1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


Thomas C. Horne
Attorney General

Robert L. Ellman (AZ Bar No. 014410)
Solicitor General
Email: robert.ellman@azag.gov

Kathleen P. Sweeney (AZ Bar No. 011118)
Assistant Attorney General
1275 W. Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997
Telephone: (602) 542-3333
Fax: (602) 542-8308
Email: kathleen.sweeney@azag.gov

Byron J . Babione (AZ Bar No. 024320)
J ames A. Campbell (AZ Bar No. 026737)
Kenneth J . Connelly (AZ Bar No. 025420)
J . Caleb Dalton (AZ Bar No. 030539)
Special Assistant Attorneys General
Alliance Defending Freedom
15100 N. 90th Street
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
Telephone: (480) 444-0020
Fax: (480) 444-0028
Email: bbabione@alliancedefendingfreedom.org
Email: jcampbell@alliancedefendingfreedom.org
Email: kconnelly@alliancedefendingfreedom.org
Email: cdalton@alliancedefendingfreedom.org

Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Nelda Majors, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Michael K. J eanes, in his official capacity
as Clerk of the Superior Court of
Maricopa County, Arizona, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No: 2:14-cv-00518-J WS
DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM
OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 80 Filed 09/16/14 Page 1 of 6

1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


Introduction
In August 2014, Plaintiffs Fred McQuire and George Martinez filed a Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 63) requesting an order that Defendants must recognize
the marriage license that the State of California issued to them. On September 2, 2014,
after Mr. Martinez passed away, Mr. McQuire filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order (ECF No. 64) requesting the same substantive relief that he seeks through his
Motion for Preliminary Injunction. On September 12, 2014, the Court granted the Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order. See Order at 14 (ECF No. 75). The Court temporarily
restrained Defendants from enforcing Arizona man-woman marriage laws against
recognition of the [California] marriage of Fred McQuire to George Martinez and
ordered Defendant Will Humble to promptly prepare, issue, and accept a death
certificate for George Martinez which records his marital status as married and his
surviving spouse as Fred McQuire. Id.
Defendants have now filed their Cross-Motion for Summary J udgment (ECF No.
77 (lodged version)), in which they have demonstrated that Plaintiff cannot prevail on the
merits of his claims.
1
For the reasons explained in Defendants Cross-Motion for
Summary J udgment and Defendants Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff
Fred McQuires Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 70), the Court
should deny the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and dissolve the temporary restraining
order. Cf. Qualcomm, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 185 F.R.D. 285, 288 (S.D. Cal. 1999)
(denying a preliminary injunction because the moving party failed to establish a
likelihood of success on the merits even though the court had previously issued a
temporary restraining order).


1
While Mr. McQuire and Mr. Martinez both filed the Motion for Preliminary Injunction,
Mr. Martinezs claims have become moot since he has passed away. See Vasquez v. L.A.
Cnty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1253 n.6 (9th Cir. 2007) ([A] case is moot . . . if a civil plaintiff
dies where the cause of action does not survive death.). Thus, Defendants refer only to
Mr. McQuire when responding to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 80 Filed 09/16/14 Page 2 of 6

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28



Argument
Plaintiff claims that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
requires Arizona to recognize the marriage license that he received from the State of
California. See Second Am. Compl. 33 (ECF No. 50). By filing this motion, Plaintiff
seeks a preliminary order enjoin[ing] Defendants . . . from enforcing the Arizona laws
that would prevent them from recognizing his California marriage license. See Pl.s
Prelim. Inj. Mem. at 41 (ECF No. 63). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must
establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips
in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res.
Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Such relief is an extraordinary remedy. Id. at
24. It may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to [it]. Id.
at 22. Consequently, Plaintiff must show that all four of these factors weigh unmistakably
in his favor. He has failed to do this.
The burden on Plaintiff is particularly onerous because he seeks not to maintain
the status quo, but instead to require the State, for the first time ever, to recognize a same-
sex relationship as a marriage. Because Plaintiffs request goes well beyond simply
maintaining the status quo, he seeks a mandatory injunction. Marlyn Nutraceuticals,
Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 879 (9th Cir. 2009). The Ninth
Circuit has indicated that mandatory injunctions are particularly disfavored. Id.
I. Plaintiff Is Unlikely to Succeed on the Merits.
In their Cross-Motion for Summary J udgment (ECF No. 77), Defendants have
shown that Plaintiff cannot succeed on the merits of his claims. Pursuant to Local Rule
7.1(d)(2), Defendants incorporate those arguments here.
II. Plaintiff Has Not Shown that the Relief Will Prevent Irreparable Harm.
In their Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff Fred McQuires Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order at Pages 14 through 15 (ECF No. 70), Defendants have
Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 80 Filed 09/16/14 Page 3 of 6

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


shown that Plaintiff has not established an irreparable harm that is sufficient to override
the States compelling interests in enforcing its man-woman marriage laws. Pursuant to
Local Rule 7.1(d)(2), Defendants incorporate those arguments here. Because the
challenged marriage laws are constitutional, as Defendants have demonstrated in their
Cross-Motion for Summary J udgment (ECF No. 77), the allegedly irreparable harms that
this Court identified in its opinion accompanying the temporary restraining order cannot
sustain Plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction. See Order at 12 (ECF No. 75).
III. The Balance of Equities Weighs Decidedly in Defendants Favor, and The
Public Interest Does Not Support Plaintiffs Motion.
In their Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff Fred McQuires Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order at Pages 15 through 16 (ECF No. 70), Defendants have
explained that the balance of equities weighs decidedly in their favor and that the public
interest does not support Plaintiffs motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(2), Defendants
incorporate those arguments here.
Conclusion
For these reasons, Defendants request that the Court deny Plaintiffs Motion for
Preliminary Injunction and dissolve the temporary restraining order.


Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 80 Filed 09/16/14 Page 4 of 6

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


Respectfully submitted this 16th day of September, 2014.

s/ Byron J . Babione

Byron J . Babione
J ames A. Campbell
Kenneth J . Connelly
J . Caleb Dalton
Special Assistant Attorneys General

Thomas C. Horne
Attorney General

Robert L. Ellman
Solicitor General

Kathleen P. Sweeney
Assistant Attorney General

Attorneys for Defendants



Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 80 Filed 09/16/14 Page 5 of 6

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
25
26
27
28


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically transmitted the attached document to the
Clerks Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and service of a Notice of Electronic
Filing to the following recipients on this 16th day of September, 2014:

J ennifer C. Pizer
Carmina Ocampo
Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc.
4221 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 280
Los Angeles, CA 90010
jpizer@lambdalegal.org
cocampo@lambdalegal.org

Paul F. Eckstein
Daniel C. Barr
Kirstin T. Eidenbach
Barry G. Stratford
Alexis E. Danneman
Perkins Coie LLP
2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788
PEckstein@perkinscoie.com
DBarr@perkinscoie.com
KEidenbach@perkinscoie.com
BStratford@perkinscoie.com
ADanneman@perkinscoie.com
DocketPHX@perkinscoie.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs


Dated: September 16, 2014
s/ Byron J . Babione

Byron J . Babione


Case 2:14-cv-00518-JWS Document 80 Filed 09/16/14 Page 6 of 6