Case 1:14-cv-00632-GJQ Doc #29 Filed 12/16/14 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#278

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRUCE T. MORGAN, an individual, and

BRIAN P. MERUCCI, an individual,

Plaintiffs, No. 14-cv-00632

v
HON. GORDON J. QUIST
RICK SNYDER, in his official capacity as the
Governor of the State of Michigan, and
MARY HOLLINRAKE, in her official capacity
as the County Clerk and Register of Kent
County, Michigan,

Defendants.

Stephanie D. Myott (P76697)

Attorney for Plaintiffs
Rhoades McKee, P.C.
161 Ottawa Ave. NW, Suite 600
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
(616) 235-3500

Michael F. Murphy(P29213) Thomas J. Dempsey (P48792)

Joshua O. Booth (P53847) Linda S. Howell (P44006)
Christina M. Grossi (P67482) Attorneys for Defendant
Attorneys for Defendant Governor Snyder Hollinrake
Michigan Department of Attorney General Kent County Corporate Counsel
State Operations Division 300 Monroe Ave. NW, Ste. 301
P.O. Box 30754 Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2206
Lansing, MI 48909 (616) 632-7573
(517) 373-1162
/

DEFENDANT GOVERNOR RICK SNYDER’S BRIEF ON ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE
 Case 1:14-cv-00632-GJQ Doc #29 Filed 12/16/14 Page 2 of 8 Page ID#279

Bill Schuette
Attorney General

Michael F. Murphy
Assistant Attorney General
Attorney for Defendant Snyder
State Operations Division
P.O. Box 30754
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-1162
[email protected]
P29213
Dated: December 16, 2014
 Case 1:14-cv-00632-GJQ Doc #29 Filed 12/16/14 Page 3 of 8 Page ID#280

CONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Should this case be held in abeyance pending a decision by the United

States Supreme Court on the petitions for writ of certiorari and, if
granted, on the merits concerning the Sixth Circuit’s recent decision in
DeBoer v. Snyder, __ F.3d __, 2014 WL 5748990 (6th Cir. Nov. 6,
2014)?

CONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

DeBoer v. Snyder, __ F.3d __, 2014 WL 5748990 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2014)

Monaghan v. Sebelius, 2013 WL 3212597 (E.D. Mich. 2013) (unpublished)

i
 Case 1:14-cv-00632-GJQ Doc #29 Filed 12/16/14 Page 4 of 8 Page ID#281

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiffs are a same-sex couple married in the State of New York and

residing in Kent County. (Complaint; Doc #1, Pg ID 1, ¶ 1). Plaintiffs allege that

their out-of-state marriage, and all rights attendant thereto, became valid in

Michigan as a result of the district court’s decision in DeBoer, et al. v. Snyder, et al.,

973 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E.D. Mich. 2014), which declared Michigan’s Marriage

Amendment unconstitutional. (Complaint; Doc #1, Pg ID 8, ¶ 38).

In moving this Court for dismissal, it was argued, in part, that if the district

court’s decision in DeBoer is reversed, then Plaintiffs’ marriage would not be

entitled to recognition. (Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss; Doc #15, Pg ID 23-

24, 27). Further, as was noted in the motion to hold this case in abeyance, the

companion cases to DeBoer before the Sixth Circuit dealt with the recognition issue

raised here. (Brief in Support of Motion for Abeyance; Doc #12, Pg ID 51, 58).

The Sixth Circuit has now reversed the district court’s decision in DeBoer. In

addition, via the companion cases, the Sixth Circuit held that the Constitution does

not prohibit a state from declining to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages— a

decision that resolves the question before the district court in this case. DeBoer v.

Snyder, __ F.3d __, 2014 WL 5748990 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2014), slip op. at 38-39, 42.

On December 2, 2014, this Court ordered the parties to show cause why this

case should not be stayed pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court

on the petitions for writ of certiorari that have been filed following the Sixth

Circuit’s decision in DeBoer. Consistent with the position taken in the Motion for

1
 Case 1:14-cv-00632-GJQ Doc #29 Filed 12/16/14 Page 5 of 8 Page ID#282

Abeyance, this Court should indeed hold this case in abeyance pending the final

appellate resolution of DeBoer by the United States Supreme Court.

ARGUMENT

I. This Court should hold this case in abeyance pending the United
States Supreme Court’s decision in DeBoer and its companion cases
because judicial economy and the public welfare will be benefitted,
and Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by awaiting that dispositive
decision.

As this Court has noted, in determining whether to grant a stay in the

circumstances presented here, the following factors are weighed: (1) the potential of

another case having a dispositive effect on the case to be stayed; (2) the judicial

economy to be saved by waiting on a dispositive decision; (3) the public welfare; and

(4) the hardship or prejudice to the party opposing the stay (Order Granting Motion

to Stay, Doc #25, Pg ID 271, citing Monaghan v. Sebelius, 2013 WL 3212597 *1

(E.D. Mich. 2013)). Here, these factors all weigh in favor of holding this case in

abeyance pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court on the petitions

for writ of certiorari that have been filed in DeBoer.

As previously argued, and as previously found by this Court, DeBoer and its

companion cases will have a dispositive effect on this case because DeBoer pertains

to the validity of Michigan’s Marriage Amendment and the companion cases pertain

to whether a state is obligated to recognize an out-of-state same-sex marriage.

(Brief in Support of Motion for Abeyance; Doc #12, Pg ID 51, 58; Order Granting

Motion to Stay, Doc #25, Pg ID 272). In regard to judicial economy and the public

welfare, the reasoning that supported this Court’s granting a stay pending the Sixth

2
 Case 1:14-cv-00632-GJQ Doc #29 Filed 12/16/14 Page 6 of 8 Page ID#283

Circuit’s decision also supports a stay pending the United States Supreme Court’s

decision; in particular, deferring a ruling “will save the Court and the parties from

guessing at how the [United States Supreme Court] will rule, and from expending

the time and resources required to do so,” and will also “prevent needless confusion

regarding the state of the law.” (Order Granting Motion to Stay, Doc #25, Pg ID

272).

To the extent Plaintiffs oppose the stay, there is no hardship or prejudice to

them from awaiting a decision by the United States Supreme Court. In fact,

awaiting that decision would benefit Plaintiffs. If this case were to proceed under

the Sixth Circuit’s decision, this Court would be left with no choice but to apply the

Sixth Circuit’s decision and dismiss their claims.

Despite the conclusion necessitated by the Sixth Circuit’s decision, the most

prudent course of action is for this Court to exercise judicial restraint and allow the

entire appellate process to run its course in order to fully, fairly, and finally

determine the legal rights and responsibilities of the parties. To that end, this case

should be held in abeyance pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court

on the petitions for writ of certiorari and, if granted, on the merits in DeBoer and its

companion cases.

CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED

Defendant Governor Snyder respectfully requests the Court hold this case in

abeyance pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court on the pending

3
 Case 1:14-cv-00632-GJQ Doc #29 Filed 12/16/14 Page 7 of 8 Page ID#284

petitions for writ of certiorari and, if granted, on the merits in DeBoer v. Snyder, __

F.3d __, 2014 WL 5748990 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2014), and its companion cases.

Respectfully submitted,

Bill Schuette
Attorney General

/s/ Michael F. Murphy

Assistant Attorney General
Attorney for Defendant Snyder
State Operations Division
P.O. Box 30754
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-1162
[email protected]
P29213
Dated: December 16, 2014

4
 Case 1:14-cv-00632-GJQ Doc #29 Filed 12/16/14 Page 8 of 8 Page ID#285

PROOF OF SERVICE (E-FILE)

I hereby certify that on December 16, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing

document(s) with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF System, which will provide

electronic notice and copies of such filing to the parties.

A courtesy copy of the aforementioned document was placed in the mail

directed to:

Honorable Gordon J. Quist

482 Federal Bldg.
110 Michigan Ave. NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503

/s/ Michael F. Murphy

Assistant Attorney General
Attorney for Defendant Snyder
State Operations Division
P.O. Box 30754
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-1162
[email protected]
P29213

2014-0080457-A