FANDOM


Sevcik v. Sandoval
2:12-cv-578 (District)
Full name Beverly Sevcik, et al. v. Brian Sandoval, et al.
Filed 2012-04-10
Plaintiffs Beverly Sevcik and Mary Baranovich; Antioco Carrillo and Theodore Small; Karen Goody and Karen Vibe; Fletcher Whitwell and Greg Flamer; Mikyla Miller and Katrina Miller; Adele Terranova and Tara Newberry; Caren Cafferata-Jenkins and Farrell Cafferata-Jenkins; and Megan Lanz and Sara Geiger
v.
Defendants Brian Sandoval, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Nevada; Diana Alba, in her official capacity as Clerk for Clark County; Amy Harvey, in her official capacity as Clerk for Washoe County; and Alan Glover, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for Carson City
Intervenor-Defendants Coalition for the Protection of Marriage
Initial court United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Final court Supreme Court
Current status On appeal to the Ninth Circuit
12-17668 (Ninth Circuit)
Plaintiffs-Appellants Beverly Sevcik and Mary Baranovich; Antioco Carrillo and Theodore Small; Karen Goody and Karen Vibe; Fletcher Whitwell and Greg Flamer; Mikyla Miller and Katrina Miller; Adele Newberry and Tara Newberry; Caren Cafferata-Jenkins and Farrell Cafferata-Jenkins; and Megan Lanz and Sara Geiger
Defendants-Appellees Brian Sandoval, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Nevada; Diana Alba, in her official capacity as Clerk for Clark County; Amy Harvey, in her official capacity as Clerk for Washoe County; and Alan Glover, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for Carson City
Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee Coalition for the Protection of Marriage
Appealed: 2012-12-03
12-689 (Supreme Court)
Petitioner Coalition for the Protection of Marriage
Plaintiffs-Respondents Beverly Sevcik and Mary Baranovich; Antioco Carrillo and Theodore Small; Karen Goody and Karen Vibe; Fletcher Whitwell and Greg Flamer; Mikyla Miller and Katrina Miller; Adele Newberry and Tara Newberry; Caren Cafferata-Jenkins and Farrell Cafferata-Jenkins; and Megan Lanz and Sara Geiger
Defendants-Respondents Brian Sandoval, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Nevada; Diana Alba, in her official capacity as Clerk for Clark County; Amy Harvey, in her official capacity as Clerk for Washoe County; and Alan Glover, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for Carson City
Appealed: 2012-12-07
Decided: 2013-06-27

Sevcik v. Sandoval is a federal case seeking to overturn Nevada's same-sex marriage constitutional ban.

The case was filed on April 10, 2012, in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. It was initially assigned to Judge Roger L. Hunt. On April 19, the case was reassigned to Chief Judge Robert C. Jones.

BackgroundEdit

District CourtEdit

The plaintiffs in the case are eight same-sex couples. Four of them wish to marry within Nevada, and four are already married outside Nevada and wish for the state to recognize their relationships as marriages, rather than as domestic partnerships.

The defendants are the Governor of Nevada and three officials whose duties include issuing marriage licenses, two for counties and one for a city.

On May 15, 2012, shortly after the case was filed, the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage sought to intervene to defend the ban, citing concerns that the state and clerks may not be able to mount a proper defense. The plaintiffs opposed their intervention, especially since the intervenors' proposed schedule would add at least an extra year to the timetable that the plaintiffs and defendants had agreed to. The judge granted the Coalition's request to join the case, but rejected their proposed schedule.

On August 10, 2012, the court scheduled oral arguments for November 26. On September 17, after each party (other than Clerks Alba and Harvey) filed their respective motions for summary judgment, the court cancelled oral arguments and declared that a judgment on the pleadings would be issued.

That judgment was issued on November 26, 2012. The Equal Protection claims were dismissed due to Baker v. Nelson, and summary judgment was granted to the defendants and intervenor defendants on the remaining claims.

AppealsEdit

On December 3, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit. On December 7, 2012, the Coalition filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court denied the petition on June 27, 2013, the day after deciding US v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry.

In the Ninth Circuit, the plaintiffs filed a motion to have this case and Hawaii's Jackson v. Abercrombie appeal heard by the same panel of judges and follow the same schedule, including hearing the two cases on the same day. The Coalition opposed having the cases heard together, two parties in Jackson felt the motion was unnecessary because the Ninth Circuit would likely recognize the similarities in the cases and hear them together anyway, and all other parties in both cases either expressed no opinion or agreed with the motion. The Court granted the motion on January 7, 2013.

Both cases were stayed while the U.S. Supreme Court considered Windsor and Perry. After those cases were decided, the schedule was postponed further by the plaintiffs. As it currently stands, the plaintiffs' opening brief is due on October 18, the response briefs from the defendants is due on November 18, and the plaintiffs may file a reply brief within 14 days of the response brief, most likely December 2.

TimelineEdit

District CourtEdit

Ninth CircuitEdit

Supreme CourtEdit

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.