Case 1:15-cv TWP-MJD Document 86 Filed 01/18/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1005

Transcription

1 Case 1:15-cv TWP-MJD Document 86 Filed 01/18/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1005 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ASHLEE and RUBY HENDERSON, a married couple and L.W.C.H., by his parent and next friend, Ruby Henderson, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. DR. JEROME M. ADAMS, in his official capacity as Indiana State Health Commissioner, et al., Defendants. NOELL and CRYSTAL ALLEN, a married couple; et al., Plaintiffs, vs. DR. JEROME M. ADAMS, in his official capacity as Indiana State Health Commissioner, et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:15-cv-220-TWP-MJD Case No. 1:15-cv TWP-MJD MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS Ashlee and Ruby Henderson, a married couple, and L.W.C.H., by his parent and next friend Ruby Henderson; Nicole and Jennifer Singley, a married couple, and H.S. by his parent and next friend, Jennifer Singley; Elizabeth and Tonya Bush-Sawyer, a married couple, and I.J.B-S by his mother and next friend Elizabeth Bush-Sawyer; Lyndsey and Cathy Bannick, a married couple, and H.B. by his parent and next friend, Lyndsey Bannick; Calle and Sarah

2 Case 1:15-cv TWP-MJD Document 86 Filed 01/18/16 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 1006 Janson, a married couple, and Unborn Baby Doe by his/her next friend and mother-to-be Calle Janson; Nikkole McKinley-Barrett and Donnica Barrett, a married couple, and G.R.M.B., by his mother and next friend, Nikkole McKinley-Barrett (hereinafter, the Henderson Plaintiffs ; together with Noell and Crystal Allen, a married couple; Jackie and Lisa Phillips-Stackman, a married couple and L.J.P-S, by her mother and next friend, Lisa Phillips- Stackman (hereinafter, the Allen Plaintiffs, collectively called the Plaintiffs, by counsel, hereby move the Court, pursuant to Rule 42(a of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to consolidate the two actions captioned above for the purpose of resolving both actions through the entry of a single judgment. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs state the following: 1. On February 13, 2015, the Henderson Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this Court in Case No. 1:15-cv TWP-MJD, which was subsequently amended on March 11, 2015, and June 4, Their Amended Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and alleges that certain statutes of the State of Indiana are unconstitutional (the Henderson Case ]. 2. In their Amended Complaint, the Henderson Plaintiffs allege the following: (a that they are lawfully married same-sex couples who conceived children with the aid of a third-party sperm donor; (b that following the births of their respective children and while still at the hospital, the Plaintiff birth mothers were each asked to identify 2

3 Case 1:15-cv TWP-MJD Document 86 Filed 01/18/16 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 1007 the father of the child and identified their spouses as the child s other parent; (c that even though they were married to the birth mothers at the time the children were born, the other spouses were not listed on the birth certificate as the parent of their child; (d that Ind. Code (1, which presumes a married man to be the biological father of his wife s child but which does not extend that same presumption of parenthood to the lawful female spouse of an artificially-inseminated birth mother, violates the Equal Protection and/or Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to the Plaintiffs; and (e that I.C and -16, which define a child born in wedlock as a child born to a woman and a man presumed to be the child s father under I.C (1, but which deny this designation to a child conceived by artificial insemination and born into a marriage between two female spouses, violate the Equal Protection and/or Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to the Plaintiffs. 3. On December 7, 2015, the Allen Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this Court, also seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and making substantive allegations similar to those made by the Henderson Plaintiffs (the Allen Case.. 3

4 Case 1:15-cv TWP-MJD Document 86 Filed 01/18/16 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: While there are Defendants in the Henderson Case who are not parties to the Allen Case, all the Defendants in the Allen Case are also Defendants in the Henderson Case. 5. Rule 42(a of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the Court to order that actions be consolidated [i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact. 6. The Henderson Case and the Allen Case involve common questions of law and fact, because the Henderson Plaintiffs and the Allen Plaintiffs are similarly situated, and the allegations against the Defendants in both cases are identical. 7. Resolution of the two actions simultaneously through the entry of a single judgment is consistent with the purpose of F.R.Civ.P., Rule 42(a because it would avoid unnecessary cost or delay. 8. Neither the Defendants in the Henderson Case nor the Defendants in the Allen Case have consented to consolidation of these actions. WHEREFORE, for good cause shown, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Cour enter an Order consolidating the Henderson Case and the Allen Case for purposes of discovery and trial, to resolve these cases through entry of a single judgment, and for all other proper relief. 4

5 Case 1:15-cv TWP-MJD Document 86 Filed 01/18/16 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 1009 Respectfully submitted, /s/karen Celestino-Horseman /s/ William R. Groth Karen Celestino-Horseman William R. Groth Of Counsel, Austin & Jones, P.C. Fillenwarth Dennerline Groth & One N. Pennsylvania St. & Towe, LLP Suite E. Vermont St. Indianapolis, IN Suite 200 Tel: ( Indianapolis, IN Fax: ( Tel: ( karen@kchorseman.com Fax: ( wgroth@fdgtlaborlaw.com /s/ Raymond L. Faust /s/ Richard A. Mann Raymond L. Faust Richard A. Mann House Reynolds & Faust LLP Richard A. Mann, P.C North Pennsylvania St Kentucky Ave. Suite 190 Indianapolis, IN Carmel, IN Tel: ( Tel: ( Fax: ( Fax: ( RMann@mannlaw.us rfaust@housereynoldsfaust.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Consolidate Actions was filed electronically on January 18, Notice of this filing will be sent to the following counsel by operation of the Court s electronic filing system. Thomas M. Fisher Solicitor General Office of the Attorney General 302 W. Washington St., IGCS 5th Floor Indianapolis, IN Tom.Fisher@atg.in.gov 5

6 Case 1:15-cv TWP-MJD Document 86 Filed 01/18/16 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 1010 Lara K. Langeneckert Office of the Attorney General 302 W. Washington St., IGCS 5th Floor Indianapolis, IN lara.langeneckert@atg.in.gov Douglas J. Masson Hoffman, Luhman & Masson, PC 200 Ferry St., Suite C P.O. Box 99 Lafayette, IN l Anthony Scott Chinn Faegre Baker Daniels LLP 300 North Meridian Street Suite 2700 Indianapolis, IN ( Fax: ( scott.chinn@faegrebd.com Anna M. Konradi Faegre Baker Daniels LLP 300 North Meridian Street Suite 2700 Indianapolis, IN Fax: ( anna.konradi@faegrebd.com Anne Kramer Ricchiuto Faegre Baker Daniels LLP 300 North Meridian Street Suite 2700 Indianapolis, IN Fax: anne.ricchiuto@faegrebd.com 6

7 Case 1:15-cv TWP-MJD Document 86 Filed 01/18/16 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 1011 J. Grant Tucker Jones Patterson & Tucker, P.C. 330 Franklin Street Columbus, IN ( Fax: ( gtucker@jpt-law.com Michael J. Wright Wright Shagley Lowery, P.C. 500 Ohio Street Terre Haute, IN ( mwright@wslfirm.com /s/ Raymond L. Faust Raymond L. Faust House Reynolds & Faust LLP North Pennsylvania St. Suite 190 Carmel, IN Tel: ( Fax: ( rfaust@housereynoldsfaust.com 7

8 Case 1:15-cv TWP-MJD Document 86-1 Filed 01/18/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1012 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ASHLEE and RUBY HENDERSON, a married couple and L.W.C.H., by his parent and next friend, Ruby Henderson, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. DR. JEROME M. ADAMS, in his official capacity as Indiana State Health Commissioner, et al., Defendants. NOELL and CRYSTAL ALLEN, a married couple; et al., Plaintiffs, vs. DR. JEROME M. ADAMS, in his official capacity as Indiana State Health Commissioner, et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:15-cv-220-TWP-MJD Case No. 1:15-cv TWP-MJD ORDER ON MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS The Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases have filed their motion, pursuant to Rule 42(a of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to consolidate the two actions for the purpose of resolving both actions through the entry of a single judgment. The Court has read the motion, and being duly advised in the premises, now finds that the above-captioned cases have common questions of law and fact, and should be consolidated for purposes of discovery and trial in

9 Case 1:15-cv TWP-MJD Document 86-1 Filed 01/18/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1013 order to resolve these cases through entry of a single judgment. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the above-captioned cases be, and they are hereby, consolidated for purposes of discovery and trial pursuant to F.R.Civ.P., Rule 42(a. DATED: COPIES TO: JUDGE, United States District Court Southern District of Indiana Karen Celestino-Horseman karen@kchorseman.com William R. Groth wgroth@fdgtlaborlaw.com Raymond L. Faust rfaust@housereynoldsfaust.com Richard A. Mann RMann@mannlaw.us Thomas M. Fisher Tom.Fisher@atg.in.gov Lara K. Langeneckert lara.langeneckert@atg.in.gov Douglas J. Masson djm@hlblaw.com Anthony Scott Chinn scott.chinn@faegrebd.com Anna M. Konradi anna.konradi@faegrebd.com Anne Kramer Ricchiuto anne.ricchiuto@faegrebd.com J. Grant Tucker gtucker@jpt-law.com Michael J. Wright mwright@wslfirm.com 2