizing them based solely upon the sex of the person they choose to marry, want to marry and/or their sexual orientation.
COUNT IV: SUPREMACY CLAUSE 79. Paragraphs 1 through 48, above, are adopted and incorporated by reference herein. 80. Article VI, Section II of the United States Constitution provides: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
13

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10 Filed 03/18/14 Page 14 of 22
81. By virtue of the Supremacy Clause, state statutes, constitutions and amendments thereto are subject to applicable prohibitions and limitations of the Federal Constitution.
82. Article I, Section 27, ofthe Florida Constitution and §§ 741.04 and 741.212, Fla. Stat. (2013) violate the Supremacy Clause by contravening the United States Supreme Court's holding in Windsor.
83. The Fourteenth Amendment protects the liberty of individuals to travel throughout the nation, uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations that umeasonably burden or restrict their movement.
84. The right to travel prohibits both laws that affirmatively interfere with or prevent a citizen's travel, and also laws that penalize those who choose to migrate to another state.
85. The right extends not only to temporary visits to other states, but also to becoming a permanent resident of another state.
86. Article I, Section 27, ofthe Florida Constitution, and §§741.04 and 741.212, Fla. Stat. (2013) violate the right to travel as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment facially and/or as applied to Plaintiffs by imposing a penalty on Plaintiffs for choosing to move to and/or reside in the State of Florida in that their residence in Florida requires them to relinquish all rights, privileges, benefits, and responsibilities of marriage.
COUNT V: ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE 87. Paragraphs 1 through 48, above, are adopted and incorporated by reference herein. 88. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." 89. This prohibition is extended to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
14

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10 Filed 03/18/14 Page 15 of 22
90. Article I, Section 27, ofthe Florida Constitution, and §§ 741.04 and 741.212 Fla. Stat. (2013) were enacted for the purpose of establishing a definition of marriage based upon religious beliefs of the majority, and not for a secular legislative purpose.
91. The primary effect ofthe above legislation is to advance the religious beliefs ofthe legislative majority.
92. The constitutional amendment and above statutes result in an excessive government entanglement with religion.
COUNT VI: HARM TO THE PLAINTIFFS AND NEED FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 93. Paragraphs 1 through 48, above, are adopted and incorporated by reference herein. 94. This case presents an actual controversy because Defendants' present and ongoing denial of equal treatment to Plaintiffs subjects them to serious and immediate harms, warranting the issuance of a declaratory judgment. 95. By refusing to recognize Plaintiffs Brenner and Jones' legal marriage from Canada, and prohibiting Plaintiffs Schlairet and Russ from obtaining a marriage license, the State of Florida's laws deprive Plaintiffs of numerous legal protections that are available to opposite-sex couples in Florida. 96. The tangible and intangible harm to Plaintiffs affects virtually every aspect of Plaintiffs' lives, including but not limited to the following:
a. The right to designate a spouse to receive retirement benefits upon the retiree's death, such as with the benefits for Deferred Retirement Options Program participants. See generally §121.091, Fla. Stat. (2013);
15

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10 Filed 03/18/14 Page 16 of 22

b. The right to be supported financially during marriage, enforced by criminal

penalties for non-support Killian v. Lawson, 387 So.2d 960,962 (Fla. 1980);

§§61.09, 856.04, Fla. Stat. (2013);

c. The right to dissolution of marriage and the rights ensuing therefrom;

d. The right to spousal benefits under The State Group Insurance Program

provided in §11 0.123, Fla. Stat. (2013);

e. The right to make medical decisions for an ill or incapacitated spouse without

an advance health care directive. §765.401, Fla. Stat. (2013);

f.

The right for spouses of qualified employees to also be exempt from public

records. §119.071, Fla. Stat. (2013);

g. The right to a court-ordered equitable distribution of property upon the

dissolution of marriage. §61.075, Fla. Stat. (2013);

h. The right to receive certain workers' compensation benefits for a deceased

spouse who has died as a result of a work-related accident. §440.l6, Fla.

Stat. (2013).

1.

The right to inherit a share ofthe estate of a spouse who died without a will.

§732.102, Fla. Stat. (2013).

J.

The right to priority in appointment as the personal representative of the

estate ofa spouse who dies without a will. §733.301, Fla. Stat. (2013).

k. The right to refuse to testify against their spouse in a court proceeding about

confidential communications made during the marriage. §90.504, Fla. Stat.

(2013).

16

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10 Filed 03/18/14 Page 17 of 22

1.

The right to claim certain homestead protections. Art. X, §4, Fla. Const.;

m. The right to hold property as a tenancy by the entirety;

n. The right to be presumed as parent to a child born to a spouse during

marriage. Fla. Dep't. ofRevenue v. Cummings, 930 So.2d 604, 607 (Fla.

2006); §§742.091 and 741. 11 (a), Fla. Stat. (2013);

o. Asset protection benefits available to married couples;

p. Recognition as surviving spouse on Florida death certificates;

q. Priority in disposition of a deceased spouse's remains. See generally

§497.005, Fla. Stat. (2013); and

r. The right to recover damages for loss of companionship and protection as

surviving spouse. See §768.21, Fla. Stat. (2013).

97. Under the laws of the State of Florida, Plaintiffs Brenner and Jones and

Plaintiffs Schlairet and Russ are treated differently from opposite-sex couples solely because

they are in same-sex relationships.

98. If Plaintiffs were legally married opposite-sex couples, they would not suffer any

ofthe harms or potential harms enumerated above.

99. Defendants' deprivation ofPlaintiffs' constitutional rights under color ofstate law

violates 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

100. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein,

which are of a continuing nature and will cause them irreparable harm.

101. The State of Florida will incur little to no burden in recognizing the valid

marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions on the same terms as opposite-sex

17

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10 Filed 03/18/14 Page 18 of 22
couples or littler or no burden in allowing same-sex couples to marry, whereas the hardship for Plaintiffs of being denied equal treatment is severe, subjecting them to an irreparable denial of their constitutional and statutory rights.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
A. Enter a declaratory judgment that article I, section 27 of the Florida Constitution violates the Due Process, Equal Protection, Freedom of Association, Supremacy, and/or other clauses of the United States Constitution;
B. Enter a declaratoryjudgment that §741.04, Fla. Stat. (2013), violates the Due Process, Equal Protection, Freedom of Association, Supremacy, and/or other clauses ofthe United States Constitution;
C. Enter a declaratory judgment that §741.212, Fla. Stat. (2013), violates the Due Process, Equal Protection, Freedom of Association, Supremacy, and/or other clauses of the United States Constitution;
D. Enter an order directing Defendants Scott, Bondi, and Armstrong to recognize marriages in Florida that were validly entered into by Plaintiffs Brenner and Jones and other same-sex couples outside of the State of Florida;
E. Enter an order directing Defendant Bazzell to issue Plaintiffs Schlairet and Russ a marriage license;
F. Enter an Order directing Defendant Nichols to allow Plaintiff Brenner to designate his spouse, Plaintiff Jones, as a recognized spouse or annuitant for purposes of his state retirement benefits;
18

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10 Filed 03/18/14 Page 19 of 22

G. § 1988; and
H.

Award costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. Enter any and all further reliefthis Court deems just and proper.

Elizabeth L. White, Esquire

Florida Bar No.: 314560

Matthew R. Kachergus, Esquire

Florida Bar No.: 503282

Bryan E. DeMaggio, Esquire

Florida Bar No.: 055712

Jonathan W. Graessle, Esquire

Florida Bar No.: 102640

Sheppard, White & Kachergus, P .A.

215 Washington Street

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

Telephone: (904) 356-9661

Facsimile: (904) 356-9667

Email:

sheplaw@att.net

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

Samuel Jacobson, Esquire Florida Bar No.: 39090 Bledsoe, Jacobson, Schmidt, Wright
Lang & Wilkinson 1301 Riverplace Blvd., Suite 1818 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Telephone: (904) 398-1818 Facsimile: (904) 398-7073 Email: sam@iacobsonwright.com CO-COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

19

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10 Filed 03/18/14 Page 20 of 22
VERIFICATION
STATE OF FLORIDA } } ss.
COUNTY OF DUVAL } BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, this day personally appeared James Domer
Brenner and Charles Dean Jones, who first being duly sworn, say they are the Plaintiffs in this cause; they have read the foregoing First Amended Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; have personal knowledge ofthe facts and matters set forth and alleged; and state that each and all these matters are true and correct.

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 15th day of March, 2014, by James Domer Brenner and Charles Dean Jones, who are personally known to me or who provided _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ as identification and who did/did not take an oath.

Name typed, printed or stamped

~,,).,-:;.\rs:k",
!:'f"Ji,<"f:-:'

ELIZABETH L. WHITE Commission # EE 191871

~'~'Xkf
"':if.iif.,r,.'l'!'-'

Expires April 23, 2016
Bondod Th!tI Troy Fain In9umnca 800-385-7019

20

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10 Filed 03/18/14 Page 21 of 22
VERIFICATION
STATE OF FLORIDA } } ss.
COUNTY OF DUVAL } BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, this day personally appeared Stephen Schlairet
and Ozzie Russ, who first being duly sworn, say they are the Plaintiffs in this cause; they have read the foregoing First Amended Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; have personal knowledge of the facts and matters set forth and alleged; and state that each and all these matters are true and correct.
~,d~ Stephen Schlairet
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 15th day of March, 2014, by Stephen Schlairet and Ozzie Russ, who are Eersonally known to me or who provided ----------------------- as identification and who did/did not take an oath.
Nota ubhc - State of Florida
Name typed, printed or stamped
21

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10 Filed 03/18/14 Page 22 of 22
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy ofthe foregoing has been furnished to Allen C. Winsor, Esquire, Florida Solicitor General, State ofFlorida, The Capitol PL-O 1, Tallahassee, Florida 323991050 (allen.winsor@myfloridalegal.com); and Adam S. Tanenbaum, Esquire, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, State of Florida, The Capitol, Suite PL-Ol, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (adam.tanenbaum@myfloridalegal.com), by Electronic Mail and United States First Class Mail; and to John H. Armstrong, M.D., F.A.C.S, Office ofthe State General Surgeon, 2585 Merchants Row Boulevard, Suite 140, Tallahassee, Florida 32399; Craig J. Nichols, Department of Management services, Office ofthe Secretary, 4050 Esplanade Way, Tallahassee, Florida 32399; and to Harold Bazzell, Clerk of Court and Comptroller of Washington County, Florida, 1293 Jackson Avenue, Chipley, Florida 32428, by delivering same to a Process Server for Service, this 18th day ofMarch, 2014.
Idh[brermerjames.complaint.amend]
22

'I

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10-1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 1 of 2

i

!

I ! I

EXHIBIT "A"

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10-1 Filed 03/18/14 Page 2 of 2

~trtffftatt of ~omplttfon
~re5enteb to: ejjfe Jflarfte .Russ &: ~ttplJen 31ostplJ ~tlJlafret
for ~ompIttton of ~remarftal ~oun~eltng on :t1llattb 13,2014
at 1369 ~entutP eak mdbet ewee, jflodba
'OCime ~pent on to~e: 4 bOUtS
_ _~er~onal3Jn~trnctton _ _~ibeo _qelettronic :ffletbob ~ llCombtnatton
~erifieb tlJi~ 13tlJ bap of :fflardJ. 2014
~r.s~bp //f:: S~
Reb. 1tebin C!E:. ltnox, 3Jnstrnctor
1-866-521-8697
of '{lQJe Wniteb metbobi~t ~burcb

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10-3 Filed 03/18/14 Page 1 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
Northern District ofFlorida [3

JAMES, DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET and OZZIE RUSS
Plaintiff(s)
v. RICK SCOTT, in his official capacity as Governor of Florida, PAMELA BONDI, in her official capacity as Attorney General of Florida; JOHN H. ARMSTRONG,
etc., et al.
Defendant(s)

)

)

)

)

)

) )

Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS

)

)

)

)

)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant's name and address)

John H. Armstrong, M.D., FAC.S. Office of the State General Surgeon 2585 Merchants Row Boulevard, Suite 140 Tallahassee, Florida 32399

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) - or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) - you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney, whose name and address are:
Wm. J. Sheppard, Esquire Bryan E. DeMaggio, Esquire Sheppard, White & Kachergus, PA 215 Washington Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT
Signature ofClerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10-3 Filed 03/18/14 Page 2 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (page 2)
Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (I))

This summons for (name ofindividual and title, ifany) was received by me on (date)

o I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)

; or

o I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
-----------------------------------

on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or

----------------

o I served the summons on (name ofindividual)

, who is

---------------------------------------

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name oforganization)

on (date)

; or

-----------------------------------------------

------------------

o I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

-----------------------------------------

o Other (specify):

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

0.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server's signature Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server's address

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10-4 Filed 03/18/14 Page 1 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
G Northern District of Florida

JAMES, DOMERBRENNER,CHARLESDEAN JONES, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET and OZZIE RUSS
PlaintifJ(s)
v. RICK SCOTT, in his official capacity as Governor of Florida, PAMELA BONDI, in her official capacity as Attorney General of Florida; JOHN H. ARMSTRONG,
etc., et al.
Defendant(s)

)

)

)

)

)

) )

Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS

)

)

)

)

)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant's name and address)

Craig J. Nichols Department of Management Services Office of the Secretary 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) -- or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) -- you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff s attorney, whose name and address are:
Wm. J. Sheppard, Esquire Bryan E. DeMaggio, Esquire Sheppard, White & Kachergus, PA 215 Washington Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date: --------------------

CLERK OF COURT
Signature ofClerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10-4 Filed 03/18/14 Page 2 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (I))

This summons for (name a/individual and title, ifany) was received by me on (date)

o I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)

; or

-----------------------------------------------

------------------

o I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

-----------------------------------

on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or

---------------

o I served the summons on (name a/individual)

,who is

-----------------------------------------

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name 0/organization)

on (date)

; or

o I returned the summons unexecuted because o Other (specify):

; or
-------------------------------------------

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

-----------

0.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server's signature Printed name and title

Additional infonnation regarding attempted service, etc:

Server's address

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10-5 Filed 03/18/14 Page 1 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
G Northern District of Florida

JAMES, DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET and OZZIE RUSS
PlaintifJ(s)
v. RICK SCOTT, in his official capacity as Governor of Florida, PAMELA BONDI, in her official capacity as Attorney General of Florida; JOHN H. ARMSTRONG,
etc., et al.
D(!{endant(s)

)

)

)

)

)

) )

Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS

)

)

)

)

)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant's name and address)

Harold Bazzell Clerk of Court and Comptroller of Washington County, Florida 1293 Jackson Avenue Chipley, Florida 32428

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) -- or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) -- you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney, whose name and address are:
Wm. J. Sheppard, Esquire Bryan E. DeMaggio, Esquire Sheppard, White & Kachergus, P.A. 215 Washington Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date: --------------------

CLERK OF COURT
Signature ofClerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 10-5 Filed 03/18/14 Page 2 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.4: 14-cv-00107-RH-CAS

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (I))

This summons for (name ofindividual and title, ({any) was received by me on (date)

o I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---

; or
~~~~~~~~~

o I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or

~~~~~~~---

o I served the summons on (name ofindividual)

,who is

~~~~~~---------------------------

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name oforganization)

on (date)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~-

; or
~~~~~~~~--

o I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---

o Other (specifY):

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

~---------

0.00

I declare under penalty of peljury that this information is true.

Date:

Server's signature Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server's address

 </s> Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JAMES DOMER BRENNER et al.,

Plaintiffs, v.

CONSOLIDATED CASE NO. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS

RICK SCOTT, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING LEAVE FOR FLORIDA FAMILY ACTION TO INTERVENE BUT
ALLOWING IT TO PARTICIPATE AS AMICUS

In these consolidated actions, the plaintiffs challenge provisions of the Florida Constitution and Florida Statutes on same-sex marriage. The defendants include Florida’s Governor and Attorney General, both of whom disagree with the plaintiffs on the merits. Florida Family Action, Inc. (“FFA”), a “cultural action organization” that opposes same-sex marriage, has moved to intervene in each consolidated action as a defendant. This order denies the motions but allows FFA to file a timely amicus memorandum on any legal issue submitted by the parties.

Consolidated Case No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS

Page 2 of 5
I Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) entitles a person to intervene as of right if (1) a federal statute gives the person an unconditional right to intervene, or (2) the person “claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless the existing parties adequately represent that interest.” No federal statute gives FFA an unconditional right to intervene in an action of this kind. So Rule 24(a)(1) does not entitle FFA to intervene. Under Rule 24(a)(2), the “interest” that a proposed intervenor claims must be a particularized interest rather than a general grievance. See Howard v. McLucas, 782 F.2d 956, 959 (11th Cir.1986) (using standing cases to determine that intervenors with only generalized grievance could not intervene); Athens Lumber Co., Inc. v. Federal Election Commission, 690 F.2d 1364, 1366 (11th Cir.1982) (citing standing cases to determine that intervenor’s claimed interest that unions would be financially overwhelmed in federal elections too generalized to support claim for intervention of right). Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197, 1212-13 (11th Cir. 1989). FFA “claims an interest” in the same-sex-marriage issue, but it is a generalized interest, not a particularized interest in anything directly affecting FFA or its members. No FFA member seeks to enter a same-sex-marriage or will be directly affected if others enter same-sex marriages. FFA’s generalized interest in opposing same-sex marriage does not entitle FFA to intervene. See Hollingsworth
Consolidated Case No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS

Page 3 of 5
v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2663 (2013) (holding—on the issue of standing—that a similar advocacy organization had no role in the enforcement of a same-sexmarriage constitutional amendment after its passage and therefore lacked a “personal stake” in the litigation “that [wa]s distinguishable from the general interest of every citizen”); see also Chiles, 865 F.2d at 1213 (“[S]tanding cases . . . are relevant to help define the type of interest that the intervenor must assert.”).
Another ground also supports this result. The existing defendants, especially the Governor and Attorney General, can be relied upon to adequately—indeed, zealously—defend these actions on the merits. Under the plain language of Rule 24(a)(2), a person is not entitled to intervene when an existing party already adequately represents the interest claimed by the proposed intervenor.
II Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) gives a district court discretion to allow a person to intervene on a “timely motion” if (1) a federal statute gives the person a conditional right to intervene, or (2) the person “has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” No federal statute gives FFA a conditional right to intervene in an action of this kind. But FFA asserts a defense that shares with the main actions common questions of law. FFA’s motion to intervene was timely. The court has discretion
Consolidated Case No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS

Page 4 of 5
to allow—or disallow—intervention. That FFA lacks standing to bring its own action does not preclude intervention. Chiles, 865 F.2d at 1213.
The better course here is to deny intervention but to allow FFA to be fully heard as an amicus. Factors that support this conclusion include the meager if not nonexistent benefit that would flow from allowing FFA to intervene as opposed to just allowing FFA to participate as an amicus, the unnecessary procedural complexity that intervention would entail, and the likelihood that allowing FFA to intervene would bring forth other proposed intervenors who would assert only generalized political interests and whose participation probably would generate more heat than light. FFA’s views as amicus will be welcome, but FFA’s intervention would bring little additional value.
III For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED: 1. FFA’s motions to intervene, ECF No. 22 in Case No. 4:14cv107 and ECF No. 13 in Case No. 4:14cv138, are DENIED. 2. FFA may file a memorandum as amicus curiae on any motion. The deadline for FFA to do so is the corresponding deadline for the memorandum of the party whose position FFA supports. But when FFA supports the moving party, the deadline for FFA’s amicus memorandum in support of the motion is the earlier
Consolidated Case No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS

Page 5 of 5
of (a) the deadline for filing the motion, if there is a deadline, or (b) seven days after the filing of the motion, without a three-day extension based on electronic service of the motion.
3. The page limit for an amicus memorandum is 25 pages. 4. Each amicus memorandum must include the information listed in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(c)(5). 5. The clerk must add FFA to the docket as an amicus so that its attorneys receive electronic notices of filings. SO ORDERED on April 24, 2014.
s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge
Consolidated Case No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS

 </s> Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 124 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 3 Case: 14-14061 Date Filed: 10/19/2015 Page: 1 of 1

Amy C. Nerenberg Acting Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING 56 Forsyth Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303
October 19, 2015

Jessica Lyublanovits U.S. District Court 111 N ADAMS ST TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301-7717
Appeal Number: 14-14061-AA ; 14-14066 -AA Case Style: James Brenner, et al v. John Armstrong, et al District Court Docket No: 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS

For rules and forms visit www.ca11.uscourts.gov

The enclosed copy of this Court's Order of Dismissal is issued as the mandate of this court. See 11th Cir. R. 41-4. Counsel and pro se parties are advised that pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 27-2, "a motion to reconsider, vacate, or modify an order must be filed within 21 days of the entry of such order. No additional time shall be allowed for mailing."
All pending motions are now rendered moot in light of the attached order.
Sincerely,
AMY C. NERENBERG, Acting Clerk of Court
Reply to: David L. Thomas, AA Phone #: (404) 335-6169
Enclosure(s)

DIS-4 Multi-purpose dismissal letter

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 124 Filed 10/19/15 Page 2 of 3 Case: 14-14061 Date Filed: 10/19/2015 Page: 1 of 2

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 124 Filed 10/19/15 Page 3 of 3 Case: 14-14061 Date Filed: 10/19/2015 Page: 2 of 2

 </s> Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 138 Filed 03/02/16 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JAMES DORMER BRENNER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v ..

Case No. 4:14-cv-107-RH/CAS

RICK SCOTT, in his official capacity as Governor of Florida, et al.,.

Defendants.

SLOAN GRIMSLEY, et.al., Plaintiffs,
v .. RICK SCOTT, in his official capacity as Governor of Florida, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 4:14-cv-138-RH/CAS

BRENNER PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The Brenner Plaintiffs, pursuant to Rule 56, move this Court to enter summary judgment against defendants and declare Florida's ban on same-sex marriage, as well as Florida's refusal to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages unconstitutional, and permanently enjoin enforcement of said bans, and in support thereof states as follows: A. Undisputed Material Facts Brenner Plaintiffs James Brenner and Charles Dean are residents of Leon County Florida who were lawfully married in Alberta, Canada on September 3, 2009. Doc. 10 at~ 5. Brenner Plaintiffs Stephen Schlairet and Ozzie Russ who, at the time of the filing of this lawsuit were in
1

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 138 Filed 03/02/16 Page 2 of 7
a long-term relationship with one another and sought to marry in the state of Florida. Doc. 10 at ~ 21. Both of these Plaintiffs brought suit in this Court to overturn a set of statutes and constitutional provisions banning same-sex marriage in Florida. See, e.g., Art. I, § 27 Fla. Const (defining marriage as "the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife"); §741.04(1) Fla. Stat. (2015) (prohibiting issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples; § 741.212(1)-(3) Fla. Stat. (2015) (prohibiting recognition of out-of-state same sex marriages).
As a result of these provisions, the Brenner Plaintiffs were unable to marry or have their out-of-state marriages recognized by the state of Florida, and were thus denied not only their constitutional rights, but myriad state-created rights that flow from a lawful marriage. For instance, Plaintiff Brenner, as an employee of the State of Florida, was unable to designate Plaintiff Jones as his lawful husband, spouse, or joint annuitant for the purposes of allowing Plaintiff Jones to receive Plaintiff Brenner's retirement benefits should Plaintiff Brenner pass away. Doc. I0 at~ 9-11. Further, Plaintiff Schlairet and Russ were not able to own their home as tenants by the entirety, qualify for Florida's homestead exemption, or have healthcare coverage under each other's insurance plan, since the State of Florida prohibited them from marrying. Doc. I 0 at~~ 24-27.
B. Relevant Procedural Background On February 28, 2014, the Brenner Plaintiffs filed this action asserting that Florida's ban on same-sex maniage violated their constitutional rights, and also moved to enjoin enforcement of the provisions they challenged. Doc. 1 & 2. On August, 21,2014 the court granted the Brenner Plaintiffs motion, however the court initially stayed enforcement of the injunction. Doc. 74. On January 5, 2015, after litigation in the Eleventh Circuit and United States Supreme Court, this Court lifted its stay and legalized same-sex marriage in the state of Florida. (Doc. 95). Following
2

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 138 Filed 03/02/16 Page 3 of 7
this court's lifting of the stay, the Brenner Plaintiffs were able to obtain marriage licenses, have their out-of-state marriages recognized, and inure themselves to the marriage benefits they were denied when Florida's same-sex marriage laws were in place.
The Defendants took an interlocutory appeal of this Court's order granting a preliminary injunction. Following briefing on the merits, the Eleventh Circuit held the consolidated appeals in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, !35 S.C.t 2071 (2015). Doc. lll-4. Following the Court's decision in Obergefell, the Defendants moved to voluntarily dismiss their appeal in the Eleventh Circuit alleging that the controversy was now moot in light of the Supreme Court's holding. Doc. lll-7. On August 4, 2015, the Grimsley Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. II. The Defendants incorporated a motion to dismiss in their Response to the Grimsley Plaintiffs' Motion, alleging that the controversy between the parties was now moot in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. Doc. 118. As such, all parties are in agreement that Florida's ban on same-sex marriage violates the constitution and that there are no pending factual disputes to be resolved in this case.
C. Argument The Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges, !35 S. Ct. at 2607, that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all states. It further held that there is no lawful basis for a state to refuse to recognize a lawful, out-of-state marriage of a same-sex couples. Id. Under this binding precedent, Florida's same-sex marriage ban certainly cannot stand. The Defendants here do not contest this proposition, and in both their motion to dismiss their appeal and motion to dismiss this case, they have conceded that the Obergefell is controlling precedent here. See Doc. lll-7 at 11-12 (seeking dismissal oftheir Defendants" appeal because "no issues remain pending"); Doc. 118 at 1-2 ("In light of the Supreme Court's decision, the laws challenged
3

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 138 Filed 03/02/16 Page 4 of 7
in these cases ... no longer prohibit defendants from issuing same-sex marriage licenses or recognizing existing same-sex marriage licenses when applying Florida's laws").
Rather, the Defendants have argued that summary judgment is improper, and that the case should be dismissed on mootness grounds, because no case or controversy exists between the parties in light of Obergefell. However, merely because binding precedent now makes the Defendant's position untenable, does not make the Plaintiffs' claims moot. 1 However, a "defendant claiming that its voluntary compliance moots a case bears the formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonable be expected to recur." Friends ofthe Earth v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), 528 U.S. 167 (2000).
Indeed, courts hearing same-sex marriage challenges at the same procedural posture have denied mootness arguments raised by defendants and granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. See, Waters v. Ricketts, 8:14CV356; 2016 WL 447837 (D. Nebraska Feb. 4, 2015). In Waters, 2 the Plaintiffs obtained a preliminary injunction following a challenge to Nebraska's samesex marriage ban. !d. at* 1. The defendants appealed the court's order to the Eighth Circuit, but the Eighth Circuit stayed the case pending the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell. Id. On the day that Obergefell was decided, the defendants filed a suggestion of mootness with the Eighth Circuit and multiple documents stating that it would comply with the requirements of Obergefell. !d.
1 The Brenner Plaintiffs' response on the specific point of mootness is set out in further detail in their Response to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Doc. 119. 2 See also, Jernigan v. Crane, 769 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 2015) (noting that Arkansas' general assurances of compliance with the Obergefell decision did not moot the case and remanding to district court to determine the applicability of injunctive relief); Marie v. Mosier, 2015 WL 4724389 (D. Kan. Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that challenge to same-sex marriage ban was not moot in light of Obergefell, and issuing declaration that state law ban was unconstitutional).
4

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 138 Filed 03/02/16 Page 5 of 7
The District of Nebraska granted summary judgment in favor ofthe Plaintiffs once the case was remanded, finding that the claims were not moot. !d. at *4. It noted that while Obergefell struck down the same-sex marriage bans specifically at issue in that case, no court had yet expressly declared that Nebraska's specific same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional. !d. Further, while the Defendants had urged that it would not enforce its same-sex marriage ban, the court found that they had failed to show that it was "absolutely clear that [plaintiffs] no longer ha[ve] any need ofthe judicial protection that they sought. !d. (quoting Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 528 U.S. 216,224 (2000)). The court was persuaded by the fact that, despite Nebraska's promises, the state's ban on same sex marriage had not been repealed and was still published as part of Nebraska's constitution. !d. at *4. Further, the court also noted that the State Department of Health had refused to issue birth certificates to same-sex couples, but instead only listed the woman who had the baby as the only parent. !d. It found that the states position regarding the birth certificates gave plaintiffs cause to be concerned that other protections available to same-sex couples relating to the right to marry might be jeopardized should the court's injunction be lifted. !d.
The situation in Waters is identical to that at issue here. Like the state of Nebraska, Florida has not removed its same-sex marriage ban from Florida law, even when given an opportunity to do so. See Exhibit 1. Furthermore, like the state of Nebraska, the Defendants here have contested and still continue to litigate the issue of whether the state must issue birth certificates to same-sex couples. Doc. 113. The Defendants' strenuous attempts to narrow the scope of this Court's order and the Obergef'ell holding through litigation raises serious concerns that other benefits that flow from the right to marry will be stripped away once the preliminary injunction is lifted. While all parties agree it to be so, no court has yet issued a permanent declaration that Florida's ban on same-
5

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 138 Filed 03/02/16 Page 6 of 7
sex marriage is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs contend that the time to issue such a declaration is now, and respectfully request this Court to enter an Order granting summary judgment in their favor.
Respectfully submitted,

Wm. J. Shepp d, squire

Florida Bar No.: 109154

Elizabeth L. White, Esquire

Florida Bar No.: 314560

Bryan E. DeMaggio, Esquire

Florida Bar No.: 055712

Sheppard, White, Kachergus & DeMaggio, P.A.

215 Washington Street

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

Telephone: (904) 356-9661

Facsimile: (904) 356-9667

Email:

sheplaw@att.net

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

Samuel Jacobson, Esquire Florida Bar No.: 39090 Bledsoe, Jacobson, Schmidt, Wright
Lang & Wilkinson 1301 Riverplace Blvd., Suite 1818 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Telephone: (904) 398-1818 Facsimile: (904) 398-7073 Email: sam@jacobsonwright.com CO-COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

6

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 138 Filed 03/02/16 Page 7 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Marc~ I HEREBY CERTIFY that on

2016, I electronically filed the foregoing with

the Clerk of the Court by using CM/ECF System which will send a notice of electronic filing to

the following:

--------------- --- --Anen.·c:-winsor;-Esqu:ire Adam S. Tanenbaum, Esquire Florida Attorney General The Capitol PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Daniel Boaz Tilley, Esquire Maria Kayanan, Esquire ACLU Foundation of Florida, Inc. 4500 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 340 Miami, Florida 33137

· · J a : m e s J e f f e c y G o o d m a n , J r : ; - E s c j U i r e -_ __ Jeff Goodman, P.A. 935 Main Street Chipley, Florida 32428
Horatio G. Mihet, Esquire Liberty Counsel PO Box 540774 Orlando, Florida 32854

Stephen F. Rosenthal, Esquire Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33130

Stephen C. Emmanuel, Esquire Ausley & McMillen 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

1Nd. I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March

2016, a true and correct copy of the foregoing

document and the notice of electronic filing was sent by United States Mail to the following non-

CM/ECF participants:

N/A

swp[brenner.james.summary.judgment. motion]
7

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 138-1 Filed 03/02/16 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 1

3/1/2016

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RHFlo-rCidAa lSawmaDkeorsclueamveeganytm1ar3ri8ag-e1banFonilbeodoks0~3Su/0n 2Se/n1ti6nel Page 2 of 4

News I Florida News

Florida lawmakers leave gay marriage ban on

books

By DARA KAMA KAM
THE NEWS SERVICE OF FLORIDA
FEBRUARY '15, 2016, 7:50PM I TALLAHASSEE

Clearing the statutes of the gay-marriage ban is among a handful of measures dealing with LGBT issues either ignored by the Republican-controlled Legislature or fated to fade away before the 2016 session ends next month.

Only one piece of legislation --- aimed at giving lesbians the opportunity to be named as a "parent" instead of a "father" on birth certificates--- has even a chance of passing this session, and that chance is extremely thin.

The birth certificate measure, the proposed repeal of the ban on gay marriage and a third bill that would allow pastors to refuse to marry same-sex couples --- something already guaranteed under the First Amendment--- are byproducts of court decisions striking down same-sex marriage bans as unconstitutional.

A closely divided U.S. Supreme Court in June ruled that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry. The decision came nearly a year after a federal judge in Tallahassee struck down Florida's voterapproved ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle's ruling went into effect in January 2015, nearly six months before the high court decision, but Hinkle has yet to issue a final order in the case. An appeals court in October dismissed Florida's legal fight about same-sex marriage and said Hinkle should consider questions about whether the state is required to pay fees for the plaintiffs' attorneys, who are seeking $455,000 for their work on the case.

"I just want the door closed permanently in the state of Florida, by the state of Florida, with respect to the statutes and the constitutional amendment," Jim Brenner, a plaintiff in the Florida case, told The News Service of Florida on Monday. "We need a final order from Judge Hinkle."

The "pastor protection" act, which religious conservatives contend is needed to protect minsters and churches that refuse to marry same-sex couples, is headed to the House floor for a full vote and is slated

http://www .sun~senti ne! .com /news/fl oridalsfl-florida-law makers-leave-gay-marriage- ban-on- books-20160215-story.htm I

1/3

3/1/2016

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RHFlo-rCidAa laSwmaDkeorsclueamveeganytm1ar3ria8g-e1ban Fonilbeodoks0-3Su/0n 2Se/n1tin6el Page 3 of 4

for a final Senate committee vetting this week.

In contrast, an attempt to remove the same-sex marriage prohibition from state statutes has not been heard by a single committee in either chamber.

For Republicans, the issue could be too controversial to even debate, especially in an election year.

"A lot of people still feel firmly that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds and that it is a states' rights issue that we should be able to decide who, what, where and when marriages happen within our ..... _stat~QOl1Il.dari_e~,"House Rule C_l1aiiJilitll.Ritc_h:Worl<IJ1i[n,R~M~lb()l1!11~L.s_aid in an interview.___ ---·--

Changing the state Constitution, amended by voters to include the gay marriage ban in 2008, would require a statewide vote. But, for many Floridians, leaving the ban in legislatively written statutes carries more than a symbolic threat.

Rep. Alan Williams, who filed the measure to repeal the law, said he wanted to amend Florida's statutes to reflect the Supreme Court decision and to provide assurances to clerks of court, some of whom initially balked at Hinlde's ruling, based on advice from their lawyers.

"Obviously, this is one of the most polarizing issues of our time in the Legislature, and in the country. This decision by the Supreme Court has begun to swing doors wide open for individuals that otherwise didn't have that," Williams, D-Tallahassee, said. "As an Mrican-American, I understand all too well the significance of being able to have equal rights under the law."

For Rep. David Richardson, the sponsor of the measure dealing with birth certificates, the issue is even more personal. The Miami Beach Democrat is the only openly gay member of the Legislature.

Richardson tried to get Workman to include the repeal of the gay-marriage ban in what is known as a "reviser" bill, passed by lawmakers annually to clean up state statutes.

But Workman said reviser bills are supposed to correct errors such as punctuation and grammar and aren't intended to deal with policy issues.

Richardson said he understands that Republicans control the agenda in Tallahassee, but he called the repeal of an unconstitutional law a "no-brainer."

"It just shows you how far the majority party feels they must go because they don't want to take a vote on something that may be controversial," he said. "What they're saying is that, even in a situation where the Supreme Court has determined that a law is unconstitutional, we don't want to take it off our books because we don't want to take the risk that someone's going to have to vote on it and a member may be

http://www.sun-senti nel.com/newslfl ori da/sfl-fl ori da-lawm akers-leave-gay-marriage-ban-on-books-20160215-story. htmI

2/3

3/1/2016

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RHFlo-rCidaAlaSwmaDkeorsclueamveeganytm1ar3ria8g-e1ban Fonilbeodoks0-3Su/0n 2Se/n1tin6el Page 4 of 4

punished at the polls."

When asked if legislators should repeal the statute, Gov. Rick Scott said the "law is already clear."

"The Supreme Court has made that decision," Scott told the News Service late last week.

Richardson's plan to change birth certificates to reflect the Supreme Court decision (HB 1151) received unanimous approval from a House committee earlier this month after he amended the measure to ensure that documents will still label husbands as "father."

--- ----------------------------------

-----------------------------

But the measure has two more committee stops before it is scheduled to go to the House floor, and a

Senate companion bill has not received a hearing. Richardson remains hopeful that he can tack his bill

onto another piece of legislation, but time is running out.

Meanwhile, the issue may be settled in court if lawmakers don't act.

Two female couples and an advocacy group are asking a federal judge to require the Florida Department of Health to list both spouses on birth certificates of children born into same-sex marriages -- as the department typically does when married parents are a man and a woman. The plaintiffs in the Brenner marriage case are also asking Hinkle to sort out the issue.

Lawyers for the state argue that the department lacks the authority to change the rule without legislative approval.

Florida is one of only four states that have not changed the language on birth certificates to reflect the high court ruling, according to Richardson, but Florida's laws regarding agency rule making may be more restrictive.

Changing the statute about birth certificates would save women in same-sex marriages --- now forced to go to court to have their parentage legally recognized, unless they are the birth mother --- thousands of dollars in legal fees, Richardson said.

"There's a presumption in state law that in a marriage, when a woman has a baby, the husband is presumed to be the father, unless that's challenged. Same-sex couples want to enjoy the same benefit.... Even though we know biologically that is not possible, legally they want to have the same benefit," he said.

Copyright© 2016, Sun Sentinel

This article is related to: Same-Sex Marriage, Rick Scott

http://www.sun-senti nel.com /news/florida/sf!-flori da-1 awm akers-!eave-gay-marriage-ban-on-books-20160215-story.htmI

3/3

 </s> Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 144 Filed 03/30/16 Page 1 of 10
Page 1 of 10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JAMES DOMER BRENNER et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CASE NO. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS

RICK SCOTT, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

SLOAN GRIMSLEY et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CASE NO. 4:14cv138-RH/CAS

RICK SCOTT, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The initial issue in these consolidated cases was the constitutionality of Florida’s refusal to allow same-sex marriages or to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully entered elsewhere. The remaining issue is whether the case is moot in
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 144 Filed 03/30/16 Page 2 of 10
Page 2 of 10
light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015). This order holds that the case is not moot. The order renders summary judgment on the merits for the plaintiffs.
The defendants are two state officials—the Surgeon General and the Secretary of the Department of Management Services—and the Clerk of Court of Washington County. The Surgeon General is the head of the Department of Health, whose responsibilities include issuing birth and death certificates. The Department of Management Services administers employee benefits that can be affected by marital status. The Clerk of Court issues marriage licenses.
Ten years ago the Eleventh Circuit described its approach to this issue by saying it
has consistently held that a challenge to a government policy that has been unambiguously terminated will be moot in the absence of some reasonable basis to believe that the policy will be reinstated if the suit is terminated. In the absence of any such evidence, there is simply no point in allowing the suit to continue and we lack [the] power to allow it to do so. Troiano v. Supervisor of Elections in Palm Beach Cty., Fla., 382 F.3d 1276, 1285 (11th Cir. 2004). More recent cases have shown that such cases are sometimes moot, sometimes not. Compare, e.g., Jacksonville Property Rights Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, Fla., 635 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2011) (holding the case moot), with Rich v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 716 F.3d 525 (11th Cir. 2013) (holding the case
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 144 Filed 03/30/16 Page 3 of 10
Page 3 of 10
not moot). The question here is whether the defendants have “unambiguously terminated” their enforcement of the ban on same-sex marriage.
A “defendant’s voluntary cessation of allegedly unlawful conduct ordinarily does not suffice to moot a case.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 174 (2000). A case becomes moot only “if subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Id. at 189 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Eleventh Circuit places an initial burden on the defendant in determining whether a governmental entity has unambiguously terminated an allegedly illegal practice. See Troiano, 382 F.3d at 1285. The defendant “bears a heavy burden of demonstrating that his cessation of the challenged conduct renders the controversy moot.” Rich, 716 F.3d at 531.
A court must first determine whether the defendant has met the initial “heavy” burden of showing that “it is absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Harrell v. Fla. Bar, 608 F.3d 1241, 1268 (11th Cir. 2010). If so, the government is granted a “rebuttable presumption” that the illegal activity will not be resumed. Troiano, 382 F.3d at 1283. “This presumption is particularly warranted in cases where the government repealed or amended a challenged statute or policy—often a clear indicator of unambiguous termination.” Doe v. Wooten, 747 F.3d 1317, 1322 (11th Cir. 2014).
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 144 Filed 03/30/16 Page 4 of 10
Page 4 of 10
But “the government is—and always has been—required to justify application of the presumption before benefiting from it.” Id. at 1323.
Courts consider at least three factors in determining whether a defendant has unambiguously terminated the challenged conduct. First, courts consider the timing and content of the decision to terminate the conduct. Rich, 716 F.3d at 532. Second, courts consider whether the change in conduct was the result of substantial deliberation or was instead an attempt to manipulate the court’s jurisdiction. Id. And third, courts consider whether the new policy has been consistently applied. Id. If the defendant establishes unambiguous termination, the controversy is moot, “in the absence of some reasonable basis to believe that the policy will be reinstated if the suit is terminated.” Troiano v. Supervisor of Elections in Palm Beach Cty., Fla., 382 F.3d 1276, 1285 (11th Cir. 2004).
As these cases make clear, a government ordinarily cannot establish mootness just by promising to sin no more. The defendants in this case emphasize the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Jacksonville Property Rights, but an important difference in that case is that the defendant city affirmatively repealed the challenged ordinance. Here the Florida Legislature has refused to budge; the challenged statutes remain on the books. That result is fully consistent with the defendants’ approach to this case all along. There has been nothing voluntary about the defendants’ change of tack.
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 144 Filed 03/30/16 Page 5 of 10
Page 5 of 10
The state defendants defended this case from the outset with vigor. They gave no sway to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013). When 18 successive federal decisions in district and circuit courts said that, under Windsor, states could not ban same-sex marriage, the defendants were undeterred. My order granting a preliminary injunction was the 19th federal decision in a then-unbroken progression.
The United States Supreme Court and federal courts of appeals had stayed similar rulings in other cases. I stayed the preliminary injunction while those stays were in effect and for 91 more days—long enough to allow the defendants to seek a further stay in the Eleventh Circuit and, if unsuccessful there, in the United States Supreme Court. The defendants did that. They lost. The United States Supreme Court vacated its stays in other cases and allowed the preliminary injunction in this case to take effect.
Still the defendants resisted. The Clerk of Court said he would issue a single marriage certificate but that it would be a misdemeanor to issue any more; he asked for an explicit ruling whether he had to do so. The state defendants were given an opportunity to be heard but essentially stood mute, noting the narrow reach of the preliminary injunction and foregoing the opportunity to say they had lost the stay issue and would follow the injunction across the board. Same-sex marriages began in Florida only when I entered another order in response to the
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 144 Filed 03/30/16 Page 6 of 10
Page 6 of 10
Clerk’s motion to clarify. The order noted the precise scope of the preliminary
injunction and added:
History records no shortage of instances when state officials defied federal court orders on issues of federal constitutional law. Happily, there are many more instances when responsible officials followed the law, like it or not. Reasonable people can debate whether the ruling in this case was correct and who it binds. There should be no debate, however, on the question whether a clerk of court may follow the ruling, even for marriage-license applicants who are not parties to this case. And a clerk who chooses not to follow the ruling should take note: the governing statutes and rules of procedure allow individuals to intervene as plaintiffs in pending actions, allow certification of plaintiff and defendant classes, allow issuance of successive preliminary injunctions, and allow successful plaintiffs to recover costs and attorney’s fees.
ECF No. 109 at 3.
After entry of that order, most clerks around the state began to issue licenses
for same-sex marriages. Still the state defendants in this case stood mute.
After the United States Supreme Court issued Obergefell, one might have
expected immediate, unequivocal acceptance. And for all that appears in this
record, the Clerk of Court did indeed accept the decision, as he was required to do.
Not so for the State of Florida. The Surgeon General filed in this court a motion to
clarify, essentially asserting that if he does what Obergefell plainly requires with
respect to birth certificates, he will be violating a different state statute—a statute
that has not explicitly been struck down. Thus the Surgeon General has filed a
motion “to clarify.” The motion asks whether, under the preliminary injunction
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 144 Filed 03/30/16 Page 7 of 10
Page 7 of 10
and Obergefell, he must issue birth certificates to married same-sex parents, even though Florida Statutes § 382.013(2)(a) requires that if a mother is married at the time of a birth, the name of the “father” must be entered on the birth certificate. According to the Surgeon General, this still-extant statute precludes some samesex parents from being listed on the birth certificate.
The issue is not well presented in this case; so far as shown by this record, none of the plaintiffs are yet in this situation. See Order on the Scope of the Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 109. But the answer should be easy. The statutory reference to “husband” cannot prevent equal treatment of a same-sex spouse. So, for example, in circumstances in which the Surgeon General lists on a birth certificate an opposite-sex spouse who is not a biological parent, the Surgeon General must list a same-sex spouse who is not a biological parent.
The Surgeon General apparently is still not issuing birth certificates as required by Obergefell. Two other lawsuits raising this issue are now pending in this court. The Surgeon General’s approach casts doubt on whether the State of Florida has voluntarily brought itself into compliance with Obergefell. Indeed, Obergefell did not explicitly address any Florida statute. If the Surgeon General believes, as suggested by his motion to clarify, that he must comply with Florida same-sex marriage laws until explicitly struck down, then dismissal of this case as moot would leave him free to go back to where he was before the lawsuit was
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 144 Filed 03/30/16 Page 8 of 10
Page 8 of 10
filed. The same is true for the Secretary of the Department of Management Services: there are many requirements affecting state employment that turn on marital status, and many of those have not been explicitly addressed, either in Obergefell or even in this case.
Given the state defendants’ history of resistance to earlier orders, the breadth of state employment and vital-records requirements, and the state defendants’ insistence that state provisions remain in force until explicitly struck down, it cannot be said that the state defendants have unambiguously terminated their illegal practices. That the Legislature chose not to pass legislation to bring Florida law into compliance does not help the defendants. Like the only circuit court that has addressed the voluntary-cessation issue since Obergefell, I deny the motion to dismiss this case as moot. See Jernigan v. Crane, 796 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 2015); Waters v. Ricketts, 798 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2015); Rosenbrahn v. Daugaard, 799 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2015).
On the merits, the plaintiffs are plainly entitled to summary judgment. The reasons are set out in the preliminary injunction and in Obergefell. This order thus enters a declaration and injunction against the Surgeon General and Secretary and directs the clerk to enter judgment. The judgment will be in favor of the plaintiffs against the Surgeon General and Secretary, will dismiss the claims against the Clerk of Court as moot, and will dismiss the claims against other defendants as set
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 144 Filed 03/30/16 Page 9 of 10
Page 9 of 10
out in the original order on their motions to dismiss. Judgment was not entered in favor of those defendants at that time under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
IT IS ORDERED: 1. The motion for clarification, ECF No. 113, is denied. 2. The motion to dismiss as moot, ECF No. 118, is granted in part and denied in part. The claims against the Clerk of Court are dismissed as moot. The claims against the Surgeon General and Secretary are not dismissed. 3. The plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motions, ECF Nos. 111 and 138, are granted. 4. It is declared that these provisions are unconstitutional: Florida Constitution, Article I, § 27; Florida Statutes § 741.212; and Florida Statutes § 741.04(1). 5. The defendant Secretary of the Florida Department of Management Services and the defendant Florida Surgeon General must take no steps to enforce or apply these Florida provisions on same-sex marriage: Florida Constitution, Article I, § 27; Florida Statutes § 741.212; and Florida Statutes § 741.04(1). 6. This injunction binds the Secretary, the Surgeon General, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys—and others in active concert or participation with any of them—who receive actual notice of this injunction by personal service or otherwise.
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 144 Filed 03/30/16 Page 10 of 10
Page 10 of 10
7. The clerk must enter judgment for the plaintiffs against the Secretary and Surgeon General and dismissing without prejudice the claims against all other defendants.
SO ORDERED on March 30, 2016. s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge
Cases No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/.CAS

 </s> Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 153 Filed 05/10/16 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JAMES DOMER BRENNER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 4:14-cv-107-RH-CAS

v.

RICK SCOTT, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________________

SLOAN GRIMSLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 4:14-cv-138-RH-CAS

v.

RICK SCOTT, et al.,
Defendants. ____________________________________
GRIMSLEY PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

The Grimsley Plaintiffs and Defendants jointly notify the Court that they have reached a settlement on attorneys’ fees and costs in Case No. 4:14-cv-138-RH-CAS. The parties respectfully request that the Court stay further proceedings under Local Rule 54.1 in the Grimsley case pending receipt of settlement funds. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the Grimsley Plaintiffs shall file a notice of withdrawal of their fee petition upon consummation of the settlement. The settlement also obviates the bill of costs previously filed.

1

Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 153 Filed 05/10/16 Page 2 of 2

Date: May 10, 2016

Certificate of Service: Today, Daniel B. Tilley electronically filed this document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF, which automatically serves all counsel of record who have appeared.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Daniel B. Tilley Daniel B. Tilley Florida Bar No. 102882 Nancy G. Abudu Florida Bar No. 111881 ACLU Foundation of Florida 4500 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 340 Miami, FL 33137 (786) 363-2714 DTilley@aclufl.org / NAbudu@aclufl.org
Stephen F. Rosenthal Florida Bar No. 131458 Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 (305) 358-2800 SRosenthal@podhurst.com

/s/William H. Stafford III Jonathan L. Williams (FBN 117574) Deputy Solicitor General William H. Stafford III (FBN 70394) Office of the Attorney General PL 01 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (850) 414-3688 (850) 410-2672 (fax) Jonathan.Williams@myfloridalegal.com William.Stafford@myfloridalegal.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

Leslie Cooper ACLU Foundation 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 549-2627 LCooper@aclu.org

ATTORNEYS FOR THE GRIMSLEY PLAINTIFFS

2

 </s> Case: 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS As of: 08/26/2014 10:58 AM CDT 1 of 9
CONSOLIDATED
U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida (Tallahassee) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:14−cv−00138−RH−CAS

GRIMSLEY et al v. SCOTT et al Assigned to: JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE Referred to: MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES A STAMPELOS Lead case: 4:14−cv−00107−RH−CAS Member case: (View Member Case) Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/12/2014 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

SLOAN GRIMSLEY

represented by BENJAMIN JAMES STEVENSON BENJAMIN STEVENSON ESQ − PENSACOLA FL PO BOX 12723 PENSACOLA, FL 32591−2723 786−363−2738 Fax: 786−363−1985 Email: bstevenson@aclufl.org TERMINATED: 04/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY ACLU FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA INC − MIAMI FL 4500 BISCAYNE BLVD STE 340 MIAMI, FL 33137 786−363−2714 Fax: 786−363−3091 Email: dtilley@aclufl.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIA KAYANAN ACLU FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA INC − MIAMI FL 4500 BISCAYNE BLVD STE 340 MIAMI, FL 33137 786−363−2700 Fax: 786−363−3108 Email: mkayanan@aclufl.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL PODHURST ORSECK PA − MIAMI FL 25 W FLAGLER ST STE 800 MIAMI, FL 33130 305−358−2800 Fax: 305−358−2382 Email: srosenthal@podhurst.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JOYCE ALBU

represented by BENJAMIN JAMES STEVENSON (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS As of: 08/26/2014 10:58 AM CDT 2 of 9

DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff BOB COLLIER

represented by BENJAMIN JAMES STEVENSON (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CHUCK HUNZIKER

represented by BENJAMIN JAMES STEVENSON (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff LINDSAY MYERS

represented by BENJAMIN JAMES STEVENSON (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL

Case: 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS As of: 08/26/2014 10:58 AM CDT 3 of 9

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff SARAH HUMLIE

represented by BENJAMIN JAMES STEVENSON (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ROBERT LOUPO

represented by BENJAMIN JAMES STEVENSON (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JOHN FITZGERALD

represented by BENJAMIN JAMES STEVENSON (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff DENISE HUESO

represented by BENJAMIN JAMES STEVENSON (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS As of: 08/26/2014 10:58 AM CDT 4 of 9

Plaintiff SANDRA NEWSON
Plaintiff JUAN DEL HIERRO
Plaintiff THOMAS GANTT, JR

DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by BENJAMIN JAMES STEVENSON (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY
DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by BENJAMIN JAMES STEVENSON (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY
DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by BENJAMIN JAMES STEVENSON (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY
DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS As of: 08/26/2014 10:58 AM CDT 5 of 9

STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CHRISTIAN ULVERT

represented by BENJAMIN JAMES STEVENSON (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CARLOS ANDRADE

represented by BENJAMIN JAMES STEVENSON (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff RICHARD MILSTEIN

represented by BENJAMIN JAMES STEVENSON (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ERIC HANKIN

represented by BENJAMIN JAMES STEVENSON (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/16/2014

Case: 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS As of: 08/26/2014 10:58 AM CDT 6 of 9

LEAD ATTORNEY

DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff SAVE FOUNDATION INC

represented by BENJAMIN JAMES STEVENSON (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ARLENE GOLDBERG

represented by DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
RICK SCOTT GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

represented by ALLEN C WINSOR FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL − TALLAHASSEE FL THE CAPITOL PL−01 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399−1050 850−414−3688 Fax: 850−410−2672 Email: allen.winsor@myfloridalegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ADAM SCOTT TANENBAUM ATTORNEY GENERAL − PL−01 − TALLAHASSEE FL STATE OF FLORIDA PL 01 THE CAPITOL 400 S MONROE ST TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399 850−414−3681 Fax: 850−410−2672 Email: adam.tanenbaum@myfloridalegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS As of: 08/26/2014 10:58 AM CDT 7 of 9

Defendant PAMELA BONDI IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF FLORIDA
Defendant JOHN H ARMSTRONG SURGEON GENERAL AND SECRETARY OF HEALTH FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Defendant CRAIG J NICHOLS AGENCY SECRETARY FOR THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES

represented by ALLEN C WINSOR (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ADAM SCOTT TANENBAUM (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALLEN C WINSOR (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ADAM SCOTT TANENBAUM (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALLEN C WINSOR (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ADAM SCOTT TANENBAUM (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Defendant FLORIDA FAMILY ACTION INC

represented by HORATIO G. MIHET LIBERTY COUNSEL PO BOX 540774 ORLANDO, FL 32854 800−671−1776 Fax: 407−875−0770 Email: hmihet@lc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/12/2014
03/12/2014 03/13/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 1129−2896463.), filed by ROBERT LOUPO, SAVE FOUNDATION, INC., BOB COLLIER, CHRISTIAN ULVERT, CARLOS ANDRADE, DENISE HUESO, THOMAS GANTT, JR, JOYCE ALBU, LINDSAY MYERS, JOHN FITZGERALD, JUAN DEL HIERRO, ERIC HANKIN, SANDRA NEWSON, CHUCK HUNZIKER, SARAH HUMLIE, RICHARD MILSTEIN, SLOAN GRIMSLEY. (Attachments: # 1 SUMMONS FOR JOHN ARMSTRONG, # 2 SUMMONS FOR PAM BONDI, # 3 SUMMONS FOR CRAIG NICHOLS, # 4 SUMMONS FOR RICK SCOTT) (STEVENSON, BENJAMIN) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET. (STEVENSON, BENJAMIN) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
3 Summons Issued as to JOHN H ARMSTRONG, PAMELA BONDI, CRAIG J NICHOLS, RICK SCOTT. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons) (pll) (Entered: 03/13/2014)

Case: 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS As of: 08/26/2014 10:58 AM CDT 8 of 9

03/19/2014
03/20/2014 03/20/2014 03/20/2014 03/20/2014 03/20/2014
03/25/2014 03/26/2014
03/27/2014

4 NOTICE of Pendency of Other or Prior Similar Actions by JOYCE ALBU, CARLOS ANDRADE, BOB COLLIER, JUAN DEL HIERRO, JOHN FITZGERALD, THOMAS GANTT, JR, SLOAN GRIMSLEY, ERIC HANKIN, DENISE HUESO, SARAH HUMLIE, CHUCK HUNZIKER, ROBERT LOUPO, RICHARD MILSTEIN, LINDSAY MYERS, SANDRA NEWSON, SAVE FOUNDATION, INC., CHRISTIAN ULVERT (TILLEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
5 SUMMONS Returned Executed . RICK SCOTT served on 3/20/2014, answer due 4/10/2014. (TILLEY, DANIEL) Modified on 3/21/2014 (pll). (Entered: 03/20/2014)
6 SUMMONS Returned Executed . PAMELA BONDI served on 3/20/2014, answer due 4/10/2014. (TILLEY, DANIEL) Modified on 3/21/2014 (pll). (Entered: 03/20/2014)
7 SUMMONS Returned Executed . JOHN H ARMSTRONG served on 3/20/2014, answer due 4/10/2014. (TILLEY, DANIEL) Modified on 3/21/2014 (pll). (Entered: 03/20/2014)
8 SUMMONS Returned Executed . CRAIG J NICHOLS served on 3/20/2014, answer due 4/10/2014. (TILLEY, DANIEL) Modified on 3/21/2014 (pll). (Entered: 03/20/2014)
9 SUMMONS Returned Executed by ROBERT LOUPO, SAVE FOUNDATION, INC., BOB COLLIER, CHRISTIAN ULVERT, CARLOS ANDRADE, DENISE HUESO, THOMAS GANTT, JR, JOYCE ALBU, LINDSAY MYERS, JOHN FITZGERALD, JUAN DEL HIERRO, ERIC HANKIN, SANDRA NEWSON, CHUCK HUNZIKER, SARAH HUMLIE, RICHARD MILSTEIN, SLOAN GRIMSLEY. (TILLEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
10 NOTICE of Appearance by ADAM SCOTT TANENBAUM on behalf of All Defendants (TANENBAUM, ADAM) (Entered: 03/25/2014)
11 ORDER SETTING A CASE−MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT.( Answer due by 4/25/2014., Telephonic Scheduling Conference set in this case and 4:14cv107−RH/CAS for 4/18/2014 09:00 AM in U.S. Courthouse Tallahassee before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE.). Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/26/2014. (pll) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
12 NOTICE OF TELEPHONIC HEARING: Telephonic Case Management Conference set for 4/18/2014 at 9:00 A.M. before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE, United States Courthouse, 111 North Adams St., Tallahassee, Florida 32301.

Parties are instructed to call (888) 684−8852 Access Code: 8131706# Security Code: 0129# at the time of hearing.

NOTE: If you or any party, witness or attorney in this matter has a disability that requires special accommodation, such as, a hearing impairment that requires a sign language interpreter or a wheelchair restriction that requires ramp access, please contact Elizabeth Lawrence at 850−521−3501 in the Clerk's Office at least one week prior to the hearing (or as soon as possible) so arrangements can be made.

04/02/2014 04/02/2014 04/09/2014

s/ Sherrye Stephens Judicial Assistant (sms) (Entered: 03/27/2014)
13 MOTION to Intervene as Party Defendant by Florida Family Action, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support, # 2 Proposed Answer and Defenses) (MIHET, HORATIO) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
14 NOTICE of Appearance by STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL on behalf of All Plaintiffs (ROSENTHAL, STEPHEN) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
15 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases and to Set Briefing Schedule −− Filed Jointly by Plaintiffs and Defendants by JOHN H ARMSTRONG, PAMELA BONDI, CRAIG J NICHOLS, RICK SCOTT. (TANENBAUM, ADAM) (Entered: 04/09/2014)

Case: 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS As of: 08/26/2014 10:58 AM CDT 9 of 9

04/10/2014 04/14/2014 04/15/2014 04/15/2014 04/16/2014 04/18/2014 04/21/2014
08/21/2014

16 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants All Defendants., filed by ROBERT LOUPO, SAVE FOUNDATION, INC., BOB COLLIER, CHRISTIAN ULVERT, CARLOS ANDRADE, DENISE HUESO, THOMAS GANTT, JR, JOYCE ALBU, LINDSAY MYERS, JOHN FITZGERALD, JUAN DEL HIERRO, ERIC HANKIN, SANDRA NEWSON, CHUCK HUNZIKER, SARAH HUMLIE, RICHARD MILSTEIN, SLOAN GRIMSLEY, ARLENE GOLDBERG. (TILLEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 04/10/2014)
17 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (Stevenson) by JOYCE ALBU, CARLOS ANDRADE, BOB COLLIER, JUAN DEL HIERRO, JOHN FITZGERALD, THOMAS GANTT, JR, ARLENE GOLDBERG, SLOAN GRIMSLEY, ERIC HANKIN, DENISE HUESO, SARAH HUMLIE, CHUCK HUNZIKER, ROBERT LOUPO, RICHARD MILSTEIN, LINDSAY MYERS, SANDRA NEWSON, SAVE FOUNDATION, INC., CHRISTIAN ULVERT. (STEVENSON, BENJAMIN) (Entered: 04/14/2014)
18 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by JOYCE ALBU, CARLOS ANDRADE, BOB COLLIER, JUAN DEL HIERRO, JOHN FITZGERALD, THOMAS GANTT, JR, ARLENE GOLDBERG, SLOAN GRIMSLEY, ERIC HANKIN, DENISE HUESO, SARAH HUMLIE, CHUCK HUNZIKER, ROBERT LOUPO, RICHARD MILSTEIN, LINDSAY MYERS, SANDRA NEWSON, SAVE FOUNDATION, INC., CHRISTIAN ULVERT. (TILLEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
19 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by JOYCE ALBU, CARLOS ANDRADE, BOB COLLIER, JUAN DEL HIERRO, JOHN FITZGERALD, THOMAS GANTT, JR, ARLENE GOLDBERG, SLOAN GRIMSLEY, ERIC HANKIN, DENISE HUESO, SARAH HUMLIE, CHUCK HUNZIKER, ROBERT LOUPO, RICHARD MILSTEIN, LINDSAY MYERS, SANDRA NEWSON, SAVE FOUNDATION, INC., CHRISTIAN ULVERT. (TILLEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
20 ORDER GRANTING 17 LEAVE TO WITHDRAW STEVENSON. Attorney BENJAMIN JAMES STEVENSON terminated. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 4/16/2014. (pll) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
21 Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE:Case Management Conference held on 4/18/2014. Parties discuss motion to consolidate and schedule for the case. Ruling by Court: The motion to consolidate is GRANTED. A schedule is set forth on the case. An order is forthcoming. (Court Reporter Lisa Snyder) (erl) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
22 ORDER SETTING A PARTIAL SCHEDULE AND CONSOLIDATING THE CASES FOR CASE−MANAGEMENT PURPOSES. These cases are consolidated for case−management purposes only and will be maintained on a common docket under Consolidated Case No. 4:14cv107. GRANTED 15 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases and to Set Briefing Schedule. The deadline for responding to the motions to intervene, ECF No. 22 in Case No. 4:14cv107 and ECF No. 13 in Case No. 4:14cv138, remains April 21, 2014. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 4/21/2014. (dc) (Entered: 04/22/2014)
23 ORDER DENYING THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS, GRANTING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND TEMPORARILY STAYING THE INJUNCTION. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 8/21/14. (sms) (Entered: 08/21/2014)

 </s> CLOSED,LEAD_CASE
U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida (Tallahassee) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:14−cv−00107−RH−CAS

BRENNER et al v. SCOTT et al Assigned to: JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE Referred to: MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES A STAMPELOS Case in other court: USCA, 14−14061−A Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 02/28/2014 Date Terminated: 03/30/2016 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

JAMES DOMER BRENNER

represented by BRYAN EVERETT DEMAGGIO SHEPPARD WHITE ETC PA − JACKSONVILLE FL 215 WASHINGTON ST JACKSONVILLE, FL 32202 904−356−9661 Fax: 904−356−9667 Email: sheplaw@att.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SAMUEL S JACOBSON BLEDSOE JACOBSON SCHMIDT ETC PA 1301 RIVERPLACE BLVD STE 1818 JACKSONVILLE, FL 32207 904/398−1818 Fax: 904/398−7073 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

WILLIAM J SHEPPARD SHEPPARD WHITE ETC PA − JACKSONVILLE FL 215 WASHINGTON ST JACKSONVILLE, FL 32202 904−356−9661 Fax: 9094−356−9667 Email: sheplaw@att.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CHARLES DEAN JONES

represented by BRYAN EVERETT DEMAGGIO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SAMUEL S JACOBSON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

WILLIAM J SHEPPARD (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff STEPHEN SCHLAIRET

represented by

Plaintiff OZZIE RUSS
Plaintiff SLOAN GRIMSLEY

BRYAN EVERETT DEMAGGIO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMUEL S JACOBSON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
WILLIAM J SHEPPARD (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by BRYAN EVERETT DEMAGGIO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMUEL S JACOBSON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
WILLIAM J SHEPPARD (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY ACLU FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA INC − MIAMI FL 4500 BISCAYNE BLVD STE 340 MIAMI, FL 33137 786−363−2714 Fax: 786−363−3091 Email: dtilley@aclufl.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIA KAYANAN ACLU FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA INC − MIAMI FL 4500 BISCAYNE BLVD STE 340 MIAMI, FL 33137 786−363−2700 Fax: 786−363−3108 Email: mkhellsten@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL PODHURST ORSECK PA − MIAMI FL 1 SE 3RD AVENUE STE 2700 MIAMI, FL 33131 Email: srosenthal@podhurst.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff JOYCE ALBU
Plaintiff BOB COLLIER
Plaintiff CHUCK HUNZIKER
Plaintiff LINDSAY MYERS

represented by DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff SARAH HUMLIE
Plaintiff ROBERT LOUPO
Plaintiff JOHN FITZGERALD
Plaintiff DENISE HUESO

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL

Plaintiff SANDRA NEWSON
Plaintiff JUAN DEL HIERRO
Plaintiff THOMAS GANTT, JR
Plaintiff CHRISTIAN ULVERT

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CARLOS ANDRADE
Plaintiff RICHARD MILSTEIN
Plaintiff ERIC HANKIN
Plaintiff ARLENE GOLDBERG

STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address)

Plaintiff SAVE FOUNDATION INC
V. Intervenor Plaintiff CHRIS SEVIER TERMINATED: 04/24/2014
V. Defendant GOVERNOR RICK SCOTT

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DANIEL BOAZ TILLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIA KAYANAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN FREDERICK ROSENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by CHRIS SEVIER 909 SANTA ROSA BLVD FORT WALTON BCH, FL 32548 (615)500−4411 PRO SE
represented by ALLEN C WINSOR FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL − TALLAHASSEE FL THE CAPITOL PL−01 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399−1050 850−414−3688 Fax: 850−410−2672 Email: allen.winsor@myfloridalegal.com TERMINATED: 03/30/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
ADAM SCOTT TANENBAUM FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 418 THE CAPITOL TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399−1300 850−717−5587 Email: adam.tanenbaum@dos.myflorida.com TERMINATED: 03/30/2016
JONATHAN LENTINE WILLIAMS ATTORNEY GENERAL − 107 W GAINES − TALLAHASSEE FL Office of the Solicitor General 107 WEST GAINES ST TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301

Defendant PAMELA BONDI
Defendant JOHN H ARMSTRONG IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SURGEON GENERAL AND SECRETARY OF HEALTH FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA

850−414−3818 Email: jonathan.williams@myfloridalegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
WILLIAM HENRY STAFFORD , III ATTORNEY GENERAL − PL−01 − TALLAHASSEE FL STATE OF FLORIDA PL 01 THE CAPITOL 400 S MONROE ST TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399 850/414−3785 Fax: 850/413−7555 Email: william.stafford@myfloridalegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALLEN C WINSOR (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
ADAM SCOTT TANENBAUM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2016
JONATHAN LENTINE WILLIAMS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
WILLIAM HENRY STAFFORD , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALLEN C WINSOR (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
MARK JOHN HENDERSON FL DEPT OF CORRECTIONS − TALLAHASSEE FL OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 2601 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399 850−487−8527 Fax: 850−410−4157 Email: Mark_Henderson@doh.state.fl.us TERMINATED: 11/02/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY
ADAM SCOTT TANENBAUM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2016
JAY PATRICK REYNOLDS FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH − TALLAHASSEE FL 4052 BALD CYPRESS WAY BIN A−02 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399−3265 850/245−4028 Fax: 850/413−8743

Defendant CRAIG J NICHOLS IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS AGENCY SECRETARY FOR THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Defendant HAROLD BAZZELL IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CLERK OF COURT AND COMPTROLLER FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY FLORIDA
Amicus FLORIDA FAMILY ACTION INC
Amicus FLORIDA CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, INC.
Amicus

Email: patrick.reynolds@flhealth.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JONATHAN LENTINE WILLIAMS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
WILLIAM HENRY STAFFORD , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ALLEN C WINSOR (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
ADAM SCOTT TANENBAUM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2016
JONATHAN LENTINE WILLIAMS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
WILLIAM HENRY STAFFORD , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES JEFFERY GOODMAN , JR JEFF GOODMAN PA − CHIPLEY FL 935 MAIN ST CHIPLEY, FL 32428 850−638−9722 Fax: 850−638−9724 Email: office@jeffgoodmanlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by HORATIO G. MIHET LIBERTY COUNSEL PO BOX 540774 ORLANDO, FL 32854 800−671−1776 Fax: 407−875−0770 Email: hmihet@lc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by STEPHEN C EMMANUEL AUSLEY & MCMULLEN − TALLAHASSEE FL 123 S CALHOUN ST TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301 850−425−5435 Fax: 850−222−7560 Email: semmanuel@ausley.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EQUALITY FLORIDA INSTITUTE INC
Amicus National Center for Lesbian Rights

Date Filed 02/28/2014 02/28/2014 02/28/2014 03/03/2014 03/03/2014 03/03/2014
03/04/2014 03/11/2014 03/11/2014 03/18/2014
03/18/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against PAMELA BONDI, RICK SCOTT ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 1129−2886351.), filed by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons) (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum of Law by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
3 MOTION for Leave to File Memorandum in Excess of Twenty−Five Pages by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
4 ORDER SETTING A SCHEDULING CONFERENCE. Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for March 26, 2014, at 9:00 A.M. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/3/14. (sms) (Entered: 03/03/2014)
5 ORDER INCREASING THE PAGE LIMIT FOR PRELIMINARY−INJUNCTION MEMORANDA − GRANTED 3 MOTION for Leave to File Memorandum in Excess of Twenty−Five Pages filed by CHARLES DEAN JONES, JAMES DOMER BRENNER. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/3/14. (sms). (Entered: 03/03/2014)
6 NOTICE OF TELEPHONIC HEARING: Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 3/26/14 at 09:00 A.M. before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE, United States Courthouse, 111 North Adams St., Tallahassee, Florida 32301.
Parties are instructed to call (850) 521−3601 at the time of hearing.
NOTE: If you or any party, witness or attorney in this matter has a disability that requires special accommodation, such as, a hearing impairment that requires a sign language interpreter or a wheelchair restriction that requires ramp access, please contact Kimberly Westphal at 850−521−3501 in the Clerk's Office at least one week prior to the hearing (or as soon as possible) so arrangements can be made.
s/ Sherrye Stephens Judicial Assistant. (sms) (Entered: 03/03/2014)
7 Summons Issued as to PAMELA BONDI, RICK SCOTT. (Attachments: # 1 Summon − Scott) (dlt) (Entered: 03/04/2014)
8 SUMMONS Returned Executed by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES. RICK SCOTT served on 3/6/2014, answer due 3/27/2014. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
9 SUMMONS Returned Executed by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES. PAMELA BONDI served on 3/6/2014, answer due 3/27/2014. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
10 First AMENDED COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against PAMELA BONDI, RICK SCOTT, filed by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A", # 2 Exhibit "B", # 3 Summons (Armstrong), # 4 Summons (Nichols), # 5 Summons (Bazzell)) (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) Modified on 3/26/2014 to seal Exhibit B, per court Order 19 ORDER SEALING ECF NO 10−2 (kjw). (Entered: 03/18/2014)
11 Amended MOTION Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Memorandum of Law by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES. (Attachments: #

03/19/2014 03/19/2014 03/21/2014 03/25/2014 03/25/2014 03/26/2014 03/26/2014 03/26/2014 03/26/2014
03/27/2014
04/02/2014

1 Exhibit 1) (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by ALLEN C WINSOR on behalf of PAMELA BONDI, RICK SCOTT (WINSOR, ALLEN) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
13 MOTION to Seal Document Unredacted Exhibit "B" to First Amended Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "B") (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
14 Summons Issued as to JOHN H ARMSTRONG, HAROLD BAZZELL, CRAIG J NICHOLS. (Attachments: # 1 Summon, # 2 Summon) (dlt) (Entered: 03/21/2014)
15 NOTICE of Appearance by ADAM SCOTT TANENBAUM on behalf of JOHN H ARMSTRONG, CRAIG J NICHOLS (TANENBAUM, ADAM) (Entered: 03/25/2014)
19 ORDER SEALING ECF NO 10−2, re: 10 First Amended Complaint (Exhibit B), re: 13 Motion to Seal Document Unredacted Exhibit "B" to First Amended Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. The clerk must maintain ECF No. 10−2 under seal. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/25/2014. (kjw) *Exhibit B sealed. (Entered: 03/26/2014)
16 Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE: Telephonic Scheduling Conference held on 3/26/2014. An order is forthcoming. (Court Reporter Judy Gagnon.) (sms) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
17 SUMMONS Returned Executed by STEPHEN SCHLAIRET, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, JAMES DOMER BRENNER. JOHN H ARMSTRONG served on 3/24/2014, answer due 4/14/2014. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
18 SUMMONS Returned Executed by STEPHEN SCHLAIRET, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, JAMES DOMER BRENNER. CRAIG J NICHOLS served on 3/24/2014, answer due 4/14/2014. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
20 ORDER SETTING A CASE−MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT AND PRELIMINARY−INJUNCTION MOTION. By a separate notice, the clerk must set a case−management conference by telephone for 4/18/2014 09:00 AM in this case and in GRIMSLEY v. SCOTT, No. 4:14cv138−RH−CAS (N.D. Fla). The deadline for the defendants to respond to the complaint and to the preliminary injunction motion is extended to 4/25/2014. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/26/2014. (kjw) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
21 NOTICE OF TELEPHONIC HEARING: Telephonic Case Management Conference set for 4/18/2014 at 9:00 A.M. before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE, United States Courthouse, 111 North Adams St., Tallahassee, Florida 32301.
Parties are instructed to call (888) 684−8852 Access Code: 8131706# Security Code: 0129# at the time of hearing.
NOTE: If you or any party, witness or attorney in this matter has a disability that requires special accommodation, such as, a hearing impairment that requires a sign language interpreter or a wheelchair restriction that requires ramp access, please contact Elizabeth Lawrence at 850−521−3501 in the Clerk's Office at least one week prior to the hearing (or as soon as possible) so arrangements can be made.
s/ Sherrye Stephens Judicial Assistant (sms) (Entered: 03/27/2014)
22 MOTION to Intervene as Party Defendant by Florida Family Action, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum In Support, # 2 Proposed Answer and Defenses) (MIHET, HORATIO) (Entered: 04/02/2014)

04/10/2014 04/11/2014 04/14/2014 04/15/2014 04/15/2014 04/15/2014 04/17/2014 04/18/2014 04/21/2014 04/21/2014
04/21/2014
04/22/2014

23 MOTION Consent to Joint Case Management by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 04/10/2014)
24 SUMMONS Returned Executed by STEPHEN SCHLAIRET, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, JAMES DOMER BRENNER. HAROLD BAZZELL served on 3/27/2014, answer due 4/17/2014. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
25 NOTICE of Appearance by JAMES JEFFERY GOODMAN, JR on behalf of HAROLD BAZZELL (GOODMAN, JAMES) (Entered: 04/14/2014)
26 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
27 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS − SEALED PORTION by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Statements for Services Rendered) (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
28 Consent MOTION to Consolidate Cases and To Coordinate Deadline for Responses to Amended Complaint and Preliminary Injunction Motion by JOHN H ARMSTRONG, PAMELA BONDI, CRAIG J NICHOLS, RICK SCOTT. (TANENBAUM, ADAM) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
29 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to the Plaintiff's Operative Pleading and Motion for Preliminary Injucntion by HAROLD BAZZELL. (GOODMAN, JAMES) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
30 Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE:Case Management Conference held on 4/18/2014. Parties discuss motion to consolidate and schedule for the case. Ruling by Court: The motion to consolidate is GRANTED. A schedule is set forth on the case. An order is forthcoming. (Court Reporter Lisa Snyder) (erl) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
31 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 22 MOTION to Intervene as Party Defendant filed by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
32 RESPONSE in Opposition re 22 MOTION to Intervene as Party Defendant filed by SLOAN GRIMSLEY, JOYCE ALBU, BOB COLLIER, CHUCK HUNZIKER, LINDSAY MYERS, SARAH HUMLIE, ROBERT LOUPO, JOHN FITZGERALD, DENISE HUESO, SANDRA NEWSON, JUAN DEL HIERRO, THOMAS GANTT, JR, CHRISTIAN ULVERT, CARLOS ANDRADE, RICHARD MILSTEIN, ERIC HANKIN, ARLENE GOLDBERG, SAVE FOUNDATION, INC.. (TILLEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
34 ORDER SETTING A PARTIAL SCHEDULE AND CONSOLIDATING THE CASES FOR CASE−MANAGEMENT PURPOSES − These cases are consolidated for case−management purposes only and will be maintained on a common docket under Consolidated Case No. 4:14cv107. The pending motions to consolidate (ECF Nos. 23 & 28 in Case No. 4:14cv107 and ECF No. 15 in Case No. 4:14cv138) are GRANTED to this extent and otherwise denied without prejudice. The defendant Clerks motion to extend time, ECF No. 29 in Case No. 4:14cv107, is GRANTED as set out above.(Internal deadline for referral to judge if Defendant response to complaint not filed earlier: 5/12/2014)., Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to any motion to dismiss due by 5/12/2014., Plaintiff's reply Memorandum in Support to preliminary−injunction motion due by 5/27/2014., Motion to supplement a preliminary injunction motion or submit evidence in support of preliminary injunction motion due by 4/25/2014.) Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 4/21/2014. (dlt) (Entered: 04/22/2014)
33 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 22 MOTION to Intervene as Party Defendant Amended filed by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 04/22/2014)

04/22/2014 04/22/2014 04/23/2014 04/24/2014 04/24/2014 04/24/2014
04/24/2014
04/25/2014
04/30/2014 05/02/2014
05/05/2014 05/12/2014 05/12/2014

38 MOTION to Intervene As A Plaintiff by CHRIS SEVIER. (dlt) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
39 MEMORANDUM in Support re 38 MOTION to Intervene filed by CHRIS SEVIER. (dlt) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
35 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by SLOAN GRIMSLEY. (KAYANAN, MARIA) (Entered: 04/23/2014)
36 NOTICE of Supplemental Authorities by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET re 10 Amended Complaint, 11 Amended MOTION Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Memorandum of Law (Attachments: # 1 Supplement DeBoer v. Snyder, # 2 Supplement Henry v. Himes) (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
37 ORDER INCREASING THE PAGE LIMIT FOR PRELIMINARY−INJUNCTION AND MOTION−TO−DISMISS MEMORANDA − GRANTED 35 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by SLOAN GRIMSLEY. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 4/24/2014. (dlt) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
40 ORDER DENYING LEAVE FOR FLORIDA FAMILY ACTION TO INTERVENE BUT ALLOWING IT TO PARTICIPATE AS AMICUS − DENIED 22 MOTION to Intervene as Party Defendant and ECF No. 13 in Case No. 4:14cv138, filed by FLORIDA FAMILY ACTION INC. FFA may file a memorandum as amicus curiae on any motion. The clerk must add FFA to the docket as an amicus so that its attorneys receive electronic notices of filings. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 4/24/2014. (dlt) Modified on 4/25/2014 (dlt). (Entered: 04/24/2014)
41 ORDER DENYING LEAVE FOR CHRIS SEVIER TO INTERVENE − Mr. Sevier's motion to intervene is DENIED. The clerk must hold for 90 days (and make available for inspection by any person on request) but must not file Mr. Seviers tendered second amended motion for declaratory and injunctive relief. The clerk must provide a copy of this order to the attorneys of record through the electronic filing system and to Mr. Sevier by mail. The clerk must provide to Mr. Sevier copies of further filings dealing specifically with his attempted intervention but must not add Mr. Sevier to the docket or service list for other documents. CHRIS SEVIER terminated., ( Retention period for pleading to be held until 7/25/2014 Pleading will be kept on shelf in case file order in outcard.) Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 4/24/2014. (dlt) (Entered: 04/25/2014)
42 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by JOYCE ALBU, CARLOS ANDRADE, BOB COLLIER, JUAN DEL HIERRO, JOHN FITZGERALD, THOMAS GANTT, JR, ARLENE GOLDBERG, SLOAN GRIMSLEY, ERIC HANKIN, DENISE HUESO, SARAH HUMLIE, CHUCK HUNZIKER, ROBERT LOUPO, RICHARD MILSTEIN, LINDSAY MYERS, SANDRA NEWSON, SAVE FOUNDATION INC, CHRISTIAN ULVERT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declarations, # 2 Exhibit Staff Analysis, # 3 Exhibit News Article, # 4 Exhibit Christian Family Coalition Q&A) (TILLEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 04/25/2014)
43 MOTION to File Amicus Brief by FLORIDA CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, INC.. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 5/19/2014). (EMMANUEL, STEPHEN) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
44 ORDER ALLOWING THE FLORIDA CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS TO PARTICIPATE AS AMICUS − The motion of the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops, Inc. ("the Conference") for leave to file a memorandum as amicus curiae, ECF No. 43 , is GRANTED. The clerk must add the Conference to the docket as an amicus so that its attorneys receive electronic notices of filings. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 5/2/2014. (dlt) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
45 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to CHRIS SEVIER Re: 41 ORDER DENYING LEAVE FOR CHRIS SEVIER TO INTERVENE (dlt) (Entered: 05/06/2014)
46 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF by FLORIDA CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, INC. . (EMMANUEL, STEPHEN) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
47 MOTION Second Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Amended Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by JAMES

05/12/2014 05/12/2014 05/12/2014
05/12/2014 05/12/2014 05/12/2014 05/14/2014 05/16/2014 05/19/2014 05/20/2014 05/22/2014 05/27/2014

DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A") (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
48 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 42 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction , 11 Amended MOTION Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Memorandum of Law filed by FLORIDA FAMILY ACTION INC. (MIHET, HORATIO) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
49 MOTION to Dismiss AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by HAROLD BAZZELL. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 5/30/2014). (GOODMAN, JAMES) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
50 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Memorandum of Law Supporting Dismissal and Opposing Preliminary Injunction Motions ( (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 5/30/2014).) by JOHN H ARMSTRONG, PAMELA BONDI, CRAIG J NICHOLS, RICK SCOTT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (TANENBAUM, ADAM) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
51 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, MOTION TO STRIKE, AMEND AND CORRECT, AND ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO FILE AN AMICUS CURIE BRIEF, MOTION FOR EFC FILING ACCESS by CHRIS SEVIER. (dlt) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
52 MEMORANDUM in Support re 51 MOTION for Reconsideration, MOTION To Strike, Amend and Correct, and Alternatively, Motion To File An Amicus Curie Brief, Motion For EFC Filing Access filed by CHRIS SEVIER. (dlt) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
53 **STRICKEN PER ORDER {55]** First Amended Intervenor COMPLAINT and PETITION For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, filed by CHRIS SEVIER. (dlt) Modified on 5/16/2014 (dlt). (Entered: 05/14/2014)
54 Third Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Amended Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A") (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM). (Entered: 05/14/2014)
55 ORDER DENYING THE SEVIER MOTIONS − Mr. Sevier's motions, ECF Nos. 51 and 52 , are denied. Mr. Sevier's tendered "first amended intervening complaint and petition for declaratory and injunctive relief," ECF No. 53 (capitalization omitted), is struck. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 5/15/2014. (dlt) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
56 MOTION Plaintiffs' Fourth Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Amended Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A") (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
57 MOTION Plaintiffs' Fifth Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Amended Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A") (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 05/20/2014)
58 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to CHRIS SEVIER Re: 55 ORDER. (tdl) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
59 RESPONSE in Opposition re 50 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Memorandum of Law Supporting Dismissal and Opposing Preliminary Injunction Motions , REPLY to Response to Motion re 42 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by JOYCE ALBU, CARLOS ANDRADE, BOB COLLIER, JUAN DEL HIERRO, JOHN FITZGERALD, THOMAS GANTT, JR, ARLENE GOLDBERG, SLOAN GRIMSLEY, ERIC HANKIN, DENISE HUESO, SARAH HUMLIE, CHUCK

05/27/2014
06/05/2014 06/08/2014 06/25/2014 07/01/2014 07/11/2014 07/17/2014 07/18/2014 07/22/2014 07/24/2014 07/28/2014

HUNZIKER, ROBERT LOUPO, RICHARD MILSTEIN, LINDSAY MYERS, SANDRA NEWSON, SAVE FOUNDATION INC, CHRISTIAN ULVERT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Finstuen v. Edmondson, # 2 Exhibit Obergefell v. Kasich) (TILLEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
60 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 49 MOTION to Dismiss AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, 50 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Memorandum of Law Supporting Dismissal and Opposing Preliminary Injunction Motions filed by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix "A" − Summary of Persuasive Authority Ruling on Same−Sex Marriage Bans and Anti−Recognition Statutes) (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
61 NOTICE of Supreme Court Denial of Stay by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
62 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Amended Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 06/08/2014)
63 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority by SLOAN GRIMSLEY re 42 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Tenth Circuit Opinion, # 2 Exhibit N.D. Indiana Opinion) (KAYANAN, MARIA) (Entered: 06/25/2014)
64 Seventh MOTION Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Amended Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 07/01/2014)
65 Eighth MOTION Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Amended Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A") (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
66 Ninth MOTION Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Amended Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A") (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 07/17/2014)
67 Tenth MOTION Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Amended Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
68 MOTION Plaintiffs' Eleventh Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Amended Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A") (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 07/22/2014)
69 MOTION Plaintiffs' Twelfth Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Amended Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A") (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 07/24/2014)
70 MOTION Plaintiffs' Thirteenth Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Amended Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A") (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 07/28/2014)

07/28/2014 08/05/2014 08/06/2014
08/21/2014 08/26/2014 08/28/2014 09/04/2014 09/04/2014 09/04/2014 09/05/2014
09/05/2014 09/05/2014 09/10/2014
09/17/2014

71 MOTION Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Amended Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A") (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
72 MOTION Plaintiffs' Fifteenth Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Amended Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
73 MOTION Plaintiffs' Sixteenth Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Amended Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A") (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
74 ORDER DENYING THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS, GRANTING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND TEMPORARILY STAYING THE INJUNCTION 2 11 42 49 and 50 Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 8/21/14. (sms) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
75 SECURITY fee: $ 100.00, receipt number 4−23181 as to JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET, OZZIE RUSS by WILLIAM J SHEPPARD. (tdl) (Entered: 08/27/2014)
76 SECURITY Fee: $ 500.00, receipt number 4−23190 as to JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET, OZZIE RUSS by WILLIAM J SHEPPARD. (tdl) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
77 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 74 Order by JOHN H ARMSTRONG, HAROLD BAZZELL, CRAIG J NICHOLS. ( Filing fee $505 Receipt Number 1129−3044410.) Transcript Order Form due by 9/18/2014. (TANENBAUM, ADAM) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
78 ANSWER to 10 Amended Complaint, by HAROLD BAZZELL. (GOODMAN, JAMES) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
79 ANSWER to 10 Amended Complaint, by JOHN H ARMSTRONG, CRAIG J NICHOLS. (TANENBAUM, ADAM) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
80 Appeal Instructions re: 77 Notice of Appeal : The Transcript Request Form is available on the Internet at http://www.flnd.uscourts.gov/forms/Attorney/ECCA_transcript_form_fillable.pdf **PLEASE NOTE** Separate forms must be filed for each court reporter. Transcript Order Form due by 9/19/2014. (tdl) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
81 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 77 Notice of Appeal. (tdl) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
Set Deadlines re 77 Notice of Appeal: Clerk to check status of Appeal on 12/5/2014. Electronic Availability of ROA by 12/5/2014. (tdl) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
82 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Telephonic Scheduling Conference held on 03/26/2014, before Judge ROBERT L. HINKLE. Court Reporter Judy A. Gagnon, Telephone number 850−561−6822.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.
Redaction Request due 9/17/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/16/2014. (jag) (Entered: 09/10/2014)
83 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by JOHN H ARMSTRONG, CRAIG J NICHOLS (TANENBAUM, ADAM) (Entered: 09/17/2014)

09/17/2014 09/18/2014 09/18/2014 09/19/2014 10/07/2014
10/07/2014 10/08/2014 10/15/2014
10/21/2014 10/24/2014 10/28/2014
10/30/2014 11/05/2014 11/10/2014

84 Redaction of 77 Notice of Appeal. (GOODMAN, JAMES) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
85 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by HAROLD BAZZELL for proceedings held on 09/18/2014 re 80 Appeal Instructions, 77 Notice of Appeal, 81 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to USCA Transcript due by 9/18/2014. (GOODMAN, JAMES) (Entered: 09/18/2014)
86 USCA Case Number 14−14061−A for 77 NOTICE OF APPEAL. (tdl) (Entered: 09/22/2014)
Appeal Transcript Deadlines Terminated re 77 Notice of Appeal filed by HAROLD BAZZELL, CRAIG J NICHOLS, JOHN H ARMSTRONG. No transcripts ordered. (tdg) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
87 MOTION to lift stay re 74 Order by JOYCE ALBU, CARLOS ANDRADE, BOB COLLIER, JUAN DEL HIERRO, JOHN FITZGERALD, THOMAS GANTT, JR, ARLENE GOLDBERG, SLOAN GRIMSLEY, ERIC HANKIN, DENISE HUESO, SARAH HUMLIE, CHUCK HUNZIKER, ROBERT LOUPO, RICHARD MILSTEIN, LINDSAY MYERS, SANDRA NEWSON, SAVE FOUNDATION INC, CHRISTIAN ULVERT. (Attachments: # 1 Fourth Circuit mandate, # 2 Seventh Circuit mandate part 1, # 3 Seventh Circuit mandate part 2, # 4 Tenth Circuit mandate part 1, # 5 Tenth Circuit mandate part 2) (TILLEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
88 MOTION to Dissolve Stay by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
89 ORDER of USCA as to 77 Notice of Appeal. USCA #14−14061−AA.**USCA Order docketed in case 4:14cv138 as to 14−14066 −AA. (tdl) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
90 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority by JOYCE ALBU, CARLOS ANDRADE, BOB COLLIER, JUAN DEL HIERRO, JOHN FITZGERALD, THOMAS GANTT, JR, ARLENE GOLDBERG, SLOAN GRIMSLEY, ERIC HANKIN, DENISE HUESO, SARAH HUMLIE, CHUCK HUNZIKER, ROBERT LOUPO, RICHARD MILSTEIN, LINDSAY MYERS, SANDRA NEWSON, SAVE FOUNDATION INC, CHRISTIAN ULVERT re 87 MOTION to lift stay re 74 Order (Attachments: # 1 Latta v. Otter) (TILLEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
91 MOTION for Filing of Amici Curiae Brief by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 10/21/2014)
92 Joint MOTION to Stay re 87 MOTION to lift stay re 74 Order , 88 MOTION to Dissolve Stay and Opposition to Motions to Lift Stay by JOHN H ARMSTRONG, HAROLD BAZZELL, CRAIG J NICHOLS. (TANENBAUM, ADAM) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
93 RESPONSE in Opposition re 92 Joint MOTION to Stay re 87 MOTION to lift stay re 74 Order , 88 MOTION to Dissolve Stay and Opposition to Motions to Lift Stay filed by JOYCE ALBU, CARLOS ANDRADE, BOB COLLIER, JUAN DEL HIERRO, JOHN FITZGERALD, THOMAS GANTT, JR, ARLENE GOLDBERG, SLOAN GRIMSLEY, ERIC HANKIN, DENISE HUESO, SARAH HUMLIE, CHUCK HUNZIKER, ROBERT LOUPO, RICHARD MILSTEIN, LINDSAY MYERS, SANDRA NEWSON, SAVE FOUNDATION INC, CHRISTIAN ULVERT. (TILLEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
94 MOTION Adoption and Joinder in Grimsley Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion to Continue Stay Pending Appeal by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 10/30/2014)
95 ORDER re 87 , 88 , 92 DENYING THE MOTIONS TO ALTER THE STAY. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 11/5/14. (sms) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
96 ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF FROM OTHER ACTIONS − ECF No. 91 motion for leave to file amicus briefs prepared for filing in other actions is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 11/10/2014. (sac) (Entered: 11/13/2014)

12/03/2014 12/05/2014 12/05/2014 12/23/2014 12/24/2014 12/24/2014 12/24/2014
12/29/2014 12/29/2014 12/29/2014 12/29/2014
12/29/2014 12/30/2014
12/31/2014 01/01/2015 01/06/2015

97 ORDER of USCA as to 77 Notice of Appeal. USCA Case #14−14061−AA. **USCA Order docketed in case 4:14cv138 as to 14−14066 −AA** (tdl) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
Reset Deadlines re 77 Notice of Appeal: (Clerk to check status of Appeal on 3/10/2015.) (tdl) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
98 Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 11(c), the Clerk of the District Court for the Northern District of Florida certifies that the record is complete for purposes of this appeal re: 77 Notice of Appeal, Appeal No. 14−14061−AA. The entire record on appeal is available electronically. (tdl) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
99 MOTION Emergency For Clarification and Memorandum of Law by HAROLD BAZZELL. (GOODMAN, JAMES) (Entered: 12/23/2014)
100 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET re 74 Order (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 12/24/2014)
101 Order setting procedures on the emergency motion to clarify. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 12/24/14. (RH) (Entered: 12/24/2014)
Set Deadlines re 101 Order: Secretary of the Department of Management Services must file a copy of each paper the Secretary filed in the Eleventh Circuit or Supreme Court on the stay issue − by 12/29/2014. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if the Secretary of the Department of Management Services, The Surgeon General and Plaintiffs response to 99 Motion for Clarification is not filed earlier: 12/29/2014). (tdl) (Entered: 12/24/2014)
102 RESPONSE in Opposition re 99 MOTION Emergency For Clarification and Memorandum of Law filed by JAMES DOMER BRENNER. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 12/29/2014)
103 RESPONSE to Motion re 99 MOTION Emergency For Clarification and Memorandum of Law filed by CRAIG J NICHOLS. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B, # 3 Appendix C) (WINSOR, ALLEN) (Entered: 12/29/2014)
104 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF by Equality Florida Institute, Inc., National Center for Lesbian Rights and Application to file amicus curiae memorandum. (MEEKS, MARY) (Entered: 12/29/2014)
105 RESPONSE to Motion re 99 MOTION Emergency For Clarification and Memorandum of Law filed by JOYCE ALBU, CARLOS ANDRADE, BOB COLLIER, JUAN DEL HIERRO, JOHN FITZGERALD, THOMAS GANTT, JR, ARLENE GOLDBERG, SLOAN GRIMSLEY, ERIC HANKIN, DENISE HUESO, SARAH HUMLIE, CHUCK HUNZIKER, ROBERT LOUPO, RICHARD MILSTEIN, LINDSAY MYERS, SANDRA NEWSON, SAVE FOUNDATION INC, CHRISTIAN ULVERT. (TILLEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 12/29/2014)
106 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF by FLORIDA FAMILY ACTION INC re 99 MOTION Emergency For Clarification and Memorandum of Law . (MIHET, HORATIO) (Entered: 12/29/2014)
107 AMENDED DOCUMENT by JOYCE ALBU, CARLOS ANDRADE, BOB COLLIER, JUAN DEL HIERRO, JOHN FITZGERALD, THOMAS GANTT, JR, ARLENE GOLDBERG, SLOAN GRIMSLEY, ERIC HANKIN, DENISE HUESO, SARAH HUMLIE, CHUCK HUNZIKER, ROBERT LOUPO, RICHARD MILSTEIN, LINDSAY MYERS, SANDRA NEWSON, SAVE FOUNDATION INC, CHRISTIAN ULVERT. Amendment to 105 Response to Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit corrected page) (TILLEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 12/30/2014)
108 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF by Equality Florida Institute, Inc., National Center for Lesbian Rights Request for Judicial Notice. (MEEKS, MARY) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
109 ORDER granting 99 motion to clarify the preliminary injunction. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 1/1/2015. (RH) (Entered: 01/01/2015)
110 ORDER of USCA as to 77 Notice of Appeal. USCA # 14−14061−AA **USCA Order docketed in case 4:14cv138 as to 14−14066 −AA** (tdl) (Entered: 01/14/2015)

03/10/2015 06/18/2015 08/04/2015
08/13/2015 08/13/2015 08/13/2015 08/13/2015 08/17/2015 08/18/2015
08/24/2015 08/25/2015 09/03/2015 09/09/2015
09/11/2015

Reset Deadlines re 77 Notice of Appeal: (Clerk to check status of Appeal on 6/10/2015.) (tdl) (Entered: 03/10/2015)
Reset Deadlines re 77 Notice of Appeal: (Clerk to check status of Appeal on 9/18/2015.) (tdl) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
111 MOTION for Summary Judgment by JOYCE ALBU, CARLOS ANDRADE, BOB COLLIER, JUAN DEL HIERRO, JOHN FITZGERALD, THOMAS GANTT, JR, ARLENE GOLDBERG, SLOAN GRIMSLEY, ERIC HANKIN, DENISE HUESO, SARAH HUMLIE, CHUCK HUNZIKER, ROBERT LOUPO, RICHARD MILSTEIN, LINDSAY MYERS, SANDRA NEWSON, SAVE FOUNDATION INC, CHRISTIAN ULVERT. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 8/25/2015). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Statement of Material Facts, # 2 Exhibit Brenner appellate docket, # 3 Exhibit Grimsley appellate docket, # 4 Exhibit 11th Cir. order holding appeals in abeyance, # 5 Exhibit Grimsley notice re pending issues, # 6 Exhibit Brenner notice re pending issues, # 7 Exhibit Defendants−Appellants' motion to dismiss (appellate)) (TILLEY, DANIEL) Modified response ddl on 8/5/2015 (tdl). (Entered: 08/04/2015)
112 NOTICE of Appearance by MARK JOHN HENDERSON on behalf of RICK SCOTT (HENDERSON, MARK) (Entered: 08/13/2015)
113 MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION by RICK SCOTT. (HENDERSON, MARK) Modified on 8/14/2015 (erl). Modified on 8/24/2015 (dac). (Entered: 08/13/2015)
114 REPLY to Response to Motion re 113 MOTION to Continue , RESPONSE to Motion for Clarification filed by Equality Florida Institute, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A) (MEEKS, MARY) (Entered: 08/14/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 113 MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION . (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 8/31/2015). (erl) (Entered: 08/14/2015)
115 NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1(B) by JOHN H ARMSTRONG (HENDERSON, MARK) (Entered: 08/17/2015)
116 RESPONSE to Motion re 113 MOTION to Continue [Clarification] filed by JOYCE ALBU, CARLOS ANDRADE, BOB COLLIER, JUAN DEL HIERRO, JOHN FITZGERALD, THOMAS GANTT, JR, SLOAN GRIMSLEY, ERIC HANKIN, DENISE HUESO, SARAH HUMLIE, CHUCK HUNZIKER, ROBERT LOUPO, RICHARD MILSTEIN, LINDSAY MYERS, SANDRA NEWSON, SAVE FOUNDATION INC, CHRISTIAN ULVERT. (ROSENTHAL, STEPHEN) (Entered: 08/18/2015)
117 RESPONSE to Motion re 113 MOTION for Clarification of Preliminary Injunction as it Relates to the Issuance of Birth Certificates to Married Same−Sex Couples filed by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 08/24/2015)
118 DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO GRIMSLEY PLAINTIFFS' 111 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT filed by JOHN H ARMSTRONG, CRAIG J NICHOLS. (WINSOR, ALLEN) Modified event type and Docket Title on 8/27/2015 (tdl). (Entered: 08/25/2015)
119 RESPONSE to Motion re 118 MOTION to Dismiss filed by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 09/03/2015)
120 RESPONSE in Opposition re 118 MOTION to Dismiss filed by JOYCE ALBU, CARLOS ANDRADE, BOB COLLIER, JUAN DEL HIERRO, JOHN FITZGERALD, THOMAS GANTT, JR, ARLENE GOLDBERG, SLOAN GRIMSLEY, ERIC HANKIN, DENISE HUESO, SARAH HUMLIE, CHUCK HUNZIKER, ROBERT LOUPO, RICHARD MILSTEIN, LINDSAY MYERS, SANDRA NEWSON, SAVE FOUNDATION INC, CHRISTIAN ULVERT. (TILLEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 09/09/2015)
121 MOTION for Clarification to Brenner Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Opposition to the Grimsley Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss as

09/18/2015 09/22/2015 10/07/2015 10/19/2015
11/02/2015 11/02/2015
11/02/2015 11/03/2015
11/03/2015 11/12/2015 11/19/2015 11/19/2015 11/23/2015 12/03/2015 01/07/2016

Moot by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 09/11/2015)
122 NOTICE of Appearance by JAY PATRICK REYNOLDS on behalf of JOHN H ARMSTRONG (REYNOLDS, JAY) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
Reset Deadlines re 77 Notice of Appeal: (Clerk to check status of Appeal on 12/22/2015.) (tdl) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
123 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by JOHN H ARMSTRONG. (HENDERSON, MARK) (Entered: 10/07/2015)
124 MANDATE of USCA − The enclosed copy of this Court's Order of Dismissal is issued as the mandate of this court. All pending motions are now rendered moot in light of the attached order as to 77 Notice of Appeal. USCA #14−14061−AA (tdl)**USCA Mandate docketed in case 4:14cv138 as to 14−14066 −AA** (Entered: 10/21/2015)
125 ORDER granting 123 LEAVE TO WITHDRAWHENDERSON. Attorney MARK JOHN HENDERSON terminated. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 11/2/2015. (tdl) (Entered: 11/02/2015)
126 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs (Brenner Planitiffs) by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Report and Recommendation − Atwater v. Sarala, Inc., # 2 Exhibit 2 − Comparison of Awards in Other Same−Sex Marriage Cases, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Time Billed for Wm. J. Sheppard, Sheppard, White, Kachergus & DeMaggio, P.A., # 4 Exhibit 4 − Time Billed for Samuel Jacobson, Jacobson, Wright & Sussman, P.A.) (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 11/02/2015)
127 AFFIDAVIT of William J. Sheppard as to Attorneys Fees and Costs by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 11/02/2015)
128 NOTICE of Filing in Support of Brenner Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Unsworn Declaration of George E. Schulz, Jr., as to Attorneys Fees and Costs) (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 11/03/2015)
129 NOTICE − Certificate of Compliance With Local Rule 7.1(B) by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 11/03/2015)
130 NOTICE of Appearance by WILLIAM HENRY STAFFORD, III on behalf of JOHN H ARMSTRONG, PAMELA BONDI, CRAIG J NICHOLS, RICK SCOTT (STAFFORD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
131 STIPULATION REGARDING ATTORNEY FEE PROCEEDINGS by JOHN H ARMSTRONG, CRAIG J NICHOLS. (STAFFORD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
132 MOTION for Joinder Stipulation Regarding Attorney Fee Proceedings by HAROLD BAZZELL. (GOODMAN, JAMES) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
133 RESPONSE to Motion re 132 MOTION for Joinder Stipulation Regarding Attorney Fee Proceedings filed by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
134 MOTION for Bond − Return by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 12/03/2015)
135 NOTICE OF FILING AMENDED EXHIBIT TO THE BRENNER PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES (Doc. 126 ) by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET. Amendment to 126 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs (Brenner Planitiffs) (Amended Exhibit) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Marriage Cases) (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) Modified to

01/12/2016 01/13/2016 02/18/2016
03/02/2016 03/11/2016 03/23/2016 03/28/2016 03/30/2016 03/30/2016 03/30/2016
03/30/2016 03/30/2016 04/13/2016

reflect title of pleading on 1/8/2016 (tdl). (Entered: 01/07/2016)
136 ORDER of USCA − The issue of appellate attorneys' fees as to all parties is TRANSFERRED to the district court for its consideration, pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 39−2(d) re 77 Notice of Appeal. USCA #14−14061−AA. (tdl)**USCA Order docketed in case 4:14cv138 as to 14−14066 −AA** (Entered: 01/13/2016)
ACTION REQUIRED BY DISTRICT JUDGE: Chambers of JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE notified that action is needed Re: 136 ORDER of USCA − The issue of appellate attorneys' fees as to all parties is TRANSFERRED to the district court for its consideration, pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 39−2(d) (tdl) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
137 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority by JOYCE ALBU, CARLOS ANDRADE, BOB COLLIER, JUAN DEL HIERRO, JOHN FITZGERALD, THOMAS GANTT, JR, ARLENE GOLDBERG, SLOAN GRIMSLEY, ERIC HANKIN, DENISE HUESO, SARAH HUMLIE, CHUCK HUNZIKER, ROBERT LOUPO, RICHARD MILSTEIN, LINDSAY MYERS, SANDRA NEWSON, SAVE FOUNDATION INC, CHRISTIAN ULVERT re 111 MOTION for Summary Judgment (TILLEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
138 MOTION for Summary Judgment by JAMES DOMER BRENNER. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 3/23/2016). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit News−Florida lawmakers leave gay marriage ban on books) (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) Modified to reflect a 21 day response time on 3/3/2016 (tdl). (Entered: 03/02/2016)
139 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by JOHN H ARMSTRONG, PAMELA BONDI, CRAIG J NICHOLS, RICK SCOTT. (WILLIAMS, JONATHAN) (Entered: 03/11/2016)
140 RESPONSE in Opposition re 138 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JOHN H ARMSTRONG, HAROLD BAZZELL, CRAIG J NICHOLS. (WILLIAMS, JONATHAN) (Entered: 03/23/2016)
141 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by JOHN H ARMSTRONG, PAMELA BONDI, CRAIG J NICHOLS, RICK SCOTT. (WILLIAMS, JONATHAN) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
142 ORDER GRANTING 139 & 141 LEAVE TO WITHDRAW: WINSOR AND TANENBAUM. Attorney ADAM SCOTT TANENBAUM and ALLEN C WINSOR terminated. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/30/2016. (tdl) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
143 ORDER FOR RETURN OF BONDS − The Brenner plaintiffs' motion to return bonds, ECF No. 134 , is granted. The clerk must return the bonds. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/30/2016. (tdl) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
144 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT − The motion for clarification, ECF No. 113 , is denied. The motion to dismiss as moot, ECF No. 118 , is granted in part and denied in part. The claims against the Clerk of Court are dismissed as moot. The claims against the Surgeon General and Secretary are not dismissed. The plaintiffs' summary−judgment motions, ECF Nos. 111 and 138 , are granted. The clerk must enter judgment for the plaintiffs against the Secretary and Surgeon General and dismissing without prejudice the claims against all other defendants. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/30/2016. (tdl) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
145 ORDER SETTING ATTORNEY'S FEE PROCEDURES − The stipulation on attorney's fee procedures, ECF No. 131 , is approved. The defendant Clerk's motion to join the stipulation, ECF No. 132 , is granted. The Brenner plaintiffs' prior motion, ECF No. 126 , is denied without prejudice. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/30/2016. (tdl) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
146 CLERK'S JUDGMENT, entered pursuant to 144 Order. (tdl) (Entered: 04/11/2016)
147 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs [Unopposed] by JOYCE ALBU, CARLOS ANDRADE, BOB COLLIER, JUAN DEL HIERRO, JOHN FITZGERALD, THOMAS GANTT, JR, ARLENE GOLDBERG, SLOAN GRIMSLEY, ERIC HANKIN, DENISE HUESO, SARAH HUMLIE, CHUCK HUNZIKER, ROBERT

04/13/2016 04/13/2016
04/13/2016 04/15/2016 04/19/2016 04/19/2016 04/20/2016 05/02/2016 05/04/2016 05/10/2016
05/20/2016 05/24/2016
06/01/2016 06/01/2016

LOUPO, RICHARD MILSTEIN, LINDSAY MYERS, SANDRA NEWSON, SAVE FOUNDATION INC, CHRISTIAN ULVERT. (ROSENTHAL, STEPHEN) (Entered: 04/13/2016)
148 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs −− Unopposed by JAMES DOMER BRENNER. (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 04/13/2016)
149 BILL OF COSTS by JOYCE ALBU, CARLOS ANDRADE, BOB COLLIER, JUAN DEL HIERRO, JOHN FITZGERALD, THOMAS GANTT, JR, ARLENE GOLDBERG, SLOAN GRIMSLEY, ERIC HANKIN, DENISE HUESO, SARAH HUMLIE, CHUCK HUNZIKER, ROBERT LOUPO, RICHARD MILSTEIN, LINDSAY MYERS, SANDRA NEWSON, SAVE FOUNDATION INC, CHRISTIAN ULVERT. (TILLEY, DANIEL) Modified on 4/14/2016 (pll). (Entered: 04/13/2016)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 149 MOTION for Bill of Costs. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 4/27/2016). (pll) (Entered: 04/14/2016)
150 ORDER DETERMINING ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEYS FEES. Granting 147 Motion for Attorney Fees and 148 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 4/15/16. (pll) Modified on 4/20/2016 (pll). (Entered: 04/15/2016)
151 Final MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs by JAMES DOMER BRENNER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Report and Recommendation, # 2 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Attorneys Hours Incurred) (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 04/19/2016)
Set Deadlines re 151 Final Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs: (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 5/3/2016). (tdl) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
152 NOTICE of Filing Amended Exhibit to Brenner Plaintiffs' Final Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs by JAMES DOMER BRENNER re 151 Final MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
Set Deadline to Check Status of 149 Bill of Costs by 6/20/2016. (tdl) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
ACTION REQUIRED BY DISTRICT JUDGE: Chambers of JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE notified that action is needed Re: 151 Final MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs − No response filed. (tdl) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
153 NOTICE of Settlement on Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Joint) by Grimsley Plaintiffs and Defendants by JOYCE ALBU, CARLOS ANDRADE, BOB COLLIER, JUAN DEL HIERRO, JOHN FITZGERALD, THOMAS GANTT, JR, ARLENE GOLDBERG, SLOAN GRIMSLEY, ERIC HANKIN, DENISE HUESO, SARAH HUMLIE, CHUCK HUNZIKER, ROBERT LOUPO, RICHARD MILSTEIN, LINDSAY MYERS, SANDRA NEWSON, SAVE FOUNDATION INC, CHRISTIAN ULVERT (TILLEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
154 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 151 Final MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs by JOHN H ARMSTRONG, CRAIG J NICHOLS. (STAFFORD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
155 ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THE FEE MOTION − The defendants' motion, ECF No. 154 , to extend the deadline to respond to the Brenner plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees is granted. (Response in Opposition due by 5/31/2016.) Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 5/24/2016. (tdl) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
ACTION REQUIRED BY DISTRICT JUDGE: Chambers of JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE notified that action is needed Re: 155 Order − Response in Opposition due. (tdl) (Entered: 06/01/2016)
156 NOTICE of Settlement (Joint) on Attorneys' Fees and Costs by JAMES DOMER BRENNER, CHARLES DEAN JONES, OZZIE RUSS, STEPHEN SCHLAIRET (SHEPPARD, WILLIAM) (Entered: 06/01/2016)

06/11/2016 06/14/2016

157 ORDER ON ATTORNEY'S FEES − The Brenner plaintiffs have filed a notice indicating the parties have settled the issue of attorney's fees. ECF No. 156 . The motion for an award of attorneys fees, ECF No. 151 , is denied as moot. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 6/11/2016. (tdl) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
158 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Fee Petition by JOYCE ALBU, CARLOS ANDRADE, BOB COLLIER, JUAN DEL HIERRO, JOHN FITZGERALD, THOMAS GANTT, JR, ARLENE GOLDBERG, SLOAN GRIMSLEY, ERIC HANKIN, DENISE HUESO, SARAH HUMLIE, CHUCK HUNZIKER, ROBERT LOUPO, RICHARD MILSTEIN, LINDSAY MYERS, SANDRA NEWSON, SAVE FOUNDATION INC, CHRISTIAN ULVERT re 147 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs [Unopposed] (TILLEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 06/14/2016)


[CONTENT] February 28, 2014 | Florida | the U.S. District Court | the Northern District | Florida | Florida ||| under 42 U.S.C. 1983 ||| the Due Process Clause | the Equal Protection Clause | the First Amendment | the Supremacy Clause | the Establishment Clause |||  ||| March 12, 2014 | Florida | ACLU | the Northern District | Florida ||| Grimsley v. Scott</i> ||| April 21, 2014 | Court | Robert L. Hinkle | two ||| Clearinghouse ||| April 24, 2014 | Hinkle | Florida Family Action ||| FFA ||| 298 | N.D. | 2014 ||| August 21, 2014 | Hinkle | Florida | the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses ||| ninety-one days | three | Fourth | Tenth Circuit | 2014 | 4th ||| July 28, 2014 | Bishop | 2014 | 10th ||| July 18, 2014 | 2014 | WL | 2868044 | 10th ||| June 25, 2014 ||| Brenner v. Scott | 2014 | N.D. | 2014 ||| June 26, 2015 | the Supreme Court | the United States ||| Kennedy | Court |||  ||| Kennedy | Ginsburg | Breyer | Kagan | Sotomayor ||| four | Roberts | Scalia | Thomas | Alito ||| August 4, 2015 |||  ||| the Eleventh Circuit ||| October 19, 2015 | the Eleventh Circuit ||| January 12, 2016 ||| March 2, 2016 ||| Florida ||| March 30, 2016 | Hinkle | the Florida Constitution | 27 | Florida Statutes | 741.212 | § ||| Hinkle | Florida ||| the Clerk of Court | the Surgeon General ||| the Department of Management Services | the Surgeon General ||| April 13, 2016 |||  |||  ||| June 16, 2016 |||  [SUMMARY] On February 28, 2014, a same-sex couple married outside of the state of Florida filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida against the state of Florida. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983, declaratory judgment, and costs. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed the state ban against same-sex marriage violated their rights under the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the First Amendment (right to associate), and violated the Supremacy Clause and the Establishment Clause. This case was captioned as <i>Brenner v. Scott</i>. 

On March 12, 2014, several same-sex couples married outside of the state of Florida, represented by the ACLU and private counsel, filed essentially an identical lawsuit, also in the Northern District of Florida. This case was captioned as <i>Grimsley v. Scott</i>. On April 21, 2014, the Court (Judge Robert L. Hinkle), upon a joint motion, consolidated the two cases for case management purposes. Both cases are addressed in this summary and Clearinghouse case record.

On April 24, 2014, Judge Hinkle denied permission to Florida Family Action, a "cultural action organization" that opposes same-sex marriage, to intervene as a party. FFA was permitted, however, to file amicus briefs. 298 F.R.D. 689 (N.D. Fla. 2014). 

On August 21, 2014, Judge Hinkle issued a preliminary injunction, finding Florida's ban on same-sex marriage a violation of plaintiffs' fundamental right to marry under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses (using strict scrutiny in the analysis). The court stayed the preliminary injunction in these cases until ninety-one days after similar stays were denied or lifted in three cases pending in the Fourth and Tenth Circuit Courts—<i>Bostic v. Schaefer</i>, 2014 WL 3702493 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014); <i>Bishop v. Smith</i>, 2014 WL 3537847 (10th Cir. July 18, 2014); and <i>Kitchen v. Herbert</i>, 2014 WL 2868044 (10th Cir. June 25, 2014). Brenner v. Scott, -- F.Supp.2d --, 2014 WL 4113100 (N.D. Fla. 2014). 

On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States held, in <a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12787">Obergefell v. Hodges</a>, that the right to marry was fundamental. In the opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that it demeans gay and lesbian couples to deprive them of access to marriage. The Fourteenth Amendment thus did not allow states to ban same-sex marriage. Kennedy was joined without further writing by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor. Each of the four dissenters—Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito—wrote a dissent. 

On August 4, 2015, the <i>Grimsley</i> plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. The defendants opposed, arguing that the court should not grant summary judgment but rather dismiss the case as moot.

Meanwhile, the defendants moved for voluntarily dismissal of the appeal at the Eleventh Circuit. On October 19, 2015, the Eleventh Circuit granted the voluntary dismissal transferred consideration of attorney's fees to the district court. On January 12, 2016, the issue of appellate's attorney's fees was also transferred to the district court for consideration. 

On March 2, 2016, the <i>Brenner</i> plaintiffs filed a separate motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs asked that the court not dismiss this case as moot because the same-sex marriage ban was not repealed and Florida's Surgeon General persisted in refusing to issue birth certificates to the children of same-sex couples. On March 30, 2016, Judge Hinkle granted the plaintiffs summary judgment and declared the Florida Constitution, Article I, § 27 as well as Florida Statutes § 741.212 and  §741.04(1) as unconstitutional. Judge Hinkle also issued an injunction to prohibit the defendants from enforcing or applying the Florida provisions that were declared unconstitutional. The court granted and denied in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot; it dismissed the claims against the Clerk of Court as moot but not the claims against the Surgeon General and Secretary. Subsequently, the court entered judgment for the plaintiffs against the Secretary of the Department of Management Services and the Surgeon General, but the court dismissed without prejudice the claims against all other defendants. 

On April 13, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs, which the court granted and determined that the plaintiffs were entitled to a fee award. The parties, however, then filed a joint notice of settlement on attorney’s fees and costs. (The amount that the parties settled on is not publicly available.) On June 16, 2016, the plaintiffs officially withdrew their fee petition and notified the court that they received their settlement funds.

This case is now closed.