2:13-cv-00395 #168

8/9/2019 2:13-cv-00395 #168

1/6

IN T H E U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT

F OR T HE E A S TE R N D IS T RI CT O F V I RG I NI AN O R F O L K DIVISION

FILED

FEB 1 3 2015

TIMOTHY B. BOSTIC e t l

Plaintiffs

JOANNE HARRIS and JESSICA DUFF and

C H RI ST Y B E R GH O FF a nd V I CTO R IA KIDD onbehalf of themselves and all others similarlysituated

Intervenor-Plaintiffs

CLERK,U.S. DISTRICTCOURTNORFOLK. VA

JANET M. RAINEY, in her official capacity asSlate Registrarof Vital Records,

GEORGE E. SCHAEFER, III, in his officialcapacityas Clerkofthe CircuitCourtofthe City ofNorfolk

Defendants

M1CHELEB. MCQU1GG, in her official capacityas th e Clerk of the Circuit Court of Prince WilliamCounty

Intervenor-Defendant .

Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LRL

O N S E N T O R E R

THIS ACTION came before the Court on the motion of Intervenor-Plaintiffs—Joanne

Harris and JessicaDuff, and Christy Bcrghoff and Victoria Kidd, on behalfof themselvesand all

others similarlysituated(the Harris Class )—andDefendant JanetM. Rainey, in her official

capacityas State Registrarof Vital Records, for the entry of this Consent Orderresolvingall

claims by Intervenor-Plaintiffs thatremainin this actionand in related litigation;and

IT APPEARING TO T HE C OU RT 'THAT:

1 On February24, 2014, thisCourt entereda judgmentdeclaring that Virginia's

marriagelaws are facially unconstitutionalunder the Due Processand EqualProtectionClauses

1

Case 2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LRL Document 168 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 1365

8/9/2019 2:13-cv-00395 #168

2/6

of the Fourteenth Amendment to th e United States Constitution to the extent such laws deny the

rights of marriageto same-sex couplesor recognition of lawful marriages betweensame-sex

couples that arevalidlyentered into in otherjurisdictions.The Court enjoinedRainey,and ClerkSchaeferandClerk McQuigg(also in theirofficial capacities), andtheirrespective officers,

agents and employees,from enforcingArticle I § 15-A of the Virginia Constitution,Virginia

Code §§ 20-45.2and 20-45.3,and any other Virginialaw if and to the extentthat it denies to

same-sexcouplesthe rights and privilegesof marriage that are afforded to oppositesex couples.

The Court stayedthe effect ofthe judgmentpendingappealand severedPlaintiffs'claims for

attorneys'fees and costs for considerationafter the final dispositionof the appeal. See ECF No.

72.) Noticesof appeal werefiled by Rainey, Schaefer,and McQuigg.

2. At thet imeof that judgment, the Harris Class wasnota party to this litigation.

The Harris Class wascertified as a plaintiff class on January 31,2014bythe United States

District Courtfor the WesternDistrict of Virginia. Harris v Rainey, No. 5:13cv077, 2014 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 12801 (W.D. Va. Jan. 31,2014). Harris involves identicallegal challengesto

Virginia'ssame-sex-marriageprohibition. The districtcourtthere certifiedthe Harris Classas a

representativeclasson behalfof (1) all same-sex couplesin Virginiawho havenot marriedin

anotherjurisdiction,and (2) allsame-sexcouplesin Virginia who have marriedin another

jurisdiction,excluding any personwho isa plaintiffin the pending caseotBostic d at

4

3. On March 10, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals forthe FourthCircuit

granted theHarris Class'smotionto intervene in this case on the side ofthe plaintiffs-appellees,

over the objectionofallof the other parties. On March31, 2014, theDistrictCourt in Harris

stayedfurtherproceedings therein lightof the Harris Class'sinterventionin this case. Harris v


8/9/2019 2:13-cv-00395 #168

3/6

Rainey, No. 5:13cv00077, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45559 (W.D. Va. Mar.31,2014). The Harris

Class participated activelyin proceedingsinthe Fourth Circuit, includingfiling a briefin support

of affirmance and participating actively in oral argument.4. On July28, 2014, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgmentof this Court. Bostic

v Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352(4th Cir. 2014). On August20, 2014, the Supreme Court stayedthe

Fourth Circuit's mandatependingthe timelyfiling and disposition of a petition forwrit of

certiorari. McQuigg v Bostic, 189 L. Ed. 2d 884 (2014). The Harris Class continuedto

participate activelyin appellate proceedings,includingfiling briefsin oppositionto the request

for a stay ofthe mandate(both in the Fourth Circuitand the Supreme Court),a briefin theSupremeCourt in responseto Rainey'spetitionfor certiorari,and letter responsesto the petitions

for certiorari filed by Schaefer and McQuigg.

5. On October6, 2014, the SupremeCourtdenied all three petitionsfor certiorari.

Rainey v Bostic, 190 L. Ed. 2d 140 (2014);Schaefer v Bostic, 190 L. Ed. 2d 140 (2014);

McQuigg v Bostic, 190 L. Ed. 2d 14 (2014). The FourthCircuit'smandate issuedat 1:00 p.m.

on October6,2014, at which time this Court's judgmenttookeffect

6. On October 21, 2014, this Court entered a consent order providing that any

prevailingparty wishing to file an applicationfor attorneys'fees and costsunder42 U.S.C.

§ 1988 must file suchapplication by November21, 2014.

7. On October 16,2014, the Harris Class filed a motion in Harris seeking the entry

ofa judgmentsimilarto the judgmententered in this case. TheHarris Classmaintainsthat itisa

prevailingparty under§ 1988 byvirtueof its successon appeal in this case,both at the Fourth

Circuitand at the SupremeCourt, and that it is entitled to recover its attorneys' fees and costs for

its work both in Harris and in this case. On October 29, 2014: Defendant Raineyfiled a motion


8/9/2019 2:13-cv-00395 #168

4/6

in Harris to dismiss that case as moot, opposed the entry of any judgment in Harris and argued

that the Harris Class is not a prevailing party.

8. Counsel for the Harris Class and Rainey have since conferred in a good faith

effort to resolve all remaining claims by the Harris Class in this case and in Harris The Harris

Class provided counsel for Rainey with detailed time records by its attorneys at Jenner & Block

documenting in excess of $150,000 in attorneys' fees for work specifically to defend the appeal

in the Fourth Circuit and to response to the petitions for certiorari in the Supreme Court. The

Harris Class represents that itsattorneys' fees andcostsin Harris and in this case—which which

includeswork performed by attorneys at Jenner & Block, the ACLU, the ACLU of Virginia,and

Lambda Legal—total approximately $1,000,000.

9. Rainey denies that the Harris Class is entitledto recover fees either in Harris or

in this case, contests the billing rates and charges, and disputes a number of the entries. But the

partiesto this Consent Orderacknowledgethe uncertaintyand risks to each party associatedwith

(i) litigating whetherthe Harris Classis a prevailing party within the meaningof § 1988,and

(ii)the range of possibleoutcomeswith regardto the quantumof fees sought. Acknowledging

further the legal costsand expenseassociated with litigating these issues, Raineyandthe Harris

Class have agreed to resolvetheirdifferences through this Consent Order,each term of which is

material to the parties' willingness to enter into it.

IT IS, THEREFORE, AGREED AND ORDERED that:

1. The Harris Class is hereby entitled to the benefit of the declaratory and injunctive

reliefentered on February 24, 2014againstDefendant Rainey(andher respective agents and

employees) in her officialcapacity as StateRegistrar of Vital Records.


8/9/2019 2:13-cv-00395 #168

5/6

2. Attorneys'fees and costs in the amountof 60,000 are hereby awardedto the

Harris Class in full satisfactionof all of their claims for attorneys' fees and costs, whethermade

in thiscaseorin Harris. That amountshallbe paid by theCommonwealth of Virginia within 75

days ofthe entryofthis order. This awardconstitutesadischargeofany and allclaimsfor

attorneys'fees andcosts madeby the Harris Classagainstanyparty in Harris or in this case.

3. The Harris Class will seekno further reliefagainstanyparty in thiscaseor in

Harris, exceptin connection withenforcingits rightsunder thisConsentOrder. The Harris

Classwill cooperatewith DefendantRaineyin seekingan agreeddismissalof the lawsuitin

Harris in lightof this ConsentOrder.

S O O R DE R ED .

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

W E A S K F O RT F I I S :

JOANNE HARRIS and JESSICA DUFF, andCHRISTY BERGHOFF and VICTORIA KIDD, onbehalf of themselves and all others similarlysi tuated

febecca K. Glenberg'American CivilLibertiesUnionFoundationof Virginia701 East Franklin Street, Suite 1412Richmond VA 23219(804) [email protected]

Joshua A. BlockJames D. EsseksAmer ican Civ il L iber t ies Union125 Broad Street, 18th FloorNe w York, NY 10004-2400(212)[email protected]@aclu.org

JANET M. RAINEY, in her official capacity asState Registrar of Vital Records

Ai//i v Wa^fcfiMws]Mark R. HerringAttorneyGeneralof Virginia

Stuart A. Raphael (VSB 30380)Solicitor General of [email protected]

TrevorS. Cox (VSB 78396)

Deputy Solicitor [email protected]

Rhodes B. Ritenour (VSB 71406)Deputy AttorneyGeneralCivil Litigation DivisionE-mail: [email protected]


8/9/2019 2:13-cv-00395 #168

6/6

Tara Lynn BorelliGregory R.NevinsLambda LegalDefense& Education Fund, Inc.730 Peachtree Street, Suite 1070Atlanta, GA 30308(404) 897-1880tboreUi@lambdalegal.,[email protected]

Mark P. GaberLuke C . P la tz e r

Paul M . S m it h

JENNER & BLOCK LL PSui t e 900

1099 New York Avenue NWWashington, DC 20015

(202) [email protected]@[email protected]

Catherine Crooks Hill (VSB 43505)Senior Assistant Attorney GeneralUnit Manager, Trial/General Civil UnitE-mail: [email protected]

Allyson K. Tysinger (VSB 41982)Senior Assistant Attorney GeneralChief, Health, Education & Social ServicesE-mail: [email protected]


2:13-cv-00395 #168

Documents

Transcript of 2:13-cv-00395 #168