Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

8:14-cv-00356-JFB-TDT Doc # 30 Filed: 12/29/14 Page 1 of 4 - Page ID # 189

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
SUSAN WATERS et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DAVE HEINEMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 8:14-cv-00356


BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION
TO MOTION TO INTERVENE

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs oppose the motion to intervene filed by Harold Wilson and Gracy Sedlak (the
proposed intervenors). In their motion, the proposed intervenors state only that [t]he
intervenors are so situated that the disposition of the Plaintiffs [sic] action will affect their rights
to marry as a same gender couple in the state of Nebraska. Intervenors have requested and been
denied an application for a marriage license by the Lancaster County Clerks Office.
The proposed intervenors fail to satisfy the requirements for intervention as of right or for
permissive intervention. Plaintiffs therefore ask the Court to deny their request to intervene.
ARGUMENT
A. The proposed intervenors failed to satisfy the requirements of intervention of right.
Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, on a timely motion, the
court must permit anyone to intervene who claims an interest relating to the property or
transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as
a practical matter impair or impede the movants ability to protect its interest, unless existing
parties adequately represent that interest. Intervenors must establish Article III standing in
addition to the requirements of Rule 24. Mausolf v. Babbitt, 85 F.3d 1295, 1300 (8th Cir. 1996).

8:14-cv-00356-JFB-TDT Doc # 30 Filed: 12/29/14 Page 2 of 4 - Page ID # 190

The proposed intervenors do not explain how any of the requirements of Rule 24(a) are met; nor
do they articulate the basis for standing. The motion should be denied for these reasons.
Moreover, even assuming the proposed intervenors could meet the other requirements of
Rule 24(a), they have failed to demonstrate, let alone allege, that existing parties do not
adequately represent their interests. The proposed intervenors say they are a same-sex couple
who wish to marry. Thus, they appear to share precisely the same objective as Plaintiffsa
ruling that invalidates the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage.

B. Proposed intervenors have offered no basis for permissive intervention.


The proposed intervenors have not offered any reason that the Court, in its discretion,
should permit them to intervene in this litigation. The motion should be denied for that reason.
Moreover, granting intervention will unduly delay the proceedings and prejudice the
existing parties. See Fed.R.Civ. Pro. 24(b)(3). The addition of extra parties will complicate the
case and make it more difficult for this case to move to final resolution rapidly. See Stadin v.
Union Elec. Co., 309 F.2d 912,920 (8th Cir. 1962) (More than one trial court has observed that
[a]dditional parties always take additional time and that they are the source of additional
questions, objections, briefs, arguments, motions and the like which tend to make the proceeding
a Donnybrook Fair. (internal citation omitted)); see also Allen Calculators, Inc. v. Natl Cash
Register Co., 322 U.S. 137, 141-42 (1944) (where a suit is of large public interest, the members
of the public often desire to present their views to the court in support of the claim or the
defense, but such interventions are inappropriate where they will result in accumulating proofs
and arguments without assisting the court.).

8:14-cv-00356-JFB-TDT Doc # 30 Filed: 12/29/14 Page 3 of 4 - Page ID # 191

As explained in Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, a speedy resolution is


critically important to the Plaintiffs, who are experiencing severe harms because they are denied
the protections of marriage. And because the proposed intervenors offer no basis for
intervention beyond saying they are a same-sex couple that seeks to marry, allowing them to
intervene would open the floodgates to countless other proposed intervenors.
The purpose of intervention is to promote[ ] the efficient and orderly use of judicial
resources by allowing persons, who might otherwise have to bring a lawsuit on their own to
protect their interests or vindicate their rights, to join an ongoing lawsuit instead. Mausolf, 85
F.3d at 1300. That purpose is not served here because if Plaintiffs are successful in this lawsuit,
all same-sex couples in Nebraska will be able to marry.
Denying intervention will not harm the proposed intervenors because they can
sufficiently protect their desire to influence the outcome of this case through amicus
participation.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court deny the motion to
intervene filed by Harold Wilson and Gracy Sedlak.
Dated, this 29th day of December, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
s/SUSAN KOENIG, #16540
s/ANGELA DUNNE, #21938
KoenigDunne Divorce Law, PC, LLO
1266 South 13th Street.
Omaha, Nebraska 68108-3502
(402) 346-1132
susan@nebraskadivorce.com
angela@nebraskadivorce.com
Amy A. Miller, #21050
ACLU of Nebraska Foundation

8:14-cv-00356-JFB-TDT Doc # 30 Filed: 12/29/14 Page 4 of 4 - Page ID # 192

941 O Street #706


Lincoln NE 68508
402-476-8091
amiller@aclunebraska.org
Leslie Cooper
Admitted pro hac vice
Joshua Block
Admitted pro hac vice
ACLU Foundation
125 Broad St., 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004
(212) 549-2627
lcooper@aclu.org
jblock@aclu.org
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 29, 2014, I served a copy of the above and
foregoing by via email to the Defendants counsel Danielle L. Jones,
Danielle.jones@nebraska.gov and David A. Lopez, Dave.Lopez@nebraska.gov, and Ryan S.
Post, ryan.post@nebraska.gov as well as a copy by US Mail postage prepaid to intervenors
Harold Wilson at P.O. Box 22800, Lincoln NE 68542-2800 and Gracy Sedlak at 1035 Hartley,
Lincoln NE 68521.
/s/ Amy A. Miller #21050