1:13-cv-01861 #146

7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

1/33

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WHITEWOOD, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WOLF, et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action

No. 13-1861-JEJ

PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO THE

MOTION OF THERESA SANTAI-GAFFNEY TO INTERVENE

I. INTRODUCTION

Theresa Santai-Gaffney, Clerk of the Orphans Court for Schuylkill County

(Clerk Gaffney) seeks leave to intervene for the purpose of appealing this

Courts decision of May 20, 2014, declaring Pennsylvanias refusal to grant or

recognize marriages by same-sex couples to be unconstitutional and enjoining the

enforcement of Pennsylvanias ban on such marriages. Clerk Gaffney seeks

intervention as of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) or, in the

alternative, permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b). This Court should

deny both requests because Clerk Gaffney, whose responsibilities in issuing

marriage licenses are purely ministerial, has no interest in administering a specific

version of Pennsylvanias Marriage Law, and she has no authority to deviate from

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146 Filed 06/13/14 Page 1 of 13

7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

2/33

2

the Department of Healths decision (as announced by the Commonwealths chief

executive, Governor Corbett) to abide by this Courts injunction against enforcing

the Marriage Laws exclusion of same-sex couples.

II. ARGUMENT

A. Clerk Gaffney May Not Intervene As of Right Because SheCannot Meet the Standard Under Rule 24(a).

Clerk Gaffneys motion to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a) should be

denied because, as a matter of law, she has no legally protected interest in the

litigation that will be affected or impaired by the outcome, much less a sufficient

one, and because any legal interest she has in the litigation is entirely represented

by the Secretary of Health.1 Clerk Gaffney argues that she has a right to intervene

because: (1) her statutory role in administering marriage licenses gives her a

1 A person seeking leave to intervene must demonstrate that: (1) theapplication for intervention is timely; (2) the applicant has a sufficient interest inthe litigation; (3) the interest may be affected or impaired, as a practical matter, by

the disposition of the action; and (4) the interest is not adequately represented byan existing party in the litigation. Kleissler v. U.S. Forest Serv., 157 F.3d 964,969 (3d Cir. 1998);Brody v. Spang, 957 F.2d 1108, 1115 (3d Cir. 1992);Harris v.Pernsley, 820 F.2d 592, 596 (3d Cir. 1987). The applicant bears the burden of

demonstrating that he has met all four prongs of this conjunctive test. United

States v. Alcan Aluminum, Inc.,25 F.3d 1174, 1181 n. 9 (3d Cir. 1994). If aperson fails on any one prong of this test, he is not entitled to intervene as of right.

Sch. Dist. of. Phila. v. Pa. Milk Mktg. Bd., 160 F.R.D. 66, 68 (E.D. Pa. 1995).Because Clerk Gaffney clearly cannot meet the second through fourth prongs,

Plaintiffs focus on these criteria. Plaintiffs do not concede that her motion to

intervene is timely. If Clerk Gaffney believed she needed to be a party to be

governed by this Courts decision, she could have and should have sought tointervene for that purpose sooner.


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

3/33

3

protectable interest in the outcome of this litigation; and (2) unless she is a party

defendant, her legal obligations are unclear. Both of these arguments ignore the

limited nature of Clerk Gaffneys role in administering the Marriage Law. Clerk

Gaffney must take the Marriage Law as she finds it, and her role under that law is

subject to the oversight of the Secretary of Health. She has no interest in the

requirements for issuing marriage licenses that is not represented by the Secretary

of Health.

1. Clerk Gaffneys duties under the Marriage Law do not giveher an interest in whether the Marriage Law permits same-sex

couples to marry.2

Clerk Gaffneys arguments about her role in issuing marriage licenses boil

down to the contention that she has a legally protected interest in refusing licenses

to same-sex couples.3 The law is clear, however, that neither Clerk Gaffney nor

2Clerk Gaffney erroneously states that Plaintiffs conceded the legal interest

of all Clerks of Orphans Courts and Registers of Wills by naming two of them inthe original complaint. She is confusing the law regarding proper defendants

(which looks at whether an order against the defendant can give the plaintiff relief)with the standard for intervention (which looks at whether the proposed intervenor

has an interest in the subject of the litigation). Plaintiffs and this Court have

addressed that distinction previously. SeePls. Brief in Oppn to the Mot. toDismiss of Def. Petrille at 44-46, Dkt. No. 56 (Oct. 21, 2013); Memorandum and

Order at 7-8, Dkt. No. 67 (Nov. 15, 2013) (denying Defendant Petrilles motion todismiss).

3Clerk Gaffney has not identified any way in which the Courts decision

obstructs her ability to perform her statutory duties nor, indeed, could she, as thesole effect of the Courts order is to render ineffective the statutory ban on issuing

licenses to same-sex couples. And she has admitted that she can and will issue


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

4/33

4

any other Clerk of Orphans Court has any legal interest in whether or not same-

sex couples are allowed to marry.

As this Court has already recognized, county clerks have no legally

protected interest relative to whether marriage licenses are issued to same-sex

couples. Memorandum and Order at 9 n.5, Dkt. No. 67 (Nov. 15, 2013). That is

because, as the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has made clear, a county

clerks authority to issue marriage licenses is purely ministerial meaning they

must perform their duties in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of

legal authority and without regard to [their] own judgment or opinion concerning

the propriety or impropriety of the act to be performed.Id.(quotingDept of

Health v. Hanes, 78 A.3d 676, 687-88 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Sept. 12, 2013); Council

of the City of Phila. v. Street, 856 A.2d 893, 896 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004)).

The cases cited by Clerk Gaffney from other jurisdictions are inapposite

because they do not address Pennsylvania law, which is clear concerning the duties

licenses in compliance with the Courts order: Santai-Gaffney said she willcontinue to follow Joness ruling unless it is overturned, although she wants tointervene in the case in order to clarify what her official duties are. Peter E.

Bortner, Santai-Gaffney Seeks to Intervene in Gay Marriage Lawsuit, The

Republican Herald (June 7, 2014), http://republicanherald.com/news /santai-

gaffney-seeks-to-intervene-in-gay-marriage-lawsuit-1.1699458, attached as ExhibitA.


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

5/33

5

and authority of clerks with respect to issuing marriage licenses.4 The one Third

Circuit case that she cites,Harris v. Pernsley, 820 F.2d 592 (3d Cir. 1987),

undermines her motion because it made clear that [t]he scope of [a public

officials] interest is defined by the scope of his legal duties under Pennsylvania

law. Id.at 597.5

2. Neither intervention nor an appeal is needed to clarify ClerkGaffneys present obligations under the Marriage Law.

Clerk Gaffneys second asserted interest is in clarity: she contends that

she is uncertain whether to comply with the Courts injunction because she is not a

4Incidentally,Hines v. DArtois, 531 F.2d 726, 737-38 (5th Cir. 1976),quoted by Clerk Gaffney, undermines her motion because the court made clear thatgovernment officials who have their own decisional duties with respect to the

challenged policy have a protectable interest in the litigation supportingintervention while government officials whose duties are at the direction of

others do not. AndBoard of Education of Central School District 1 v. Allen, 392

U.S. 236, 241 n.5 (1968), has no relevance here because it involved a schoolboards challenge to a law that would require it to take action that the board

believed would violate the Establishment Clause. In contrast with this case, there

was no suggestion that the school board had no role in determining school districtpolicy and that its duties were purely ministerial.

5 Clerk Gaffneys reliance onBostic v. Rainey, No. 2:13-cv-395, Dkt. No.

91 (E.D. Va. Jan 17, 2014),is also misplaced for the additional reason that the

court allowed permissive intervention of a county clerk in a marriage case onlybecause no party in that case opposed it.


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

6/33

6

party to the litigation and that the only way she can gain certainty is by appealing

the case to the Third Circuit. There is no uncertainty.6

This Court declared the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage

unconstitutional and enjoined the defendants including the Secretary of Health

from enforcing the law. The language of the one and one-quarter page order is

clear and unambiguous in declaring the two statutory provisions unconstitutional

and ordering that their enforcement is permanently enjoined. Order at 2, Dkt.

No. 134 (May 20, 2014). The state defendants have said that they will abide by the

Courts decision and will not appeal.7

The decision of the Department of Health the government agency charged

with ensuring compliance and uniform application of the Marriage Law to accept

this Courts decision leaves no doubt about the effect of the decision on Clerk

Gaffneys obligations. And, if there had been any doubt in that regard, the

Department of Health eliminated any such confusion in its recent instruction to

Clerks of Orphans Courts:

6Notably, Clerk Gaffney has stated publicly that she is issuing marriage

licenses to same-sex couples, so her performance of her duties is not, it appears,

impaired. Seenote 3, supra.7[A]fter review of the opinion and on the advice of my Commonwealth

legal team, I have decided not to appeal Judge Jones decision. Press Release,

Office of the Governor, Statement Regarding the Opinion of Judge Jones in the

Whitewood Case (May 21, 2014), http://www.pa.gov/Pages/NewsDetails.aspx?agency=PAGovNews&item=15643#.U5ogSPldVad, attached as Exhibit B.


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

7/33

7

The decision in Whitewood requires every governmentofficial who administers the Marriage Law including

every clerk of the orphans court to perform his or herduties in accordance with the courts order. That means

that a clerk of the orphans court must considerapplications for the issuance of a marriage license

without regard to the gender of the applicants.8

Even before the Department of Health issued its directive to the clerks of

orphans courts, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court acknowledged the applicability

of this Courts decision by granting the application of Bruce Hanes, the Register of

Wills for Montgomery County, to resume issuing marriage licenses to same-sex

couples, which he had been enjoined from doing last summer.9

8The Department made clear that this notice was issued pursuant to the

Departments legal authority with respect to enforcement of the Marriage Law:

The Department of Health by law is responsible to

see that the laws providing for the licensing and

registration of marriage are uniformly and thoroughlyenforced throughout the Commonwealth. See 71 P.S. 534(c). The Department also is responsible by law to

prescribe the forms that are to be used for marriagelicenses and the applications for marriage licenses, and to

collect and compile statistics relating to marriage licenses

issued and marriage certificates filed. See 23 Pa. C.S. 1103, 1106; 35 P.S. 450.601.

Pa. Dept of Health, General Notice to All Clerks of the Orphans Court (June 11,

2014), available at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/marriage_and_divorce_certificates/14126, attached as Exhibit C.

9Before this Courts decision invalidating and enjoining enforcement of the

marriage exclusion, the Commonwealth Court, upon petition by the Department ofHealth, had issued a writ of mandamus enjoining Mr. Hanes from issuing licenses

to same-sex couples in contravention of the Marriage Law. See generally Hanes,


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

8/33

8

In this situation, Clerk Gaffney can claim no confusion. The Department of

Health has the statutory duty and authority to ensure the uniform enforcement of

the Marriage Law. See71 P.S. 534(c);Hanes, 78 A.3d at 686 (explaining that,

because of this legislative authority, Department of Health was a proper party to

initiate mandamus proceedings to compel a clerk to discharge his duties regarding

issuance of marriage licenses). Clerks who issue marriage licenses under the

Departments authority therefore must also abide by the Courts decision.

Clerk Gaffney contends that she is sworn to follow the Marriage Law and

by that, it appears, she means that she is sworn to abid[e] by the marriage

provision challenged in this case. Br. in Supp. Motion to Intevene at 13 n.2, Dkt.

78 A.3d 676 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013). Mr. Hanes appealed, which triggered anautomatic stay of the Commonwealth Courts order against him. See Pa. R.A.P.

1736(a)(2), (b). The Department of Health then petitioned the Commonwealth

Court to vacate the automatic supersedeas, which the Commonwealth Court did.See Order Granting Application for Relief, Pa. Dept of Health v. Hanes, No. 379MD 2013 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Oct. 17, 2013) ([U]pon consideration of Petitioner's

Application to Vacate Supersedeas, it is hereby Ordered that said Application isgranted. The Order of this Court entered September 12, 2013, shall remain in fullforce and effect notwithstanding Respondents appeal thereof to the Supreme

Court of Pennsylvania docketed at No. 77 MAP 2013.). On May 20, 2014, Mr.

Hanes petitioned the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to reinstate the supersedeas in

his favor. Appellants Emergency Application to Reinstate AutomaticSupersedeas, Pa. Dept of Health v. Hanes, No. 77 MAP 2013 (Pa. May 20, 2014).

On May 21, 2014, the Department of Health filed a letter stating that it did notoppose the relief sought by Mr. Hanes, see Letter from Alison Taylor, Chief

Counsel, Pa. Dept of Health, to Irene Bizzoso, Office of the Prothonotary,

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (May 21, 2014), attached as Exhibit D, and on

May 27, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an order reinstating the supersedeas, seeOrder, Pa. Dept of Health v. Hanes, No. 77 MAP 2013 (Pa. May 27, 2014).


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

9/33

9

No. 140 (June 6, 2014). But that is untrue. She is sworn to uphold the law as it is

passed by the Legislature, until a court holds that law is unconstitutional. See

Hanes, 78 A.3d at 690 n.29 (explaining that a clerks oath of office requires him

to follow the law until a court decides it is unconstitutional). At that point, the

law passed by the legislature is no longer the law.

There is simply no basis for Clerk Gaffneys claimed uncertainty about her

duties.

3. Clerk Gaffney can have no interest in the outcome of thislitigation contrary to that of the Department of Health, and,

therefore, her interests are adequately indeed, completely

represented in the absence of intervention.

For the reasons set forth above, Clerk Gaffney also cannot intervene as of

right because any interest that she has in whether same-sex couples are entitled to

obtain marriage licenses is fully represented by the Secretary of Health. As noted,

her duties under the law are purely ministerial. The Department of Health, not

individual clerks, determines how to enforce the law. Under this legal framework,

Clerk Gaffney can have no interest in the law independent of that represented by

the Secretary of Health. Any interest she has, therefore, is already represented in

the litigation.

There is no basis for allowing Clerk Gaffney to intervene pursuant to

Federal Rule Civil Procedure 24(a).


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

10/33

10

B. Clerk Gaffney Should Not Be Granted Permissive Intervention

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b).

A decision to allow or deny permissive intervention is within the discretion

of the district court and has virtually never been reversed. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

v. Treesdale, Inc., 419 F.3d 216, 227 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Catanzano ex rel.

Catanzano v. Wing, 103 F.3d 223, 234 (2d Cir. 1996)).

There is no reason to permit Clerk Gaffney to intervene in this case. As

discussed above, her role is purely ministerial, so she has no interest in who can

marry under Pennsylvania law, and she has no authority to depart from the

Department of Healths decision to abide by this Courts decision invalidating the

exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. As also discussed above, there is

no lack of clarity regarding Clerk Gaffneys marriage-related duties and, thus, no

basis for her argument that allowing her to intervene for purposes of appealing the

injunction will help avoid likely future litigation . . . concerning [her] prospective

marriage-related duties. SeeBr. in Supp. Motion to Intevene at 20, Dkt. No. 140

(June 6, 2014).

Intervention by Clerk Gaffney would, therefore, be pointless. The futility of

such a gesture is further underscored by the fact that she lacks standing to pursue

an appeal. SeeMot. to Intervene 2, Dkt. No. 139 (June 6, 2014) (Proposed

Intervenor seeks to intervene as Intervenor-Defendant to file the accompanying


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

11/33

11

motion for stay and thereafter file an appeal.). An intervenors right to continue

a suit in the absence of the party on whose side the intervention was permitted is

contingent upon a showing by the intervenor that he fulfills the requirements of

Article III. McLaughlin v. Pernsley, 876 F.2d 308, 313-314 (3d Cir. 1989)

(quotingDiamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 68 (1986)).

Clerk Gaffney would not have standing to appeal because, for the reasons

discussed above, she has no direct stake in the outcome of the case. Perry v.

Hollingsworth, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2662 (2013) (holding that intervenor-defendant

lacked standing to appeal). Granting her permissive intervention, therefore, would

be an empty procedural gesture. Her motion should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: June 13, 2014 HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL

PUDLIN & SCHILLER

By: /s/ Mark A. AronchickMark A. Aronchick

John S. StapletonDylan J. Steinberg

Rebecca S. Melley

One Logan Square, 27th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103(215) 568-6200

Helen E. Casale401 DeKalb Street, 4th Floor

Norristown, PA 19401(610) 313-1670

Counsel for Plaintiffs


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

12/33

12

ACLU FOUNDATION OF

PENNSYLVANIA

By: /s/ Witold J. Walczak

Witold J. Walczak313 Atwood Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15213(412) 681-7736

Mary Catherine Roper

Molly Tack-HooperP.O. Box 40008

Philadelphia, PA 19106(215) 592-1513


James D. Esseks

Leslie CooperAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES

UNION FOUNDATION125 Broad Street, 18th Floor

New York, NY 10004

(212) 549-2500


Seth F. Kreimer

3400 Chestnut St.

Philadelphia, Pa. 19104(215) 898-7447



7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

13/33

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 13th day of June, 2014, I caused the foregoing

Plaintiffs Brief in Opposition to the Motion to Intervene of Theresa Santai-

Gaffney to be filed electronically using the Courts electronic filing system, and

that the filing is available to counsel for all parties for downloading and viewing

from the electronic filing system.

/s/ Mark A. AronchickMark A. Aronchick


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

14/33

EXHIBIT

Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146-1 Filed 06/13/14 Page 1 of 2

7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

15/33

seeks t o i n t e r v e n e i n gay marriage l a w s u i t -News Republican Herald Page 1 o

~ ~ o i ~ A l ; . NGwS Sl'O~trs (11'lI~u7N 1 ' L ' o ~ ' ~ . ~ L~LnsSutLu~~ ~~~v ~:Nu.~t: c~t~S~~Ui~1L'R51 R~~IcI.5 UDMI7 L V J ~ ' IPS i COPS Ni> C;OUKIS OBfTUAf21LS PA57 AYS STOCKSANU =1NANCE

Santai-Gaffiiey s e e k s to intervene in gay m a r r i a g e l a v v s ~ i i tRY L ~ G R G . H027NGR ST AFF W R I ' L ' E R PBORTN/iR~RCPUB/ CANHCRA/.D.COM) P v b l i s / a e d : ~ ~ n e 7 , 20/d

~ - T h e r e s a S a n t a i - G a f f n e y , c h u y l k i l l C o u n t y ' s r e g i s t e r of i l l s and l e r k of h e. . . . , . . .. v nans CuwY, a u i > a a y i ~ ~ w ~ ~ z . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . , ~ ~ 3 y ; . . . . . , . . ~ . , . . , ... e . ^ . ~2 y

t t ) N ' S I , (A] A) H] m a r r i a g e .(

, _ S a n t a i - G a f f n e y , whose f f i c e i s s u e s m a r r i a g e l i c e n s e s in t h e c o u n t y , a s k e d U.S. i s t r i c t Judge John E. o n e s I I on F r i d a y t o a l l o w h e r t o i n t e r v e n e in t hei : r U i t ~ > O r I F l L N C T V d ~ # ~ K3 ~ ~~ c a s e , w i t h a view toward a p p e a l i n g h i s May 2 0 r d e r d e c l a r i n g P e n n s y l v a n i a ' s~ ~ ~ ~ . . . . _t aC , r c > c > I < 1 ; ~ ban on day m a r r i a g e u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .

; I t . N U i ~ ~ N E WS LE TTE R J o n e s , whose chambers r e i n H a r r i s b u r g b u t who i v e s in P o t t s v i l l e , is one of_ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ . . . _ . . - - _ s e v e r a l f e d e r a l j u d g e s who have e c l a r e d state laws b a n n i n g day m a r r i a g eu n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .A n y a p p e a l of o n e s ' e c i s i o n would be h e a r d by t h e P h i l a d e l p h i a- b a s e d 3 r dU.S. i r c u i t C o u r t of p p e a l s .S a n t a i - G a f f n e y s a i d t h e i s s u e s h o u l d n o t s t o p w i t h J o n e s ' u l i n g , l t h o u g hGov. Tom o r b e t t , who h a d d e f e n d e d t h e law in c o u r t , h a s s a i d he w i l l n o ta p p e a l h a t d e c i s i o n ." A n a p p e a l i s n e c e s s a r y s o t h a t t h e j u d i c i a l p r o c e s s is n o t a b a n d o n e d , sh es a i d . "The p e o p l e of e n n s y l v a n i a d e s e r v e t o h e a r from t h e c o u r t of p p e a l s ont h i s i m p o r t a n t i s s u e b e c a u s e a s i n g l e j u d g e s h o u l d n o t be a b l e t o nullify t h ew i l l of h e m a j o r i t y w i t h o u t an a p p e a l .However, a n t a i - G a f f n e y s a i d s h e w i l l c o n t i n u e to f o l l o w J o n e s ' s r u l i n g u n l e s si t is o v e r t u r n e d , l t h o u g h she wants o i n t e r v e n e in t h e c a s e in o r d e r t o c lar ifywhat h e r f f i c i a l d u t i e s a r e ."Due o t h e u n c e r t a i n t y of h e s t a t e of h e law, w i l l c o n t i n u e i s s u i n g m a r r i a g el i c e n s e s t o a l l c o u p l e s , s h e s a i d .

T h e r e s a S a n t a i - G a f f n e y

T r e nd ing Offers a n d A r t i c l e s - - ~ ~ -.. i ~ -.

y. , ~

S u p r i s i n g e n e r ~ Plen ~mmer ~ Son '~ U s e ~`y y i ~ , . ~ s t Th e s e 7 a m o u sp l a y c a u s e s huge getaway t o women n the s ong s d o not m e a nbuying f r e n z y . . . Rochester, MN p l a n e t are the wives what you probably[ I n v e s t o r s cash n k today Find r a t e s as i r l f r i e n d s of NBA t h i n k they m e a n .

low a s 45a i g h t . s t a r s .

We elcome s e r d i s c u s s i o n on our i t e , u n d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g g u i d e l i n e s :To o mm e nt you must i r s t c r e a t e a p r o f i l e and s i g n- i n w i t h a v e r i f i e d DISQUS c c o u n t o r s o c i a l n e t w o r k ID. Sian up here.C om m e nt s n v i o l a t i o n of h e r u l e s w i l l be d e n i e d , and r e p e a t v i o l a t o r s w i l l be a n n e d . l e n s e h e l p p o l i c e t h e co mm m~ ityby l e g g i n g o f f e n s i v e com m e nt s o r onr moderators t o r e v i e w . B y p o s t i n g a comment, you a g r e e to o u r u l l t e r m s an dc o n d i t i o n s . C l i c k here t o read te r m s a n d c o n d i t i p n s .A R l ' 1 U N [ 5 7 H E V J C E i

j Y O U R O N L I N E Q G G E ~ S N O W~1.~ COMP tA RC A R S~ R a M A - z

F O R l U R M O N T H L Y P E t I A l S

CALENDARMAY JUN J l i t . o a t z s z i o c t e a

01 0 2 0 3 ~4 0 5 06 47( 3 8 D$ 10 1 1 12~4' i a i G 17 9 ~ 1 ~ 2p 2 1_ _ _ ' . _ . . . . . _ . _ ' _ _ _ _ _ '__. _ _ _ S h o w i n g ev er ts2 2 2 3 24 ~5 2~ 27 ~8 ~ ; ' , o ; ; 0 f e 'z g ~ o n ~ r ~ ~ o ~ ~ a o ~

V intage E x~ e r s s i on s of L o v e NowF r a g i l e , d eli c ate, o a u t i f u i e x p e r s s i o n s o f o v e ,v i n t a r ~ e V a l e n t i n e ' s Day 2 r d s a r e b ur stin g w i i t i

E xp r e s s i on s ThrifUGift ShopE x p r e s s i o n s s a h i f U g i f t shop un b y I ' o f l s v i l i ebased A v e n u e s , o r m e r l y U n i t e d C e r e b r a l

Seasons f Hawk MountainThe f 3 e r k s A r t A l l i a n c e p r e s e n t s a t r e e e x h i b i tof w o r k i n s p i r e A b y t h e S a n c t u 2 r y n al l

- g a f f n e y - se e k s - t o - in t e r v e ne - i n - g a y - m a rr i a g e - l a w s ui t - 1 . 1 6 9 9 4 5 8 6/13/


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

16/33


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

17/33

e t a i l s Page 1 o

NEWSDET ILS

OF THE GOVERNORi l News nd Press( http~//www p a aov/Pages/News yDate.aspx

Regarding the Opinion of Judge Jones n the Whitewood Case

or Immediate Release1, 0 1 4

Regarding the Opinion of Judge Jones n the Whitewood Caseave t h o r o u g h l y reviewed Judge Jones' p i n i o n i n the case. Given the h i g h l e g a l t h r e s h o l d s e t f o r t h by Judge Jones n t h i s case, he case

u n l i k e l y t o succeed on appeal. T h e r e f o r e , a f t e r r e v i e w o f t h e o p i n i o n and on the a dvice o f my Commonwealth l e g a l team, haven o t t o appeal Judge Jones' e c i s i o n .

s a Roman a t h o l i c , t h e t r a d i t i o n a l teaching of my a i t h has n o t wavered. c o n t i n u e t o m a i n t a i n t h e b e l i e f t h a t marriage s between one maone woman. My u t i e s as Governor r e q u i r e t h a t f o l l o w t h e laws as n t e r p r e t e d by the Courts and make a judgment as o t h e l i k e l i h o o d

a p p e a l .roughout h e debate on h i s i m p o r t a n t and meaningful i s s u e , have m a i n t a i n e d t h a t Commonwealth o f f i c i a l s and agencies would o l l o w t h

of e n n s y l v a n i a ' s marriage law unless o r u n t i l a c o u r t says t h e r w i s e . T he c o u r t has spoken, and w i l l ensure h a t myf o l l o w s t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f Judge Jones' r d e r w i t h r e s p e c t f o r a l l p a r t i e s .

i s my ope h a t as h e i m p o r t a n t i s s u e of same-sex r e l a t i o n s h i p s c o n t i n u e s t o be addressed n our o c i e t y , t h a t a l l i n v o l v e d be r e a t e d w i t h

contacts:Pagni, Governor's O f f i c e , 717-783-1116

Maus, f f i c e o f General Counsel, 717-346-4463

newsresents G o v e r n o r ' s V i c t i m Service P a t h f i n d e r A w a r d s ( ~ h t t p ~ / / w w w pa qov/Pages/NewsDetails aspx~agency=PAGovNews&item=157

o f Governor CorbetYs u s t i c e Reinvestment n i t i a t i v e Receives N a t i o n a l R e c o g n i t i o n ( h t t p : / / w w w . p a . g o v / P a g e s / N e w s D e t a i l s . a s p x ?

//www.pa.gov/Pages/NewsDetails.aspx?agency=PAGovNews&item=15643 6/13/2


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

18/33

E~ HIBIT


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

19/33

~r p e r t r ~ s y l v a n i ~~ ' ~ DEPARTMENT 3 ~ HEALTH

J u s t e 11, 014General N o t i c e t o a l l Clerks of the Orphans' Court

T h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t . f o r t h e Middle D i s t r i c t of P e n n s y l v a n i a o n May 20,2014, n Whitewood . W o l f , I V o . 1 : 1 3 - c ~ v - 1 8 6 1 : ( p e r J a n e s , , _ ) , r u l e d t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f h eP e n n s y l v a n i a M a r r i a g e Law h a t p r o h i b i t same- s e x m a r r i a g e (23 Pa. . S . 1X02, 1704} i o l a t et h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment t o t h e U.S. C o n s t i t u t i o n . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e c o u r t p e r r n a n e i ~ t l ye n j o i n e d t h e S e c r e t a r y of e a l t h and o t h e r government o f f i c i a l s from e n f o r c i n g t h o s e p r o v i s i o n so f e n n s y l v a n i a l a w .

T h e d e c i s i o n i n Whitewvad r e q u i r e s e v e r y government o f f i c i a l w h o a d m i n i s t e r s t h eMarriage Law i n c l u d z n g e v e r y c l e r k o f h e orphans' o u r t t o p e r f o x r n h i s o r h e r d u t i e s i na c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r . That means h a t a c l e r k o f h e o r p h a n s ' c o u r t must c o n s i d e ra p p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e i s s u a n c e o f a m a r r i a g e l i c e n s e w i t h o u t regard t o t h e gender o f t h ea p p l i c a n t s .

T h e Department of H e a l t h by law i s r e s p o n s i b l e t o s e e t h a t t h e laws p r o v i d i n g f o r t h el i c e n s i n g and r e g i s t r a t i o n o f m a r r i a g e a r e u n i f o r m l y and t h o r o u g h l y e n f o r c e d t h r o u g h o u t t h eC ommon w e a l th. See 71 P . S . 3 4 ( c ) . The. epartment l s o i s r e s p o n s i b l e by law t o p r e s c r i b et h e farms h a t a r e t o be u s e d f o r m a r r i a g e l i c e n s e s and h e a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r m a r r i a g e l i c e n s e s , andt o c o l l e c t and c o m p i l e s t a t i s t i c s . r e l a t i n g t o m a r r i a g e l i c e n s e s i s s u e d . and m a r r i a g e c e r t i f i c a t e sf i l e d . See 23 Pa. . S . 1103,1106; 3S . S . 5 0 . 6 0 1 .

T h e Department o f e a l t h i s i n t h e p r o c e s s of r e p a r i n g r e v i s i o n s . o t h e p r e s c r i b e d formst o conform t o t h e d e c i s i o n i n Wh cwood. I n t h e meantime, h e c l e r k s of h e o r p h a n s ' c o u r t ss h o u l d c o n t i n u e t o modify h e c o u n t y ' s m a r r i a g e f o i ~ n s a s n e c e s s a r y t o conform w i t h t h e c o u r t ' so r d e r :

T h e Department of e a l t h a p p r e c i a t e s t h e c l e r k s . p a t i e n c e a s i t d e v e l o p s n e w forms t h a tcomply w i t h t h e Marriage L a w and h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r i n l~htewo~d.

udge Jones s t a t e d e x p r e s s l y i n t h e - Whitewood c a s e t h a t . a l l C l e r k s of t h e Orphans' Courtwould be s u b j e c t t o [any] e g a l mandate n t e r e d . i n f a v o r o f h e p l a i n t i f f s . Whatewood . W o l f ,N a . 1 : 1 3 - c v - 1 8 : 6 1 , a t 8 ( M . D . Pa. N o v . 15, 2013) emphasis added) c i t i n g Dept f e a l t h v .Hanes, 8 A.~d 676, 88 P a . Commw 0 1 3 ) ) .

D i v i s i o n o f i t a l R e c o r d sR oom 401 e n t r a l B u i l d i n g , 101 o u t h M e r c e r S t r e e t , New C a s t l e , PA 16101 7 2 4 ) b 5 6 - 3 1 0 0


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

20/33

E~ HIBIT


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

21/33

Received 05/21/2014 Supreme ourt Middle D i s t r i c t

~~ F i l e d 05/21/2014 Supreme Court Middle D i s t r i c t77MAP2013r ~ `

a

C~MM~NW~AL1 I- OF ~NNSYLVANTAGCIVERN~R S OFFICE OF ENERI~L COUNSEL

May 1,2014

V I ~ 1 E~EC TRONICDELIVERYI r e n e Bizzoso, rothonotaryQ ~ i c e o ~ t h e ~ r o t h o n o t a r ySupreme Court of e n t l s y l v a n i aPennsylvania u d i c i a l Center601 Commonwealth AvenueS u i t e 4500H a r r i s b u r g ,PA] 10-2575

Re: eo~nmonwealth of ennsylvania, epartmentof ealth v .D. j ~ u c e H a n e s , n h i s c a p a c i t y a s the Clerk of he Orph a n s nu~tof o ntgomery CountyNo.77MAP2 3

Dear M s , izzoso:Based on t a e o r d e r o~ t h e U.S. D i s t r i c t Couxt f o r the Mxdd~e D i s t r i c t o

Pennsylvania rendexed i n Whitewood v . W o l f , No. 1:13-cv-1861, 2014 U.S. D i s t .LEXIS b8771 (M.D. Pa. May 20, 2014), permanently e n j o i n i n g t h e S e c r e t a r y oHealth from e n f o r c i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n s of h e Marriage Law h a t p r e c l u d e marriagebetween s a m e- s e x c o u p l e s , t h e Pennsylvania Department of Health does notoppose t h e r e l i e f r e q u e s t e d x n A p p e l l a n t s Emergency A p p l i c a t i o n t o R e i n s t a t eAutomatic Supersedeas i l e d on May 0, 2014.

OFFICE Of LEGAL COUNSEL[DEPARTMENTOF HEALTHEtoam 825 Health a n d Welfare ~ u l i d i n g pen n s ytva ni~

625 o r s t e r St Harrisburg, PA 17120-0701 ~ DEPAFlTMENT OF tEALTHPh: 717-783-2500 Fax:717-7D5-6042 www.healYh.state.pa.us


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

22/33

I r e n e BizzosoMay 1 014Page

The I 7 e p a x t m e n t o f Health ~ . n t i c i ~ a t e s t h a t , i n due c o u r s e , t h e p a z ~ t i e s t o t h eabove- r e f e r e n c e d . ~ . p p e a l w i l l be a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e t h e p r o p e r c o u r s e o f c t i o n t od i s p o s e o f h i s l i t i g a t i o n f i n a l l y and c o n s i s t e n t l y w i t h t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s d e c i s i o n i nWhitewood.

Very t r u l y y o u x s ,/ s /A l i s o n TaylorChief CounselP e n n s y l v a n i a Department o f ~ e a l t h

c c : . A l l c o u n s e l of e c o r d


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

23/33

INTHESUPREMECOURTOFPENNSYLVANIA

COMMONWE LTH )F PENNSYLVATTIADEPARTIV.[El~`~'OF ~ALTH

Appellee

D:BRUCEHANES n h i s capacity as theClerk of the O r p h a n s ' C ourt o fMo n tg om e r y Co~rnty,

Appellant

No. 77 M.AP 013

CERTITICATEOF ERVICE

I , Alison T a y l o r , Chxe~ Counsel, e r u l s y l v a n i a Department of e a l t h , O f f i c eo f Legal Counsel, hereby c e z ~ z f s t h a t on May 22, 2014, I served t w a t r u e a n dc o r r e c t c o p i e s of the foregoing l e t t e r s t a t i n g t h a t Appellee has n a o p p o s i t i o n t oA p p e l l a n t s Emergen c y A p p l i c a t i o n t o R e i n s t a t e Automatic Supersedeas bycausing same t o be d e p o s i t e d i n t h e United S t a t e s Mail, postage p r e p a i d a n d LTPSo v e r n i g h t mail t o the f o l l o w i n g :

R a y m o n d McGarry, squireP h i l l i p W. ewcomer, squire

Joshua M a r c S t e i n , EsquireE . Natasha Taylor-Smith, Esquire

Nicole R. o r z a t o , E s q u i r eMaureen ~ . erron, squire

Montgomery County S o l i c i t o r s O f f i c eOne ontgomery Plaza

S u i t e 04Norristown,PA 9404-0311P ho ne: (610)278-3033Fax: b10) 278-3240Counsel og A p p e l l a n t


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

24/33

Michael P. l a r k e s q u i r eRudolph, l a r k e LLC

8 e s h a ~ ~ ~ i n y Z n t e r p l e x S u i t e 215Trevose,PA 9053(215) 33-1890

Robert C. Heim, s q u i r eAlexander R . i l u s s q u i r eWilliam T . M cE n roe , s q u i r e

Joanna L. a r r y E s q u i r eDechert LLPC i r a C e n t r e

2929 A r c h S t r e e tP h i l a d e l p h i a PA 9104-2808

Phone: (215) 94-4000Fax: (215) 94-2222

Counsel ar Amicus CuriaeDavid S . Cohen, s q u i r e

F a r 1 e M a ck School ofLaw tDrexel U n i v e r s i t y3320 Market S t r e e tP h i l a d e l p h i a PA 9104

Phone: 2 . 5 95-2000Counsel or Amicus Curiae

James c h x ~ e l l e r4 3 0 E. a n c a s t e r A ve. E25S a i n t Davids,PA 19807Amicus Curiae P r o S e

~A l i s o n T a y l o rChief CounselPA d . No. 1873P e n n s y l v a n i a Department of e a l t h

7


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

25/33

Date: 1 V I a y 22, 014

625 o x s t e r S t r e e tH a r r i s b u r g PA 17120-0701717)7835

ounselor p p e l l e e Departmentofe a l t h


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

26/33

UNPUBLISHEDOPINIONSANDi


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

27/33

Case2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LRL Document 91 F i l e d 01/17/14 Page1f agelD 735

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICT COURTFORTHEEASTERNDISTRICT OFVTRGTNIA

NorfolkD i v i s i o n

TIMOTHY.BOSTICTONY LONDONCAROLCHALL,n d MARYTOWNLEYP l a i n t i f f s

v . CASEO . 2 : 1 3 - c v - 3 9 5

JANETM.AINEY n h e r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t ya s S t a t e R e g i s t r a r o f i t a l R e c o r d s , a n dGEORGE.SCHAEFER,I I i n h i s o f f i c i a lc a p a c i t y a s t h e C l e r k of o u r t f o r N o r f o l kC i r c u i t C o u r t ,

D e f e n d a n t s .~ ~

B e f o r e t h i s C o u r t i s a m o t i o n f r o m P r o p o s e d I n t e r v e n o r- D e f e n d a n t , M i c h e l e B.McQuigg,( P r o p o s e d I n t e r v e n o r ) , a p p e a r i n g i n h e r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y a s P r i n c e W i l l i a m CountyC l e r k o fC i r c u i t C o u r t . P r o p o s e d I n t e r v e n o r s e e k s t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h i s a c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 2 4 a ) 2 ) , o ra l t e r n a t i v e l y , Rul e24 b)of h e F e d e r a l Rulesofi v i l P r o c e d u r e .

Defendant J a n e t M.Rainey,S t a t e R e g i s t r a r of V i t a l Reco rds, hasc o n s e n t e d t o t h eMot ion, and DefendantGeorgeE. c h a e f e r , I I C l e r k ofh e Cour t f o r Norf olk C i r c u i t C o u r t , has

no o b j e c t i o n t o t h e Mo tio n . P l a i n t i f f s TimothyB. o s t i c , TonyC.London a r o l S c h a l l , andMaryTownleyo ppose h e Motion n p a r t .

I . PROCEDURALBACKGROUND

This a c t i o n was i l e d onJ u l y 18,2013.AnAmen dedComplaint was i l e d onSept ember3,2013,and p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d motionst o d i s m i s s and f o r t h e CommonwealthofV i r g i n i a t oi n t e r v e n e wer e wit hdr awn byt h e p a r t i e s asmoo t. On Sept ember 30, 2013, P l a i n t i f f s f i l e d amotionf o r summaryjudgment andamot io n f o r a r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n . Bo t h D e f e n d a n t s f i l e d


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

28/33

Case2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LRL Document91 F i l e d 01/17/14 Page2f 5 ageiD 736

m o t i o n s f o r summaryjudgmentant h a t d a t e a s w e l l . O r a l argumenton t h e s e m o t i o n s w i l l heh e a r d onJ a n u a r y 30,014.

B e f o r e t h e summaryjudgment m o t i o n s w e r e f u l l y b r i e f e d , twom o t i o n s f a r l e a v e t o f i l ea m i c i c u r i a e b r i e f s i n s u p p o r t of e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n s w e r e f i l e d . Them o t i o n s f o r l e a v e t o f i l et h e a m i c i c u r i a e b r i e f s wereg r a n t e d onDecember 3 , 2013.

Onecember 20, 013, r o p o s e d I n t e r v e n o r f i l e d h e r Motion(ECF No.2 ) . Them o t i o ni s f u l l y b r i e f e d a n d r i p e f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Fort h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s , t h e m o t i o n i s GRANTEDINPART

I I . AFPLICABLESTANDARDSOFLAWI n o r d e r t o p r e v a i l onam o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e a s of i g h t u n d e r R u l e 2 4 ( a ) of h e F e d e r a l

R u l e s of i v i l P r o c e d u r e , P r o p o s e d I n t e r v e n o r mustshowt h a t 1) h e m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e i st i m e l y ; 2} r o p o s e d I n t c r v e n o r p o s s e s s e s a d i r e c t ands u b s t a n t i a l i n t e r e s t ' i n t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e roft h e l i t i g a t i o n ; 3) e n y i n g i n t e r v e n t i o n woulds i g n i f i c a n t l y i m p a i r o r impede t h e a b i l i t y ofP r o p o s e d I n t e r v e n o r t o p r o t e c t h e r i n t e r e s t s ; a n d 4}P r o p o s e d I n t e r v e n o r ' s i n t e r e s t s a r ei n a d e q u a t e l y p r o t e c t e d byt h e e x i s t i n g p a r t i e s . I n r e Richman,10 4 F . 3 d 654, 658-59 4 t h C i r .1 9 9 7 ) ; s e e a l s o S c a r d e l l e t t i v . D e b p r r , 26 5 F . 3 d 1 9 5 , 2024 t h C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) , e v ' d ono t h e r g r o u n d ssubnom. e v l i n v . S c a r d e l l e t t i , 531 U . S . 1 ( 2 0 0 2 ) .

Ap r o p o s e d i n t e r v e n o r b e a r s t h e b u r d e n ofd e m o n s t r a t i n g t o t h e c o u r t a r i g h t t oi n t e r v e n e , a n d must p r o v e e a c h e l e m e n t i n o r d e r f o r a c o u r t t o g r a n t i n t e r v e n t i o n a s of i g h t .

Richman, 104F . 3 d a t 658; e e a l s o U n i t e d Gear.R e s i d e n t i a l I n s . Co.o f Iowa v P h i l a d e l p h i aS a y . F i e n d S o c . , 8l9 . 2 d 473,4744 t h C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) . The U n i t e d S t a t e s SupremeC a u r t c o n s t r u e dR u l e 2 4 ( a ) ( 2 } a s r e q u i r i n g t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t l y p r o t e c t a b l e i n t e r e s t bea t r i s k . D o n a l d s o n v U n i t e d S t a t e s , 400 U . S . 517, 531 ( 1 9 7 1 ) . S i m i l a r l y , t h e F o u r t h C i r c u i t l o o k s t o d e t e r m i n e


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

29/33

Case2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LRL Document 9 F i l e d 01/17/14 Page f agelD#737

w hether a p r o p o s e d i n t e r v e n o r s t a n d s t o g a i n o r l o s e by h e d i r e c t ] e ~ a l o p e r a t i o n of h e d i s t r i c t

c o u r t ' s judgment n t h e a c t i o n i n t o wh ich i n t e r v e n t i o n i s s o u g h t . Teague Bakker,931 C . 2 d

259, 61 4 t h C i r . 1 9 9 1 ) .P u r s u a n t t o Rule 2 4 ( b ) , t h e c o u r t may p e r m i t anyonet o i n t e r v e n e w h o:A)s g i v e n a

c o n d i t i o n a l r i g h t t o i n t e r v e n e by a e d e r a l s t a t u t e ; o r (B } as a l a i m o r d e f e n s e t h a t s h a r e w i t ht h e main a c t i o n acommon u e s t i o n of aw o r f a c t . F e d . R.Civ. P. 4 ( b ) ( 1 ) (emphasis a d d e d ) .This e c t i o n a l s o p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e c o u r t p r a y p e r m i t a e d e r a l o r s t a t e gover nmental o f f i c e r o r

agency t o i n t e r v e n e i f a p a r t y ' s c l a i m o r d e f e n s e i s b a s e d on: {A}a s t a t u t e o r e x e c u t i v e o r d e ra d m i n i s t e r e d byt h e o f f i c e r or agency; r {B )nyr e g u l a t i o n , o r d e r , r e q u i r e m e n t , o r agreementi s s u e d o r made under h e s t a t u t e o r e x e c u t i v e o r d e r . red. R.Civ.P, 4 ( b ) { 2 ) (emp hasis d d e d ) .A o u r t t h a t i s d e t e r m i n i n g w hether e r m i s s i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n i s p r o p e r must o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e

i n t e r v e n t i o n w i l l undulyd e l a y o r p r e j u d i c e t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n of h e o r i g i n a l p a r t i e s ' r i g h t s . F e d .

R. iv. . 2 4 ( b ) ( 3 ) .I I I ANALYSIS

Wheth er Proposed I n t e r v e n o r has ar i g h t t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h i s a c t i o n i s ac l o s e q u e s t i o n .

T h e i m e l i n e s s of h e motion f i l e d a f t e r t h r e e d i s p o s i t i v e motionshave been f u l l y b r i e f e d andtw omotionst o f i l e amicic u r i a e b r i e f s havebeenc o n s i d e r e d and g r a n t e d i s q u e s t i o n a b l e .S i m i l a r l y , t h e e x i s t e n c e of d i r e c t and u b s t a n t i a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r of h e l i t i g t i o nont h e p a r t of Proposed I n t e r v e n o r i s a r g u a b l e , a s i s whether Proposed I n t e r v e n o r ' s a b i l i t y t o

p r o t e c t t h o s e p o s s i b l e i n t e r e s t s wouldbe n any w ay i g n i f i c a n t l y i m p a i r e d . F i n a l l y , t i s d i f f i c u l tt o s e e h ow any n t e r e s t s i n t h i s a c t i o n t h a t ProposedI n t e r v e n o r mayhave w i l l n o t be e p r e s e n t e df u l l y and d e q u a t e l y p r o t e c t e d by h e e x i s t i n g p a r t i e s

3


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

30/33

Case2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LR~ Document9 F i l e d 01 /17/14 Page f 5agelD 7 38

However, n l i g h t of l a i n t i f f s ' d e c i s i o n t o d e c l i n e t o o b j e c t t o ProposedI n t e r v e n o r

i n t e r v e n i n g under F e d e r a l Rule of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 2 4 ( b ) , t h i s Courtneed n o t r e s o l v e t h e

c h a l l e n g e s a s t o whetherProposed I n t e r v e n o r has met h e burdenof s t a b l i s h i n g i n t e r v e n t i o n a sof i g h t u n d e r Rule 2 4 ( a ) . As e c o g n i z e d above,underRule2 4 ( b } , t h i s Courtmayp e r m i t ane n t i t y t o i n t e r v e n e i f t h e e n t i t y has a e f e n s e t h a t s h a r e s acommonu e s t i o n ofawo r f a c t w i t h

t h e main a c t i o n . TheCourtmay l s o p e r m i t agovernmentalo f f i c e r t o i n t e r v e n e i f a e f e n s e i nt h e c a s e i s b a s e d ona t a t u t e a d m i n i s t e r e d by h e o f f i c e r , o r any e g u l a t i o n o r r e q u i r e m e n t i s s u e d

undert h e s t a t u t e .I n t h e absence ofny h a l l e n g e s t o t h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t ProposedI n t e r v e n o r has a defense

t h a t s h a r e s acommon u e s t i o n of lawo r f a c t w i t h t h e main a c t i o n h e r e , o r t h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t

Proposed I n t e r v e n o r i s agovernment f f i c e r and a e f e n s e i n t h e a c t i o n i s b a s e d up ona t a t u t e o r

r e g u l a t i o n b e i n g a d m i n i s t e r e d b yt h e o f f i c e r , t h i s Courtc o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n a s

r e q u e s t e d i s p r o p e r . TheCourt e j e c t s t h e c o n d i t i o n s on h e i n t e r v e n t i o n t h a t P l a i n t i f f s s u g g e s t .

A f t e r d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t p e r m i s s i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n i s p r o p e r , t h i s Court i s compelledt o

c o n s i d e r whethert h e i n t e r v e n t i o n w i l l unduly d e l a y o r p r e j u d i c e t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n ofh e o r i g i n a l

p a r t i e s ' r i g h t s . Fed.R. iv.P. 4 ( b ) ( 3 ) . Here,roposedI n t e r v e n o r hasa g r e e d t o t a k e no t e p s

t o d e l a y t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n of h e pendingm o t i o n s . ReplyB r . Sup p .Mot. n t e r v e n e a t 8 - 4 , F

No. 88 C l e r k McQui gg f f i r m s t h a t w h i l e b o t h of h e motionsf o r summaryudgment h a t shej o i n e d remainp e n d i n g , she w i l l not i l a d d i t i o n a l motionsor o t h e r w i s e t a k e s t e p s t o d e l a y t h e

promp t e s o l u t i o n ofh o s e m o t i o n s . ) . I n l i g h t ofh i s a s s u r a n c e , h i s Court o n c l u d e s t h a t undert h e t o t a l i t y ofh e c i r c u m s t a n c e p r e s e n t e d , t h i s i n t e r v e n t i o n , under t h e s e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , w i l l n o tunduly d e l a y or p r e j u d i c e t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n of h e o r i g i n a l p a r t i e s ' r i g h t s . TheCourt x p l i c i t l yr e s e r v e s t h e d i s c r e t i o n anda u t h o r i t y t o examine anyf u t u r e i n t e r v e n t i o n p r o p o s a l s and t o make


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

31/33

Case2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LRL Document91 F i l e d 01/17/14 Page5 f 5 agelD 739

i n d e p e n d e n t d e t e r m i n a t i o n s ast o whethersuch p r o p o s a l s a r e t i m e l y , p r o p e r and r i s k undue d e l a y

andp r e j u d i c e .Byr a n t i n g t h i s i n t e r v e n t i o n undert h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s p r e s e n t e d byProposedI n t e r v e n o r i n

t h e Re ply r i e f , t h e CourtSTRIKESh e f i l i n g s a t t a c h e d t o ProposedI n t e r v e n o r s Motion,which

i n c l u d e a p r o p o s e d motionf o r s u m m a r y ju dgmentECF o . 2 - 3 ) . That p r o p o s e d d i a p o s i t i v emotion i s p r e s e n t e d i n d i r e c t c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o t h e o f f e r t o f i l nn a d d i t i o n a l motions t o a v o i d

undue d e l a y i n t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n o f endingm o t i o n s .Moreove r, n accordancew i t h t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o p r e v e n t undued e l a y o r p r e j u d i c e , t h i s

Courtd i r e c t s t h a t i f Proposed I n t e r v e n o r wishest o p r e s e n t o r a l argument t t h e J a n u a r y 30, 2014

h e a r i n g , ProposedI n t e r v e n o r mu s t i l e a m e m o r a n d u m n o t exceedingsevenpalesd e t a i l i n g t h ea s p e c t s ofh e o r a l argum ent h a t f l l o u t s i d e t h e scopeof h e p o s i t i o n s o f h e o t h e r D e f e n d a n t sa n d . t h e r e a s o n s why h e s e a s p e c t s a r e u n l i k e l y t o bea d e q u a t e l y p r o t e c t e d byt h e o t h e r p a r t i e s .Thism e m o r a n d u m mu s t be i l e d n o a t e r t h a n c l o s e of u s i n e s s o n J a n u a r y 22,014.

T h e Courtw i l l d e t e r m i n e a f t e r t h a t timewhether Proposed I n t e r v e n o r w i l l p a r t i c i p a t e i no r a l argument and, i f s o how m u ch time w i l l be a l l o t t e d f o r suchargument P l a i n t i f f s a r eg r a n t e d l e a v e t o f i l e r e s p o n s i v e b r i e f i n g t o any o r a l argument p r e s e n t e d byProposedI n t e r v e n o r .

This b r i e f i n g s h a l l be i l e d n o a t e r t h a n F e b r u a r y 7,414.IV.CONCLUSION

Proposed I n t e r v e n o r s Motiont o I n t e r v e n e ECGo .2 s GRANTEDN PART,I T IS SOORDERED.

` ` ~J a n u a r y ~?,Q14N o r f o l k V i r g i n i a

5

Aren Wr i l l e nU n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Jude


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

32/33

O C T / 1 7 / 2 0 1 3 / T N U 0 1 : 4 1 P M C O M ~ I D N W E A L T H C O U R T F R X N o , 7 1 7 7 8 7 9 5 5 9 P . 0 0 2 / 0 0 2

~ l ~ T TAEC0 4N'~.h1LTH CUYJRT OF ENNS~'V A~SA

Commonweal~lx o f e n n s y ~ ~ a n i a ,D e p a r t ~ a n , ~ ~ ~ o f e a ~ ~ ~ ,P e ~ . t i a n e ~ r

v . No. 79 v x . ~ 7 , 20I3D. ruoe Hanes, n h i s c a p a c i t y a s t h eC ~ e ~ ~ a f ~ h e 4zpha~s' a ~ z ~ t ~Montg om e zy o ~ . n t y ,

1 Z e s p o x ~ d e z x t

~ ~ ~

AND O V V ~ , f ~ i s I 7 ` ~ day o f c ~ a t ~ ~ z ~ , 2013, u p o n c o n s ~ d e r a t ~ a ~ o f fI > e ~ r ~ o i ~ . ~ x ~ s A p p l i c a t i o n to Vacate S t i ~ p e ~ s e d e a s , i t i s h~r~by Ordered t h a t s 2 ~ x dA p p l i c a t i o n i s g r a n t e d , ~ 1 , ~ . ~ O x c i e r a f t h i s Court n t c r e c ~ S e ~ a t e m . b e x ~ 2 , X073, ha hz ~ e m a i n i n f i x l l f o r c e a r t d e f f e c t n a t w i t h s t a ~ d i n g h e s ~ o i s d e r ~ ~ ~ a p p ~ a ~ , ~ . ~ r e r ~ f t o t ~ . eSupr e m e Court o f e n n s y i v a x ~ i a docketed t No.77 v S . A P 203

~~r~~ ~ ~ . ~ , ~ , E C r ,President Judge

C o r t i f e d P r a m t h e ~ e c a r dO C T ~ , 7 0 i ~ {

F t n d o r d e r x i t506a ~


7/27/2019 1:13-cv-01861 #146

33/33

INTHESUPREMECOURTOFPENNSYLVANIAMIDDLEDI STRI CT

COMMONWEALTHOFPENNSYLVANIA N o.77 MAP 13DEPARTMENTOFHEALTHA p p e l l a n t s Emergency A p p l i c a t i o n t o

Appel lee :Reinstate Automa ticSupers edea s

v .

D.BRUCEHANES,N HI SCAPACITYAS THECLERKOFTHEORPHANSCOURTOFMONTGOMERYCOUNTY,

ppellant

PERCURIAM

ORDER

ANDNOW,h i s 27t hda yo f Ma y, 2014,A p p e l l a n t s EmergencyA p p l i c a t i o n t o

e i n s t a t e Automatic Supersedeas,unopposed bythe Commonwea l t h,i s GRANTED.The supersedeasimposed by o p e r a t i o n o f Pa.R.A.P.1736b) s r e i n s t a t e d .


Documents

1:13-cv-01861 #146