Windsor v. The United States Of America
MOTION for Summary Judgment. Document filed by Edith Schlain Windsor.(Ehrlich, Andrew)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
EDITH SCHLAIN WINDSOR, in her
capacity as Executor of the estate of THEA
10 Civ. 8435 (BSJ) (JCF)
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, upon the pleadings and papers in this
matter, Plaintiff Edith Schlain Windsor will move this Court before the Honorable Barbara
S. Jones, at a date and time to be determined by the Court, for an order pursuant to Rule 56
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment
and entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff. Oral argument is respectfully requested. The
grounds for this motion are set forth in Plaintiff’s memorandum of law and accompanying
papers. Specifically, Plaintiff submits:
Affidavit of Edith Schlain Windsor, dated June 23, 2011, and the exhibits
Affidavit of Andrew J. Ehrlich, dated June 24, 2011, and the exhibits
Affidavits of George Chauncey, Ph.D., Letitia Anne Peplau, Ph.D., Nancy
F. Cott, Ph.D., Michael Lamb, Ph.D., and Gary M. Segura, Ph.D., as expert
Plaintiff’s Statement Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, dated June 24, 2011, and
Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law.
Dated: New York, New York
June 24, 2011
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
/s/ Andrew J. Ehrlich
Roberta A. Kaplan, Esq.
Andrew J. Ehrlich, Esq.
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019-6064
– and –
James D. Esseks, Esq.
Rose A. Saxe, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
125 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004-2400
– and –
Melissa Goodman, Esq.
Alexis Karteron, Esq.
Arthur Eisenberg, Esq.
NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
125 Broad Street, 19th Floor
New York, New York 10004
Attorneys for Plaintiff Edith Schlain Windsor
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.