FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA _______________________________________ MCCRORY et al.,
Plaintiffs. v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA et al.,
Defendants.
and
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina Speaker of the House of Representatives and PHIL BERGER, President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate, Proposed Intervenor-Defendants.
Case No.: 1:14-cv-00065
PROPOSED DEFENDATS-INTERVENORS MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ANSWER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR INTERVENTION
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and Local Rule 7.1, proposed Intervenors-Defendants Thom Tillis, in his capacity as North Carolina Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Phil Berger, in his capacity as President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate, on behalf of themselves, and their members and constituents (Movants), by and through counsel, respectfully move the Court to enlarge the time in which to serve an answer or otherwise respond the Plaintiffs Complaint (Dkt. 1) in the above captioned matter. In support of this Motion, Movants state as follows: 1. The Complaint was filed on March 10, 2013. (Dkt. 1.) 2. On August 25, 2014, this matter was stayed pending the Supreme Courts disposition in Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014). (Dkt. 15.) Case 1:14-cv-00065-MOC-DLH Document 19 Filed 10/09/14 Page 1 of 4 2
3. On October 7, 2014, Plaintiffs moved to lift the stay and for an immediate entry of a summary judgment on the merits. (Dkt. 16.) 4. Although Defendants have not yet filed an answer in this matter, their position in similar cases in this district indicates that they will not oppose Plaintiffs motion, but will abandoned their defense of the challenged marriage laws. See General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper, No. 3:14-cv-213, Docket Entry 104 (W.D.N.C., filed April 28, 2014) (conceding, As it pertains to their 14th Amendment rights, Plaintiffs should be afforded appropriate relief in accordance with the law as described the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bostic v. Schaefer [760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014)].). 5. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, Movants have moved to intervene in this matter and related federal court actions in order to continue the defense of the challenged marriage laws. 6. Rule 24(c) normally requires a motion to intervene to be accompanied by a pleading that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought. However, the Plaintiffs likely-uncontested request for summary judgment necessitates that Movants act as soon as practicable in seeking intervention and continuing the defense of the challenged marriage laws. 7. Because undersigned counsel were recently assigned to this case, and the related cases in which Movants also seek intervention, additional time is needed to investigate the files and conduct appropriate research in order to adequately prepare the pleading required by Rule 24(c)here, an answer to the Complaint. 8. Undersigned counsel need an additional eight (8) days, to and including October 17, 2014, in which to accomplish these tasks and prepare an answer to the Complaint. Case 1:14-cv-00065-MOC-DLH Document 19 Filed 10/09/14 Page 2 of 4 3
9. Defendants counsel was contacted concerning Defendants respective positions on this motion, but no response could be obtained prior to filing this motion. Plaintiffs are pro se and consultation is not required under Local Rule 7.1(B). WHEREFORE, Movants respectfully move the Court to grant an extension of time, to and including October 17, 2014, in which to serve an answer as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(c).
Respectfully submitted, this the 9th day of October, 2014.
/s/ Robert D. Potter, J r. Robert D. Potter, J r. Attorney at Law 5821 Fairview Road, Suite 207 Charlotte, NC 28209 (704) 552-7742 (704) 552-9287 Fax rdpotter@rdpotterlaw.com NC State Bar No. 17553 Attorney for Proposed Defendant- Intervenors
Noel H. J ohnson* J oe A. Vanderhulst ACTRIGHT LEGAL FOUNDATION 209 West Main Street Plainfield, IN 46168 (317) 203-5599 (888) 815-5641 Fax njohnson@actrightlegal.org jvanderhulst@actrightlegal.org Attorneys for Proposed Defendant- Intervenors
J ohn C. Eastman* CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL J URISPRUDENCE c/o Chapman University Fowler School of Law One University Dr. Orange, CA 92866 (877) 855-3330 (714) 844-4817 Fax jeastman@chapman.edu Lead Counsel for Proposed Defendant-Intervenors
Attorneys for Proposed Defendant-Intervenors
* Notice of Special Appearance to be filed. Case 1:14-cv-00065-MOC-DLH Document 19 Filed 10/09/14 Page 3 of 4 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 9, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing PROPOSED DEFENDATS-INTERVENORS MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ANSWER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR INTERVENTION with the clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina Circuit by using the CM/ECF system. All participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and will be served by the appellate CM/ECF system. Plaintiffs will be served by US Mail, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: Carol C. McCrory Brenda S. Clark 90 Hickory Forest Rd Fairview, NC 28730
Dated: October 9, 2014
/s/ Robert D. Potter, J r. Robert D. Potter, J r. Attorney at Law 5821 Fairview Road, Suite 207 Charlotte, NC 28209 (704) 552-7742 (704) 552-9287 Fax rdpotter@rdpotterlaw.com NC State Bar No. 17553
On Behalf of Counsel for Proposed Defendant-Intervenors
Case 1:14-cv-00065-MOC-DLH Document 19 Filed 10/09/14 Page 4 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA _______________________________________ MCCRORY et al.,
Plaintiffs. v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA et al.,
Defendants.
and
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina Speaker of the House of Representatives and PHIL BERGER, President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate, Proposed Intervenor-Defendants.
Case No.: 1:14-cv-000065
ORDER
Upon motion of Proposed Defendants-Intervenors and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that Proposed Defendants-Intervenors shall have until October 17, 2014 to file a pleading in support of the motion for intervention in the above captioned matters.
Dated: October _____, 2014.
District Court J udge/Magistrate/Clerk Case 1:14-cv-00065-MOC-DLH Document 19-1 Filed 10/09/14 Page 1 of 1
Edward Artes-Roy Kristie Artes-Roy Dianna Artes-Roy, by Edward Artes-Roy and Kristie Artes-Roy as Natural Parents v. Aspen, (The) City Of, a Colorado, Municipal Corporation Pitkin County, Colorado Gary Lyman, in His Official Capacity as a Building Inspector for the City of Aspen, Colorado and Pitkin County, Colorado and as CEO of the Aspen-Pitkin Regional Building Department Gary Lyman, Individually Edward M. Caswell, Individually Edward M. Caswell, in His Official Capacity as City Attorney and City Prosecutor for the City of Aspen, Colorado Roxanne Eflin, Individually Roxanne Eflin, in Her Capacity as an Employee of the City of Aspen, Colorado Elizabeth Paepcke, Individually Jackie Boughton, Individually Jackie Boughton, in Her Capacity as Agent for Paepcke Sandra Stuller, Individually Sandra Stuller, in Her Official Capacity as a Special Counsel and Special Prosecutor for the City of Aspen and Agent for Myler, Stuller and Schwartz Myler, Stuller and Schwartz Aspen-Pitkin Regional Bui