8/9/2019 1:15-cv-00009 #9
1/5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
Mitchell F. Thompson, Esq.
R. Todd Thompson, Esq.
Thompson Gutierrez
Alcantara P.C.
238 Archbishop Flores Street, Suite 801
Hagatfia,
Guam
96910
Telephone: (671) 472-2089
Facsimile: 671 477-5206
William D. Pesch, Esq.
Guam F am il y L aw O f f ic e
173 Aspinall Avenue, Suite 203
Hagatfia, Guam 96910
Telephone: (671) 472-8472
Facsimile: (671)477-5873
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kathleen M. Aguero and
Loretta M. Pangelinan
| i
«;::
? £ «•
feS^
DISTRICT CO^RT
Of
GU M
APR
13
2015
JEANNE
6.
QXnHAlA
Ct£R« OF COy«T
IN THE D IS TR IC T COURT OF GUAM
TERRITORY OF
GUAM
KATHLEEN
M. AGUERO
and LORETTA
M.
PANGELINAN,
Plaintiffs,
EDDIE BAZA CALVO in his official capacity as
Governor of Guam;
and CAROLYN
GARRIDO
in her official capacity as Registrar in the Office
ofVital Statistics, Department of Public
Health and
Social
Services,
Defendants.
CIVIL
CASE NO.
9
PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR
EXPEDITED RUL ING
COME
NOW,
Plaintiffs KATHLEEN
M.
AGUERO and LORETTA
M.
PANGELINAN, by and through their attorneys, and move pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(a) as
ORI IN LCase 1:15-cv-00009 Document 9 Filed 04/13/15 Page 1 of 5
8/9/2019 1:15-cv-00009 #9
2/5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
4
well as the Court's inherent authority to control its own docket, for this Court to expedite its
ruling in this matter.
PlaintiffsKathleenM. Aguero and LorettaM. Pangelinan are legally qualified to marry
under the laws
of
Guam. As articulated in their Complaint and companion memoranda
supporting their Motions for Summary Judgment and Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiffs
personally brought their application for a marriage license on April 8, 2015 to the Vital
Statistics Office
of
the Department
of
Public Health and Social Services ( DPHSS ), in
Mangilao, the
office that processes
marriage license
applications
on
Guam.1
DPHSS officials
refused to accept the application and handed the women two documents: (1) a 2009 opinion
letter from the Acting Guam Attorney General regarding common law unions; and (2) a copy
of certain provisions from Tile 10 of the Guam Code Annotated, including 10 G.C.A.
§
3207(h), indicating, [m]arriagemeans the legal union
of
persons
of
the
opposite
sex. 2 At
no time has any government official articulated any reason for failing to issue a marriage
license to Plaintiffs aside from their status as a same sex couple.
Plaintiffs filed a Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief on April 13, 2015
seeking to secure the fundamental right to marry as guaranteed to them by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution as set forth in controlling Ninth Circuit
precedent, Latta v. Otter. 771 F.3d 456 (9th Cir. 2014),pet.
for reh g en bancdenied
779 F.3d
902 (9th Cir. Jan 9, 2015). Also on April 13, Plaintiffs filed and caused to be served Summons
on the Defendants herein, as well as the Office of the Attorney General, together with a motion
for summary judgment and supporting papers and exhibits.
1 Declaration of
Kathleen
M. Aguero ( Aguero Decl. ), at f 12 (Apr.
13, 2015);
Declaration of
Loretta M. Pangelinan ( Pangelinan Decl. ), at ^ 12(Apr. 13,2015).
2 Aguero Decl., at
^113,
Pangelinan
Decl.
atU13.
Case 1:15-cv-00009 Document 9 Filed 04/13/15 Page 2 of 5
8/9/2019 1:15-cv-00009 #9
3/5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
22
23
4
Plaintiffs now request an expedited ruling on the grounds that (1) they suffer irreparable
harm by any delay in the disposition
of
this matter due to the deprivation
of
their
Constitutionally-guaranteed rights; (2) the law
of
the case is well-established by binding
precedent
of
the Ninth Circuit Court
of
Appeals in Latta; (3) the harm to Plaintiffs caused by
delay far exceeds any likelihood
of
success by Defendants; (4) the facts
of
this case are simple,
well-known and undisputed, and there is no necessity for discovery or trial; and (5) an
expedited ruling serves both judicial economy and the public interest in resolving an important
issue.
Defendants might claim that the relief Plaintiffs seek is somehow premature in this
newly-filed case. They would be mistaken. In the following marriage-ban cases, courts
granted injunctive relief less than one month after issuance
of
binding circuit authority on
point. Condon v. Haley. 2014 WL 5897175 (D. S.C. Nov. 12, 2014) (granting injunctive relief
and summary judgment regarding South Carolina marriage ban less than one month after
initiation
of
action); Guzzo v. Mead. 2014 WL 5317797 (D. Wyo. Oct. 17, 2014) (granting
preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement
of
Wyoming's ban on marriage for same-sex
couples a mere ten days after the filing of the original complaint); Marie v. Moser. 2014 WL
5598128 (D. Kan. Nov. 4,2014 (enjoining enforcement
of
Kansas's ban on marriage for same-
sex couples less than one month after the commencement
of
the action [bjecause Tenth Circuit
precedent is binding on this
Court.
. . ). Likewise, in the instant case, there is absolutely no
principled reason to delay granting injunctive relief in the face of controlling Ninth Circuit
precedent on point.
District courts have likewise granted expedited summary judgments in favor
of
same-
sex plaintiffs.
See
Rolando v. Fox. 2014 WL 6476196, *4 (D. Mont. Nov. 19, 2014) (granting
3
Case 1:15-cv-00009 Document 9 Filed 04/13/15 Page 3 of 5
8/9/2019 1:15-cv-00009 #9
4/5
1
2
3
4
. 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
summary judgment invalidating Montana's constitutional ban on same sex marriage because
Latta
represents binding Ninth Circuit precedent and provides the framework that this Court
must follow ); Majors v. Home.
141
F. Supp. 3d
1313
(D. Ariz. 2014) (promptly granting
pending summary judgment motions challenging Arizona's same-sex marriage ban just ten
days after issuance of the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Latta); Hambv v. Parnell. 2014 WL
5089399 (D. Alaska Oct. 12,2014) ( Latta is the controlling law of this Circuit ).
Based on these authorities and other authorities more fully set forth in their April 13,
2015 memoranda supporting Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment and Preliminary
Injunction, expedited treatment
of
this matter is appropriate based on the Ninth Circuit's
controlling ruling in Latta. Rather than reiterate all those authorities at length, Plaintiffs hereby
incorporate them by this reference as if fully set forth herein.
Defendants have no legitimate justification to continue to deny or delay justice to
Plaintiffs, or similarly situated same-sex couples. This Court can rule expeditiously, as a
matter
of
law, that the purported Guam marriage license ban violates Plaintiffs' fundamental
constitutional rights to marry the person they choose by faithful application
of
controlling law
as set out by the Ninth Circuit in Latta.
This case is ripe for review without further delay; and this Court should put an end to
the unnecessary suffering, humiliation, stigma, and anxieties attendant to Guam's purported
marriage ban on Plaintiffs and all committed same-sex couples and their children who want,
and need, the security of marriage. As discussed below, every conceivable justification for
same-sex marriage bans has been considered and rejected by the Ninth Circuit in Latta. Thus,
it would be a colossal waste
of
judicial resources to prolong this case.
Case 1:15-cv-00009 Document 9 Filed 04/13/15 Page 4 of 5
8/9/2019 1:15-cv-00009 #9
5/5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
2
23
4
CONCLUS ION
There is no effective or meaningful remedy for the loss
of
Constitutional rights; the only
remedy
of
any value is swift justice. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant an
expedited ruling.
Respectfully submitted this
13th
day ofApril, 2015.
THOMPSON GUTIERREZ
ALCANTARA
P
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kathleen M. Aguero and
Loretta M. Pangelinan
By.
RANDALL
T DD THOMPSON
P15I025 .RTT
Case 1:15-cv-00009 Document 9 Filed 04/13/15 Page 5 of 5