Inniss et al v. Aderhold et al

Filing 55

MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer Amended Complaint by Deborah Aderhold, Monica P. Fenton. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Orland, Devon) Modified on 2/3/2015 to correct filing attorney(hfm).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

Christopher Inniss and Shelton
Stroman; Rayshawn Chandler and
Avery Chandler; Michael Bishop
And Johnny Shane Thomas; and
Jennifer Sisson, on behalf of
Themselves and all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Deborah Aderhold et al,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action Number
1:14-CV-01180-WSD

CONSENT MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO ANSWER
COME NOW Defendant Aderhold and Defendant Fenton (hereinafter
Defendants), by and through counsel, and hereby file this consent motion for
extension of time in which to answer the Amended Complaint in the above styled
case.
The case at bar concerns the constitutionality of O.C.G.A. §§ 19-3-3.1, 19-330(b)(1) and Ga. Const. Art. I, Sec. IV, Para. I which define marriage for the state
of Georgia as a union between and man and a woman. (Doc. 1). On January 8,
2015 this Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss and determined that the laws
were subject to a rational basis review. (Doc. 49). On January 16, 2015, the
Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in four cases Obergefell,

James, et al. V. Hodges Richard, et al 14-556; Tanco, Valeria, et al. v. Haslam,
Gov. Of TN, et al. 14-562; Deboer, April, et al. V. Snyder, Gov. Of MI, et al. 14571; Bourke Gregory, et al. V. Beshear, Gov. of KY, et al. 14-574
The Court will address the following questions:
1)Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between
two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and
performed out-of-state?
As a result of this development, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay
proceedings pending a ruling by the United States Supreme Court. The Court has
not ruled on this motion. Defendants are authorized to advise that the Plaintiffs
consent to this motion. Defendants’ answer would be due on January 26, 2015.
Defendants seek an extension of time to file their answer until either the Supreme
Court rules and a scheduling order is entered subsequent to the grant of the motion
to stay or until 14 days after the Court denies Defendants’ motion to stay.

2

Respectfully submitted,
SAMUEL S. OLENS
Attorney General

551540

KATHLEEN M. PACIOUS
Deputy Attorney General

558555

s/Britt Grant___________
Solicitor General

113403

/s/ Devon Orland
554301
Senior Asst. Attorney General
Counsel for Defendant Aderhold and Fenton

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this date I have electronically filed the foregoing
Consent Motion to Extend Time to Answer Amended Complaint using the
CM/ECF system which will automatically send electronic mail notification of such
filing to counsel of record as follows:
Tara Borelli
William Custer
Jennifer Odom
Jennifer Dempsey
Luke Lantta

I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the
document to the following non-CM/ECF participants: NONE
Done this 22nd day of January, 2015.
/s/ Devon Orland
40 Capitol Square, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334-1300
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

4