1:13-cv-01861 #146

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
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 She
Cannot 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) the
application for intervention is timely; (2) the applicant has a sufficient interest in
the 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 by
an 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 a
person 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 to
intervene for that purpose sooner.
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 give
her 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

2
Clerk Gaffney erroneously states that Plaintiffs conceded the legal interest
of all Clerks of Orphans Courts and Registers of Wills by naming two of them in
the 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. See Pls. Brief in Oppn to the Mot. to
Dismiss 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 to
dismiss).
3
Clerk Gaffney has not identified any way in which the Courts decision
obstructs her ability to perform her statutory duties nor, indeed, could she, as the
sole 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
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. (quoting Dept 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 will
continue to follow J oness ruling unless it is overturned, although she wants to
intervene 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 (J une 7, 2014), http://republicanherald.com/news /santai-
gaffney-seeks-to-intervene-in-gay-marriage-lawsuit-1.1699458, attached as Exhibit
A.

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 Clerk
Gaffneys 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

4
Incidentally, Hines v. DArtois, 531 F.2d 726, 737-38 (5th Cir. 1976),
quoted by Clerk Gaffney, undermines her motion because the court made clear that
government officials who have their own decisional duties with respect to the
challenged policy have a protectable interest in the litigation supporting
intervention while government officials whose duties are at the direction of
others do not. And Board 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 school
boards 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 district
policy and that its duties were purely ministerial.
5
Clerk Gaffneys reliance on Bostic v. Rainey, No. 2:13-cv-395, Dkt. No.
91 (E.D. Va. J an 17, 2014), is also misplaced for the additional reason that the
court allowed permissive intervention of a county clerk in a marriage case only
because no party in that case opposed it.
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:

6
Notably, 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. See note 3, supra.

7
[A]fter review of the opinion and on the advice of my Commonwealth
legal team, I have decided not to appeal J udge J ones decision. Press Release,
Office of the Governor, Statement Regarding the Opinion of J udge J ones in the
Whitewood Case (May 21, 2014), http://www.pa.gov/Pages/NewsDetails.aspx?
agency=PAGovNews&item=15643#.U5ogSPldVad, attached as Exhibit B.
7

The decision in Whitewood requires every government
official who administers the Marriage Law including
every clerk of the orphans court to perform his or her
duties in accordance with the courts order. That means
that a clerk of the orphans court must consider
applications 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

8
The 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 thoroughly
enforced 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 marriage
licenses 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 (J une 11,
2014), available at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/
marriage_and_divorce_certificates/14126, attached as Exhibit C.

9
Before this Courts decision invalidating and enjoining enforcement of the
marriage exclusion, the Commonwealth Court, upon petition by the Department of
Health, 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,
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. See 71 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 an
automatic 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. 379
MD 2013 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Oct. 17, 2013) ([U]pon consideration of Petitioner's
Application to Vacate Supersedeas, it is hereby Ordered that said Application is
granted. The Order of this Court entered September 12, 2013, shall remain in full
force 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 Automatic
Supersedeas, 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 not
oppose 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, see
Order, Pa. Dept of Health v. Hanes, No. 77 MAP 2013 (Pa. May 27, 2014).
9

No. 140 (J une 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 this
litigation 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).

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. See Br. in Supp. Motion to Intevene at 20, Dkt. No. 140
(J une 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. See Mot. to Intervene 2, Dkt. No. 139 (J une 6, 2014) (Proposed
Intervenor seeks to intervene as Intervenor-Defendant to file the accompanying
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)
(quoting Diamond 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: J une 13, 2014 HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL
PUDLIN & SCHILLER

By: /s/ Mark A. Aronchick
Mark A. Aronchick
J ohn S. Stapleton
Dylan J . Steinberg
Rebecca S. Melley
One Logan Square, 27th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 568-6200

Helen E. Casale
401 DeKalb Street, 4th Floor
Norristown, PA 19401
(610) 313-1670

Counsel for Plaintiffs
12

ACLU FOUNDATION OF
PENNSYLVANIA

By: /s/ Witold J . Walczak
Witold J . Walczak
313 Atwood Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
(412) 681-7736

Mary Catherine Roper
Molly Tack-Hooper
P.O. Box 40008
(215) 592-1513


J ames D. Esseks
Leslie Cooper
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
(212) 549-2500


Seth F. Kreimer
3400 Chestnut St.
Philadelphia, Pa. 19104
(215) 898-7447



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 13th day of J une, 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. Aronchick
Mark A. Aronchick

EXHIBIT A
Case 1:13-cv-01861-JEJ Document 146-1 Filed 06/13/14 Page 1 of 2
S a n t a i - G a f f n e y se e ks t o i n t e r v e n e i n ga y ma r r i a ge l a w su i t - Ne w s - Re pu bl i ca n He r a l d
Pa ge 1 o f 6
~ ~ o i ~ A l ; . NG w S S l 'O~ t r s (1 1 'l I~ u 7N 1 'L 'o ~ '~ . ~ L ~ L n sS u t L u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ :Nu . ~ t : c~ t ~ S ~ ~ Ui ~ 1 L 'R51 R~ ~ IcI.
5UDMI7 NL VJ~ ' TIPS i COPS A Ni > C; OUKI S ~ OBf TUA f 21 L S ~ PA 57 7 DA YS S TOCKS A NU 1 =1 NA NCE
S a n t a i - G a f f i i e y se e ks t o i n t e r v e n e i n ga y ma r r i a ge l a v v s~ i i t
RY PL ~ G R G . H027NG R (S TA FF W RI'L 'ER PBORTN/i R~ RCPUB/ ICA NHCRA /. D. COM) Pv bl i s/a e d: J~ ~ n e 7, 20/d
- ~ - ' The r e sa S a n t a i - G a f f n e y , S chu y l ki l l Co u n t y 's r e gi st e r o f w i l l s a n d cl e r k o f t he
. . . . , . . . . v pn a n s Cu w Y, w a u i > a S a y i ~ ~ w ~ ~ z . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . , ~ ~ ~ 3 y ; . . . . . , . . ~ . , . . , . . . Ce . ^ . ~ 2y
t t )N r ' S I, (A ] (A ) [H]
ma r r i a ge .
(
, _ S a n t a i - G a f f n e y , w ho se o f f i ce i ssu e s ma r r i a ge l i ce n se s i n t he co u n t y , a ske d
- - - U. S . Di st r i ct Ju dge Jo hn E. Jo n e s III o n Fr i da y t o a l l o w he r t o i n t e r v e n e i n t he
i :r Ui t ~ >Or IFl L NCTVd~ # ~ K3 ~ ~ ~ ca se , w i t h a v i e w t o w a r d a ppe a l i n g hi s Ma y 20 o r de r de cl a r i n g Pe n n sy l v a n i a 's
~ ~ ~ ~
~
-
. . . . _
t a C f , r c>c>I< 1 i ; ~
ba n o n da y ma r r i a ge u n co n st i t u t i o n a l .
; It . N Ui ~ ~ NEW S L ETTER
Jo n e s, w ho se cha mbe r s a r e i n Ha r r i sbu r g bu t w ho l i v e s i n Po t t sv i l l e , i s o n e o f
_ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ . . . _ . . - - _
se v e r a l f e de r a l ju dge s w ho ha v e de cl a r e d st a t e l a w s ba n n i n g da y ma r r i a ge
u n co n st i t u t i o n a l .
A n y a ppe a l o f Jo n e s' de ci si o n w o u l d be he a r d by t he Phi l a de l phi a- ba se d 3 r d
U. S . Ci r cu i t Co u r t o f A ppe a l s.
S a n t a i - G a f f n e y sa i d t he i ssu e sho u l d n o t st o p w i t h Jo n e s' r u l i n g, a l t ho u gh
G o v . To m Co r be t t , w ho ha d de f e n de d t he l a w i n co u r t , ha s sa i d he w i l l n o t
a ppe a l [ha t de ci si o n .
"A n a ppe a l i s n e ce ssa r y so t ha t t he ju di ci a l pr o ce ss i s n o t a ba n do n e d, she
sa i d. "The pe o pl e o f Pe n n sy l v a n i a de se r v e t o he a r f r o m t he co u r t o f a ppe a l s o n
t hi s i mpo r t a n t i ssu e be ca u se a si n gl e ju dge sho u l d n o t be a bl e t o n u l l i f y t he
w i l l o f t he ma jo r i t y w i t ho u t a n a ppe a l . "
Ho w e v e r , S a n t a i - G a f f n e y sa i d she w i l l co n t i n u e t o f o l l o w Jo n e s's r u l i n g u n l e ss
i t i s o v e r t u r n e d, a l t ho u gh she w a n t s t o i n t e r v e n e i n t he ca se i n o r de r t o cl a r i f y
w ha t he r o f f i ci a l du t i e s a r e .
"Du e t o t he u n ce r t a i n t y o f t he st a t e o f t he l a w , I w i l l co n t i n u e i ssu i n g ma r r i a ge
l i ce n se st o a l l co u pl e s, " she sa i d.
The r e sa S a n t a i - G a f f n e y
Tr e n di n g Of f e r s a n d A r t i cl e s - - ~ ~ -
. . ~ i ~ -
~ .
y
. ~ , ~
S u pr i si n g e n e r ~ Pl e n o ~ u mme r ~ S o n ~ '~ Use ~ ` gy y i ~ , . ~ st The se 7 f a mo u s
pl a y ca u se s hu ge ge t a w a y t o w o me n o n t he so n gs do n o t me a n
bu y i n g f r e n z y . . . Ro che st e r , MN pl a n e t a r e t he w i v e s w ha t y o u pr o ba bl y
[In v e st o r s ca sh i n k t o da y ! Fi n d r a t e s a s & gi r l f r i e n ds o f NBA t hi n k t he y me a n .
l o w a s $45 a n i ght . st a r s.
W e w e l co me u se r di scu ssi o n o n o u r si t e , u n de r t he f o l l o w i n g gu i de l i n e s:
To co mme n t y o u mu st f i r st cr e a t e a pr o f i l e a n d si gn- i n w i t h a v e r i f i e d DIS QUS a cco u n t o r so ci a l n e t w o r k ID. S i a n u p he r e .
Co mme n t s i n v i o l a t i o n o f t he r u l e s w i l l be de n i e d, a n d r e pe a t v i o l a t o r s w i l l be ba n n e d. Pl e n se he l p po l i ce t he co mmm~ i t y
by (l e ggi n g o f f e n si v e co mme n t s f o r o n r mo de r a t o r s t o r e v i e w . By po st i n g a co mme n t , y o u a gr e e t o o u r f u l l t e r ms a n d
co n di t i o n s. Cl i ck he r e t o r e a d t e r ms a n d co n di t i pn s.
A Rl '1 UN[5 7HE VJCEi
j YOUR ONL INE QG G E~ S NOW
~ . 1 . ~ COMP
t A R
CA RS
~ Ra M A - z
FOR f l UR MONTHL Y S PEt IA l S
CA L ENDA R
MA Y JUN Jl i t .
o a t z sz i o ct e a
01 02 03 ~ 4 05 06 47
(3 8 D$ 1 0 1 1 1 2 ~ 1 4
'i a i G 1 7 9 ~ 1 ~ 2p 21
_ _ _ ' . _ . . . . . _ . _ ' _ _ . . . . . . _ _ _ " '_ _ . _ _ _ _ S ho w i n g e v e r t s
22 23 24 ~ 5 2~ 27 ~ 8 ~ ; k', o ; "; 0fe '
z g ~ o n ~ r ~ ~ o ~ ~ a o ~
Vi n t a ge Ex~ e r ssi o n s o f L o v e No w
Fr a gi l e , de l i ca t e , bo a u t i f u i e xpe r ssi o n s o f l o v e ,
v i n t a r ~ e Va l e n t i n e 's Da y c2r ds a r e bu r st i n g w i i t i
Expr e ssi o n s Thr i f UG i f t S ho p
Expr e ssi o n s i s a t hi f Ugi f t sho p r u n by I'o f l sv i l i e
ba se d A v e n u e s, f o r me r l y Un i t e d Ce r e br a l
S e a so n s o f Ha w k Mo u n t a i n
The f 3 e r ks A r t A l l i a n ce pr e se n t s a t r e e e xhi bi t
o f w o r k i n spi r e A by t he S a n ct u 2r y i n a l l
ht t p://r e pu bl i ca n he r a l d. co m/n e w s/sa n t a i - ga f f n e y - se e ks- t o - i n t e r v e n e - i n - ga y - ma r r i a ge - l a w su i t - 1 . 1 69 9 458 6/1 3 /201 4
t t
I 1 1
News D et a i l s
Pa ge 1 of 3
NEWS D ETAILS
Sea rch
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Vi ew a i l News a nd Press( ht t p~//www pa a ov/Pa ges/News ByD a t e.a spx
5/21 /201 4
St a t ement Rega rdi ng t he Opi ni on of Judge Jones i n t he Whi t ewood Ca se
News for Immedi a t e Rel ea se
Ma y 21 , 201 4
St a t ement Rega rdi ng t he Opi ni on of Judge Jones i n t he Whi t ewood Ca se
" I ha ve t horoughl y revi ewed Judge Jones' opi ni on i n t he ca se. Gi ven t he hi gh l ega l t hreshol d set fort h by Judge Jones i n t hi s ca se, t he ca se i s
ext remel y unl i k el y t o succeed on a ppea l . Therefore, a ft er revi ew of t he opi ni on a nd on t he a dvi ce of my Commonwea l t h l ega l t ea m, I ha ve
deci ded not t o a ppea l Judge Jones' deci si on.
" As a Roma n Ca t hol i c, t he t ra di t i ona l t ea chi ng of my fa i t h ha s not wa vered. I cont i nue t o ma i nt a i n t he bel i ef t ha t ma rri a ge i s bet ween one ma n
a nd one woma n. My dut i es a s Governor req ui re t ha t I fol l ow t he l a ws a s i nt erpret ed by t he Court s a nd ma k e a judgment a s t o t he l i k el i hood of a
successful a ppea l .
" Throughout t he deba t e on t hi s i mport a nt a nd mea ni ngful i ssue, i ha ve ma i nt a i ned t ha t Commonwea l t h offi ci a l s a nd a genci es woul d fol l ow t he
provi si ons of Pennsyl va ni a 's ma rri a ge l a w unl ess or unt i l a court sa ys ot herwi se. The court ha s spok en, a nd I wi l l ensure t ha t my
a dmi ni st ra t i on fol l ows t he provi si ons of Judge Jones' order wi t h respect for a l l pa rt i es.
" It i s my hope t ha t a s t he i mport a nt i ssue of sa me-sex rel a t i onshi ps cont i nues t o be a ddressed i n our soci et y, t ha t a l l i nvol ved be t rea t ed wi t h
respect ."
Medi a cont a ct s:
Ja y Pa gni , Governor's Offi ce, 71 7-783-1 1 1 6
Joshua Ma us, Offi ce of Genera l Counsel , 71 7-346-4463
More news
PCCD Present s Governor's Vi ct i m Servi ce Pa t hfi nder Awa rds(~ht t p~//www pa q ov/Pa ges/NewsD et a i l s
a spx~a gency=PAGovNews&i t em=1 5732 )
6/1 2/201 4
Success of Governor Corbet Ys Just i ce Rei nvest ment Ini t i a t i ve Recei ves Na t i ona l Recogni t i on(
ht t p://www.pa .gov/Pa ges/NewsD et a i l s.a spx?
a gency=PAGovNews&i t em=1 5731 )
6/1 2/201 4
ht t p://www.pa .gov/Pa ges/NewsD et a i l s.a spx?a gency=PAGovNews&i t em=1 5643
6/1 3/201 4
E~:HIBIT C
~r~ p e rt r~s y l v a n i ~
~' " ~ DEPARTMENT C 3 ~ HEALTH
J u s t e 11, 2014
Ge n e ra l No t i c e t o a l l C l e rks o f t he Orp ha n s ' C o u rt
The U n i t e d S t a t e s Di s t ri c t C o u rt . fo r t he Mi d d l e Di s t ri c t o f Pe n n s y l v a n i a o n Ma y 20,
2014, i n Whi t e wo o d v . Wo l f, I V o . 1: 13 - c ~v - 18 6 1: (p e r J a n e s ,, J _ ) , ru l e d t ha t t he p ro v i s i o n s o f t he
Pe n n s y l v a n i a Ma rri a ge La w t ha t p ro hi b i t s a me - s e x ma rri a ge (23 Pa . C . S . 1X02, 1704} v i o l a t e
t he F o u rt e e n t h Ame n d me n t t o t he 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 he c o u rt p e rrn a n e i ~t l y
e n j o i n e d t he S e c re t a ry o f He a l t h a n d o t he r go v e rn me n t o ffi c i a l s fro m e n fo rc i n g t ho s e p ro v i s i o n s
o f Pe n n s y l v a n i a l a w.
The d e c i s i o n i n Whi t e wv a d re q u i re s e v e ry go v e rn me n t o ffi c i a l who a d mi n i s t e rs t he
Ma rri a ge La w i n c l u d z n g e v e ry c l e rk o f t he o rp ha n s ' c o u rt t o p e rfo x rn hi s o r he r d u t i e s i n
a c c o rd a n c e wi t h t he c o u rt ' s o rd e r. l Tha t me a n s t ha t a c l e rk o f t he o rp ha n s ' c o u rt mu s t c o n s i d e r
a p p l i c a t i o n s fo r t he i s s u a n c e o f a ma rri a ge l i c e n s e wi t ho u t re ga rd t o t he ge n d e r o f t he
a p p l i c a n t s .
The De p a rt me n t o f He a l t h b y l a w i s re s p o n s i b l e t o s e e t ha t t he l a ws p ro v i d i n g fo r t he
l i c e n s i n g a n d re gi s t ra t i o n o f ma rri a ge a re u n i fo rml y a n d t ho ro u ghl y e n fo rc e d t hro u gho u t t he
C o mmo n we a l t h. S e e 71 P. S . 5 3 4(c ) . The . De p a rt me n t a l s o i s re s p o n s i b l e b y l a w t o p re s c ri b e
t he fa rms t ha t a re t o b e u s e d fo r ma rri a ge l i c e n s e s a n d t he a p p l i c a t i o n s fo r ma rri a ge l i c e n s e s , a n d
t o c o l l e c t a n d c o mp i l e s t a t i s t i c s . re l a t i n g t o ma rri a ge l i c e n s e s i s s u e d . a n d ma rri a ge c e rt i fi c a t e s
fi l e d . S e e 23 Pa . C . S . 1103 ,1106 ; 3 S P. S . 45 0. 6 01.
The De p a rt me n t o f He a l t h i s i n t he p ro c e s s o f p re p a ri n g re v i s i o n s . t o t he p re s c ri b e d fo rms
t o c o n fo rm t o t he d e c i s i o n i n Wh t c wo o d . I n t he me a n t i me , t he c l e rks o f t he o rp ha n s ' c o u rt s
s ho u l d c o n t i n u e t o mo d i fy t he c o u n t y ' s ma rri a ge fo i ~n s a s n e c e s s a ry t o c o n fo rm wi t h t he c o u rt ' s
o rd e r:
The De p a rt me n t o f He a l t h a p p re c i a t e s t he c l e rks . ' p a t i e n c e a s i t d e v e l o p s n e w fo rms t ha t
c o mp l y wi t h t he Ma rri a ge La w a n d t he c o u rt ' s o rd e r i n l ~ht e wo ~d .
' J u d ge J o n e s s t a t e d e x p re s s l y i n t he - Whi t e wo o d c a s e t ha t . " a l l C l e rks o f t he Orp ha n s ' C o u rt
wo u l d b e s u b j e c t t o [a n y ] l e ga l ma n d a t e " e n t e re d . i n fa v o r o f t he p l a i n t i ffs . Wha t e wo o d v . Wo l f,
Na . 1: 13 - c v - 18 : 6 1, a t 8 (M. D. Pa . No v . 15 , 2013 ) (e mp ha s i s a d d e d ) (c i t i n g De p t o f He a l t h v .
Ha n e s , 78 A. ~d 6 76 , 6 8 8 (Pa . C o mmw. 2013 ) ) .
Di v i s i o n o f V i t a l Re c o rd s
Ro o m 401 C e n t ra l B u i l d i n g, 101 S o u t h Me rc e r S t re e t , Ne w C a s t l e , PA 16 101 (724) b 5 6 - 3 100
E~:HIBIT D
Received 05/21/2014 Supreme Court Middle D is trict
~~ F iled 05/21/2014 Supreme Court Middle D is trict
77 MAP 2013
r~`
a
C~MM~NW~AL1"I-~ OF ~'~NNSYLVANTA
GCIVERN~R'S OF F ICE OF GENERI~L COUNSEL
Ma y 21, 2014
VI~1 E~EC"TRONIC D ELIVERY
Iren e Bizzos o, Prothon ota ry
Q ~ice o~'the ~'rothon ota ry
Supreme Court of Pen tls ylva n ia
Pen n s ylva n ia J udicia l Cen ter
601 Common wea lth Aven ue
Suite 4500
H a rris b urg , PA ] 710- 2575
Re: eo~n mon wea lth of Pen n s ylva n ia , D epa rtmen t of H ea lth v.
D . Bj ~uce H a n es , in his ca pa city a s the Clerk of the Orpha n s ' Cn u~t
of Mon tg omery Coun ty
No. 77 MAP 213
D ea r Ms , Bizzos o:
Ba s ed on ta e order o~ the U. S. D is trict Couxt for the Mxdd~e D is trict o:C
Pen n s ylva n ia ren dexed in Whitewood v. Wolf, No. 1:13- cv- 1861, 2014 U. S. D is t.
LEXIS b 8771 (M. D . Pa . Ma y 20, 2014), perma n en tly en j oin in g the Secreta ry o
H ea lth from en forcin g the provis ion s of the Ma rria g e La w tha t preclude ma rria g e
b etween s a me- s ex couples , the Pen n s ylva n ia D epa rtmen t of H ea lth does n ot
oppos e the relief reques ted xn Appella n t's Emerg en cy Applica tion to Rein s ta te
Automa tic Supers edea s filed on Ma y 20, 2014.
OF F ICE Of LEGAL COUNSEL [D EPARTMENT OF H EALTH
Etoa m 825 H ea lth a n d Welfa re ~ulidin g pen n s ytva n i~
625 F ors ter St ~ H a rris b urg , PA 17120- 0701 ~ D EPAF lTMENT OF F tEALTH
Ph: 717- 783- 2500 ~ F a x:717- 7D 5- 6042 ~ www. hea lYh. s ta te. pa . us
I r e n e Bizzoso
May 21, 2014
Page 2
The I 7 e p ax t m e n t of He alt h ~ . n t ic i~ at e s t hat , in due c our se , t he p az~ t ie s t o t he
above- r e fe r e n c e d. ~ . p p e al w ill be able t o de t e r m in e t he p r op e r c our se of ac t ion t o
disp ose of t his lit igat ion fin ally an d c on sist e n t ly w it h t he fe de r al c our t ' s de c ision in
Whit e w ood.
Ve r y t r uly youx s,
/ s/
A lison Taylor
Chie f Coun se l
Pe n n sylvan ia De p ar t m e n t of k ~ . e alt h
c c : . A ll c oun se l of r e c or d
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
COMMONWEALTH C)F PENNSYLVATTIA,
DEPARTIV.[El~`~' OF ~~ALTH,
Appellee
~ ~
D: BRUCE HANES, in h is capacity as th e
Clerk of th e Orph ans ' Court of
Montgomery Co~rnty,
Appellant
No. 77 M.AP 2013
CERTITICATE OF SERVICE
I, Alis on Taylor, Ch xe~ Couns el, Peruls ylv ania Department of Health , Office
of Legal Couns el, h ereby cez- ~z f es th at on May 22, 2014, I s erv ed twa true and
correct copies of th e foregoing letter s tating th at Appellee h as na oppos ition to
Appellant's Emergency Application to Reins tate Automatic Supers edeas by
caus ing s ame to be depos ited in th e United States Mail, pos tage prepaid and LTPS
ov ernigh t mail to th e following:
Raymond McGarry, Es quire
Ph illip W. Newcomer, Es quire
Jos h ua Marc Stein, Es quire
E. Natas h a Taylor- Smith , Es quire
Nicole R. Forz ato, Es quire
Maureen ~. Herron, Es quire
Montgomery County Solicitor's Office
One Montgomery Plaz a
Suite $04
Norris town, PA 19404- 0311
Ph one: (610) 278- 3033
Fax: (b10) 278- 3240
Couns el fog Appellant
Michael P. C lar k e, E s q u ir e
Ru dolph, C lar k e, LLC
8 N es ha~ ~ ~ in y Z n t er plex , S u it e 215
Tr evos e, PA 19053
(215) 633-1890
Rober t C . Heim, E s q u ir e
Alex an der R. B ilu s , E s q u ir e
William T. McE n r oe, E s q u ir e
Joan n a L. B ar r y , E s q u ir e
Decher t LLP
C ir a C en t r e
2929 Ar ch S t r eet
Philadelphia, PA 19104-2808
Phon e: (215) 994-4000
Fax : (215) 994-2222
C ou n s el far Amicu s C u r iae
David S . C ohen , E s q u ir e
F, ar 1e Mack S chool of Law at
Dr ex el U n iver s it y
3320 Mar k et S t r eet
Phon e: (2 J.5) $95-2000
C ou n s el for Amicu s C u r iae
James 5chx ~ eller
430 E . Lan cas t er Ave. E 25
S ain t Davids , PA 19807
Amicu s C u r iae Pr o S e
~~~~~ -~
Alis on Tay lor
C hief C ou n s el
PA I d. N o. 61873
Pen n s y lvan ia Depar t men t of Healt h
7
Date: 1 V I ay 22, 201 4
625 F o x s ter S tr eet
H ar r i s b u r g , PA 1 71 20-0701
(71 7) 7832500
Co u ns el fo r Ap p ellee, Dep ar tment o f H ealth
3
UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS AND
i' 1 '
Case 2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LRL Document 91 F i l ed 01/17/14 Page 1 of 5 Pagel D# 735
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
F OR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VTRGTNIA
Norf ol k Di vi si on
TIMOTHY B. BOSTIC, TONY C, LONDON,
CAROL SCHALL, and MARY TOWNLEY,
Pl ai nti f f s,
v.
CASE NO.2:13-cv-395
JANET M. RAINEY, i n h er of f i ci al cap aci ty
as State Regi strar of Vi tal Record s, and
GEORGE E. SCHAEF ER, III, i n h i s of f i ci al
cap aci ty as th e Cl erk of Court f or Norf ol k
Ci rcui t Court,
Def end ants.
~ ~
Bef ore th i s Court i s a moti on f rom Prop osed Intervenor-Def end ant, Mi ch el e B. McQui gg,
( " Prop osed Intervenor" ) , ap p eari ng i n h er of f i ci al cap aci ty as Pri nce Wi l l i am County Cl erk of
Ci rcui t Court. Prop osed Intervenor seeks to i ntervene i n th i s acti on p ursuant to Rul e 24( a) ( 2) , or
al ternati vel y , Rul e 24( b) of th e F ed eral Rul es of Ci vi l Proced ure.
Def end ant Janet M. Rai ney , State Regi strar of Vi tal Record s, h as consented to th e
Moti on, and Def end ant George E. Sch aef er, III, Cl erk of th e Court f or Norf ol k Ci rcui t Court, h as
no obj ecti on to th e Moti on. Pl ai nti f f s Ti moth y B. Bosti c, Tony C. Lond on, Carol Sch al l , and
Mary Townl ey op p ose th e Moti on i n p art.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Th i s acti on was f i l ed on Jul y 18, 2013. An Amend ed Comp l ai nt was f i l ed on Sep tember
3, 2013, and p revi ousl y f i l ed moti ons to d i smi ss and f or th e Commonweal th of Vi rgi ni a to
i ntervene were wi th d rawn by th e p arti es as moot. On Sep tember 30, 2013, Pl ai nti f f s f i l ed a
moti on f or summary j ud gment and a moti on f or a p rel i mi nary i nj uncti on. Both Def end ants f i l ed
Case 2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LRL Document 91 F i l ed 01/17/14 Page 2 of 5 Pagei D# 736
moti ons f or summar y jud gment an th at d ate as w el l . O r al ar gument on th ese moti ons w i l l h e
h ear d on J anuar y 30, 2014.
B ef or e th e summar y jud gment moti ons w er e f ul l y b r i ef ed , tw o moti ons f ar l eave to f i l e
ami ci cur i ae b r i ef s i n sup p or t of Def end ants' moti ons w er e f i l ed . Th e moti ons f or l eave to f i l e
th e ami ci cur i ae b r i ef s w er e gr anted on Decemb er 3, 2013.
O n Decemb er 20, 2013, Pr op osed I nter venor f i l ed h er Moti on (ECF No. 72) . Th e moti on
i s f ul l y b r i ef ed and r i p e f or consi d er ati on. F or th e f ol l ow i ng r easons, th e moti on i s GRANTED
I N PART.
I I . AF PLI CAB LE STANDARDS O F LAW
I n or d er to p r evai l on a moti on to i nter vene as of r i gh t und er Rul e 24(a) of th e F ed er al
Rul es of Ci vi l Pr oced ur e, Pr op osed I nter venor must sh ow th at (1) th e moti on to i nter vene i s
ti mel y; (2} Pr op osed I ntcr venor p ossesses a ` ' d i r ect and sub stanti al i nter est' i n th e sub ject matter
of th e l i ti gati on; (3) d enyi ng i nter venti on w oul d si gni f i cantl y i mp ai r or i mp ed e th e ab i l i ty of
Pr op osed I nter venor to p r otect h er i nter ests; and (4} Pr op osed I nter venor ' s i nter ests ar e
i nad eq uatel y p r otected b y th e ex i sti ng p ar ti es. I n r e Ri ch man, 104 F . 3d 654, 658-59 { 4th Ci r .
1997) ; see al so Scar d el l etti v. Deb p r r , 265 F . 3d 195, 202 (4th Ci r . 2001) , r ev' d on oth er gr ound s
sub nom. Devl i n v. Scar d el l etti , 531 U . S. 1 (2002) .
A p r op osed i nter venor " b ear s th e b ur d en of d emonstr ati ng to th e cour t a r i gh t to
i nter vene," and must p r ove each el ement i n or d er f or a cour t to gr ant i nter venti on as of r i gh t.
Ri ch man, 104 F . 3d at 658; see al so U ni ted Gear . Resi d enti al I ns. Co. of I ow a v. Ph i l ad el p h i a
Say. F i end Soc. , 8l 9 r . 2d 473, 474 (4th Ci r . 1987) . Th e U ni ted States Sup r eme Caur t constr ued
Rul e 24(a) (2} as r eq ui r i ng th at a " si gni f i cantl y p r otectab l e i nter est" b e at r i sk . Donal d son v.
U ni ted States, 400 U . S. 517, 531 (1971) . Si mi l ar l y, th e F our th Ci r cui t l ook s to d eter mi ne
whether a p rop osed i ntervenor stand s " to gai n or l ose by the d i rect ] e~ al op erati on of the d i stri ct
court' s jud gment" i n the acti on i nto whi ch i nterventi on i s sought. Teague v. Bakker, 931 C. 2d
259, 261 ( 4th Ci r. 1991) .
Pursuant to Rul e 24( b) , " the court may p ermi t anyone to i ntervene who: ( A) i s gi ven a
cond i ti onal ri ght to i ntervene by a f ed eral statute; or ( B} has a cl ai m or d ef ense that share wi th
the mai n acti on a common q uesti on of l aw or f act. " F ed . R. Ci v. P. 24( b) ( 1) ( emp hasi s ad d ed ) .
Thi s secti on al so p rovi d es that " the court p ray p ermi t a f ed eral or state governmental of f i cer or
agency to i ntervene i f a p arty' s cl ai m or d ef ense i s based on: {A} a statute or ex ecuti ve ord er
ad mi ni stered by the of f i cer or agency; or {B) any regul ati on, ord er, req ui rement, or agreement
i ssued or mad e und er the statute or ex ecuti ve ord er. " red . R. Ci v. P, 24( b) {2) ( emp hasi s ad d ed ) .
A court that i s d etermi ni ng whether p ermi ssi ve i nterventi on i s p rop er " must consi d er whether the
i nterventi on wi l l und ul y d el ay or p rejud i ce the ad jud i cati on of the ori gi nal p arti es' ri ghts. " F ed .
R. Ci v. P. 24( b) ( 3) .
I I I . ANALYSI S
Whether Prop osed I ntervenor has a ri ght to i ntervene i n thi s acti on i s a cl ose q uesti on.
The ti mel i ness of the moti on f i l ed af ter three d i sp osi ti ve moti ons have been f ul l y bri ef ed and
two moti ons to f i l e ami ci curi ae bri ef s have been consi d ered and granted i s q uesti onabl e.
Si mi l arl y, the ex i stence of a " d i rect and substanti al i nterest" i n the subject matter of the l i ti gati on
on the p art of Prop osed I ntervenor i s arguabl e, as i s whether Prop osed I ntervenor' s abi l i ty to
p rotect those p ossi bl e i nterests woul d be i n any way si gni f i cantl y i mp ai red . F i nal l y, i t i s d i f f i cul t
to see how any i nterests i n thi s acti on that Prop osed I ntervenor may have wi l l not be rep resented
f ul l y and ad eq uatel y p rotected by the ex i sti ng p arti es.
3
Case 2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LR~ Document 91 F i l ed 01/17/14 Page 4 of 5 Pagel D# 738
However, i n l i gh t of Pl ai nti ffs' d eci si on to d ecl i ne to ob j ect to Proposed I ntervenor
i nterveni ng und er F ed eral Rul e of Ci vi l Proced ure 24( b ) , th i s Court need not resol ve th e
ch al l enges as to wh eth er Proposed I ntervenor h as met th e b urd en of estab l i sh i ng i nterventi on as
of ri gh t und er Rul e 24( a) . As recogni z ed ab ove, und er Rul e 24( b } , th i s Court may permi t an
enti ty to i ntervene i f th e enti ty h as a d efense th at sh ares a common q uesti on of l aw or fact wi th
th e mai n acti on. Th e Court may al so permi t a governmental offi cer to i ntervene i f a d efense i n
th e case i s b ased on a statute ad mi ni stered b y th e offi cer, or any regul ati on or req ui rement i ssued
und er th e statute.
I n th e ab sence of any ch al l enges to th e asserti on th at Proposed I ntervenor h as a "d efense"
th at sh ares a common q uesti on of l aw or fact wi th th e mai n acti on h ere, or th e asserti on th at
Proposed I ntervenor i s a government offi cer and a d efense i n th e acti on i s b ased upon a statute or
regul ati on b ei ng ad mi ni stered b y th e offi cer, th i s Court concl ud es th at th e i nterventi on as
req uested i s proper. Th e Court rej ects th e cond i ti ons on th e i nterventi on th at Pl ai nti ffs suggest.
After d etermi ni ng th at permi ssi ve i nterventi on i s proper, th i s Court i s compel l ed to
"consi d er wh eth er th e i nterventi on wi l l und ul y d el ay or prej ud i ce th e ad j ud i cati on of th e ori gi nal
parti es' ri gh ts. " F ed . R. Ci v. P. 24( b ) ( 3) . Here, Proposed I ntervenor h as agreed to tak e no steps
to d el ay th e ad j ud i cati on of th e pend i ng moti ons. Repl y B r. Supp. Mot. I ntervene at 8-4, ECF
No. 88 ( "Cl erk McQui gg affi rms th at wh i l e b oth of th e moti ons for summary j ud gment th at sh e
j oi ned remai n pend i ng, sh e wi l l not fi l e ad d i ti onal moti ons or oth erwi se tak e steps to d el ay th e
prompt resol uti on of th ose moti ons. ") . I n l i gh t of th i s assurance, th i s Court concl ud es th at und er
th e total i ty of th e ci rcumstance presented , th i s i nterventi on, und er th ese q ual i fi cati ons, wi l l not
und ul y d el ay or prej ud i ce th e ad j ud i cati on of th e ori gi nal parti es' ri gh ts. Th e Court ex pl i ci tl y
reserves th e d i screti on and auth ori ty to ex ami ne any future i nterventi on proposal s and to mak e
4
i nd ep end ent d eter mi nati ons as to whether such p r op osal s ar e ti mel y , p r op er and r i sk und ue d el ay
and p r ej ud i ce.
By gr anti ng thi s i nter venti on und er the q ual i f i cati ons p r esented by Pr op osed I nter venor i n
the Rep l y br i ef , the Cour t STRI KES the f i l i ngs attached to Pr op osed I nter venor ' s Moti on, whi ch
i ncl ud e a p r op osed moti on f or summar y j ud gment (ECF No. 72-3) . That p r op osed d i ap osi ti ve
moti on i s p r esented i n d i r ect contr ad i cti on to the of f er to f i l e nn ad d i ti onal moti ons to avoi d
und ue d el ay i n the ad j ud i cati on of p end i ng moti ons.
Mor eover , i n accor d ance wi th the r esp onsi bi l i ty to p r event und ue d el ay or p r ej ud i ce, thi s
Cour t d i r ects that i f Pr op osed I nter venor wi shes to p r esent or al ar gument at the J anuar y 30, 2014
hear i ng, Pr op osed I nter venor must f i l e a memor and um not exceed i ng seven p al es d etai l i ng the
asp ects of the or al ar gument that f al l outsi d e the scop e of the p osi ti ons of the other Def end ants,
and . the r easons why these asp ects ar e unl i k el y to be ad eq uatel y p r otected by the other p ar ti es.
Thi s memor and um must be f i l ed no l ater than cl ose of busi ness on J anuar y 22, 2014.
The Cour t wi l l d eter mi ne af ter that ti me whether Pr op osed I nter venor wi l l p ar ti ci p ate i n
or al ar gument and , i f so, how much ti me wi l l be al l otted f or such ar gument. Pl ai nti f f s ar e
gr anted l eave to f i l e r esp onsi ve br i ef i ng to any or al ar gument p r esented by Pr op osed I nter venor .
Thi s br i ef i ng shal l be f i l ed no l ater than F ebr uar y 7, 2414.
I V. CONCLUSI ON
Pr op osed I nter venor ' s Moti on to I nter vene (ECG No. 72) i s GRANTED I N PART,
I T I S SO ORDERED.
` ` ~
J anuar y ~ ? , 2Q14
Nor f ol k , Vi r gi ni a
5
Ar en Wr i l l en
Uni ted States Di str i ct J ud e
i
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 T A E C 0 4 N '~ . h1 L T H C U YJR T O F P E N N S~ 'V"A ~ SA
C o mmo nweal ~ l x o f P enns y ~ ~ ani a,
D ep ar t ~ an, ~ ~ ~ o f ~ 'ea~ ~ ~ ,
P e~ . t i ane~ r
v . N o . 3 7 9 I v x. ~ 7 , 2 0 I 3
D . Br uo e H anes , i n hi s c ap ac i t y as t he
C ~ e~ ~ af~ he 4 zp ha~ s ' C a~ z~ t ~
M o nt go mezy C o ~ . nt y ,
1 Z es p o x~ d ezxt
~ ~ ~
A N D N O 'VV~ , f~ i s I 7 ` ~ ' d ay o f p c ~ at ~ ~ z~ , 2 0 1 3 , up o n c o ns ~ d er at ~ a~ o ff'
I > e~ r ~ o i ~ . ~ x~ 's A p p l i c at i o n t o Vac at e St i ~ p e~ s ed eas , i t i s h~ r ~ by O r d er ed t hat s 2 ~ xd
A p p l i c at i o n i s gr ant ed , ~ '1 , ~ . ~ O xc i er aft hi s C o ur t ent c r ec ~ Se~ at em. bex ~ 2 , X 0 7 3 , s hah
z~ emai n i n fi xl l fo r c e ar t d effec t nat wi t hs t a~ d i ng hes ~ o i s d er ~ ~ '~ ap p ~ a~ , f~ . ~ r er ~ f t o t ~ . e
Sup r eme C o ur t o f P enns y i v ax~ i a d o c ket ed at N o . 7 7 ~ v S. A P 2 0 3 .
~ ~
~ ~ ~ r ~
~ A ~ p ~ . ~ , ~ , E C r , P r es i d ent Jud ge
C o r t i fed P r am t he ~ ec ar d
O C T ~ , 7 2 0 i ~ {
F t nd o r d er exi t
5 0 6a ~ ""`
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 77 MAP 2013
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
Ap p e l l a n t ' s Eme rge n cy Ap p l i ca t i on t o
Ap p e l l e e : Re i n s t a t e Aut oma t i c Sup e rs e de a s
v .
D. BRUCE HANES, IN HIS CAPACITY
AS THE CLERK OF THE ORPHANS'
COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY,
Ap p e l l a n t
PER CURIAM
ORDER
AND NOW, t h i s 27t h da y of Ma y, 2014, Ap p e l l a n t ' s Eme rge n cy Ap p l i ca t i on t o
Re i n s t a t e Aut oma t i c Sup e rs e de a s , un op p os e d by t h e Common we a l t h , i s GRANTED.
Th e s up e rs e de a s i mp os e d by op e ra t i on of Pa .R.A.P. 1736(b) i s re i n s t a t e d.

1:13-cv-01861 #146

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1:13-cv-01861 #146

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Вам также может понравиться