Obergefell et al v. Kasich et al

Filing 39

ANSWER to 33 Amended Complaint filed by Theodore Wymyslo, M.D.. (Coontz, Bridget)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
JAMES OBERGEFELL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DR. THEODORE E. WYMYSLO, M.D.,
Defendant.

:
: Case No. 1:13-cv-00501
:
: District Judge Timothy S. Black
:
:
:
:
:

DEFENDANT DIRECTOR OF THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, THEODORE
E. WYMYSLO, M.D’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT [DOC. NO. 33]

In Answer to the Second Amended Complaint in this action, Defendant Dr. Theodore E.
Wymyslo, Director of the Ohio Department of Health, (“Defendant”), hereby states as follows:
1.

Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiffs James Obergefell and John Arthur have

been in a committed relationship for over twenty years; that John Arthur suffers from a
debilitating ALS disease; that John Arthur is a hospice patient; and that James Obergefell and
John Arthur traveled to Maryland to be married, and have provided information that states that
they were married under the laws of Maryland. Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiff Robert
Grunn is a licensed funeral director. Defendant denies that the State of Ohio’s Constitution and
law defining marriage violate the United States Constitution. Defendant notes that the remaining
allegations in Paragraph 1 are legal conclusions for which no response is required here, and
further notes that nothing in Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges any violation of law by the Defendant.

2.

Defendant admits that Plaintiffs’ claims purport to arise under federal law and that

venue is proper. Further answering, Defendant denies that this Court has jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs’ claims.
3.

Defendant does not dispute that James Obergefell is a resident of Cincinnati or

that he has submitted information that states that he was married under the laws of the state of
Maryland to John Arthur as set forth in Paragraph 3.
4.

Defendant does not dispute that John Arthur is a resident of Cincinnati or that he

has submitted information that states that he was married under the laws of the state of Maryland
to John Arthur as set forth in Paragraph 4.
5.

Defendant does not dispute that David Michener is a resident of Wyoming, Ohio

or that he has submitted information that states that he was married under the laws of the state of
Delaware to William Herbert Ives as set forth in Paragraph 5. Further answering, Defendant
does not dispute that Mr. Ives died at University Hospital in Cincinnati on August 27, 2013.
6.

Defendant states that the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 are the subject of

Defendant’s motion to dismiss, which was filed contemporaneously with this Answer, and thus
no response is required at this time.
7.

Defendant admits that Theodore E. Wymyslo, M.D. is the Director of the Ohio

Department of Health. Further answering, Defendant asserts that the remaining allegations in
Paragraph 7 are legal conclusions to which no response is required here.
8.

Defendant admits that Dr. Camille Jones is the Local Registrar of the Cincinnati

Health Dept. Office of Vital Records. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 8 are legal
conclusions to which no further response is required here.

2

9.

Defendant does not dispute the allegations set forth in Paragraph 9 of the Second

Amended Complaint.
10.

Defendant does not dispute the allegations set forth in Paragraph 10 of the Second

Amended Complaint.
11.

Defendant does not dispute the allegations set forth in Paragraph 11 of the Second

Amended Complaint.
12.

Defendant does not dispute the allegations set forth in Paragraph 12 of the Second

Amended Complaint.
13.

Defendant does not dispute that James Obergefell and John Arthur have submitted

information that states that they were married in Maryland under the law of Maryland as set forth
in Paragraph 13.
14.

Defendant does not dispute the allegations set forth in Paragraph 14 of the Second

Amended Complaint.
15.

Defendant does not dispute that David Michener and William Ives have submitted

information that states that they were married in Delaware under the laws of Delaware as set
forth in Paragraph 15. The remaining allegation in Paragraph 15 calls for a legal conclusion to
which no response is required here.
16.

Defendant does not dispute that David Michener and William Ives were together

for eighteen years and denies for want of information sufficient to form a belief the remaining
allegations set forth in Paragraph 16.
17.

Defendant admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 17 of the Second

Amended Complaint.

3

18.

Defendant does not dispute that David Michener has asked to be listed as William

Ives’ surviving spouse as set forth in Paragraph 18 of the Second Amended Complaint.
19.

Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Second Amended

Complaint.
20.

Defendant admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 20 of the Second

Amended Complaint.
21.

Defendant states that the allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Second Amended

Complaint state an assertion as to which no response is required here.
22.

Defendant states that the allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Second Amended

Complaint state an assertion as to which no response is required here.
23.

Defendant states that the allegation in Paragraph 23 of the Second Amended

Complaint states a legal conclusion as to which no response is required here.
24.

Defendant states that the allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Second Amended

Complaint state a legal conclusion as to which no response is required here.
25.

Paragraph 25 of the Second Amended Complaint states a legal conclusion to

which no response is required here. To the extent a response is required, Defendant states that
the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013)
speaks for itself, and further that Windsor did not overturn the part of the federal statute that
allows states to define marriage.
26.

Defendant admits that the State of Ohio does not recognize same-sex marriage.

27.

Defendant admits that the law of the State of Ohio does not recognize same-sex

marriage, and that Paragraph 27 of the Second Amended Complaint quotes a portion of Ohio
statute. Defendant further states that Paragraph 27 of the Second Amended Complaint includes a

4

legal conclusion to which no response is required here and/or a statement of law that speaks for
itself.
28.

Defendant states that the People of the State of Ohio have, by popular vote,

amended the Ohio Constitution to include the language quoted in Paragraph 28 of the Second
Amended Complaint, and further notes that Paragraph 28 includes a legal conclusion to which
not response is required here and/or a statement of law that speaks for itself.
29.

Defendant asserts that Paragraph 29 of the Second Amended Complaint is a legal

conclusion to which a response is not required here.
30.

Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 30 of the Second

Amended Complaint to the extent that such allegations do not state legal conclusions as to which
no response is required here.
31.

Defendant denies the allegations within Paragraph 31 of the Second Amended

Complaint.
32.

Defendant does not dispute the allegations within Paragraph 32 of the Second

Amended Complaint.
33.

Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 33 of the Second

Amended Complaint to the extent that such allegations do not state legal conclusions or requests
as to which no response is required here, except that Defendant does not dispute the Amended
Complaint’s statements with regard to health.
34.

Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 34 of the Second

Amended Complaint to the extent that such allegations do not state legal conclusions or requests
as to which no response is required here, except that, Defendant admits that William Herbert Ives
had died at the time Plaintiff Michener applied for the TRO and that a death certificate was

5

necessary to proceed with a cremation. Defendant does not dispute that the late Mr. Ives desired
to be cremated.
35.

Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Second Amended

Complaint.
36.

Defendant states that the allegations in Paragraph 36 are legal conclusions for

which no response is required here.
37.

Defendant denies for want of knowledge sufficient to form a belief the allegation

in Paragraph 37 of the Second Amended Complaint.
38.

Defendant denies for want of knowledge sufficient to form a belief the allegation

in Paragraph 38 of the Second Amended Complaint.
39.

Defendant denies for want of knowledge sufficient to form a belief the allegations

set forth in Paragraph 39 of the Second Amended Complaint.
40.

Defendant denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 40 of the Second

Amended Complaint to the extent that they do not state legal conclusions as to which no
response is required here.
41.

Defendant states that the allegations contained in Paragraph 41-49 of the Second

Amended Complaint are the subject of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for want of jurisdiction
and for failure to state a claim, filed contemporaneously with this Answer, and thus no response
is required at this time.
42.

Defendant admits that pursuant to Ohio’s statute and Ohio’s Constitution, Ohio

does not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, further, Defendant
denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 50 of the Second Amended Complaint.

6

43.

Defendant denies all allegations set forth in the Prayer for Relief, and specifically

denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to relief. Defendant further states that Paragraph B is the
subject of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for want of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim,
filed contemporaneously with this Answer, and thus no response is required at this time.
44.

Defendant denies all allegations not expressly admitted or specified as not

disputed.
WHEREFORE, having answered the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, Defendant
raises the following defenses, including affirmative defenses:
FIRST DEFENSE
This Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims.
SECOND DEFENSE
Plaintiffs’ claims are moot.
THIRD DEFENSE
Plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe.
FOURTH DEFENSE
Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
FIFTH DEFENSE
Article XV, Section 11 of the Ohio Constitution as adopted by vote of the People of the
State of Ohio does not violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the United States Constitution. Provisions
of Ohio’s Constitution may not be set aside without warrant in law.

7

SIXTH DEFENSE
Ohio Revised Code § 3101.01(C)(2) does not violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the United
States Constitution. Duly adopted provisions of Ohio statute may not be set aside without
warrant in law.
SEVENTH DEFENSE
Defendant Wymyslo reserves the right to add defenses, including affirmative defenses, as
may be disclosed during the course of this proceeding.
WHEREFORE, having fully answered, Defendant Wymyslo submits that the Second
Amended Complaint should be dismissed.
Respectfully submitted,
MICHAEL DEWINE
Ohio Attorney General
/s/ Bridget E. Coontz
BRIDGET E. COONTZ (0072919)*
*Lead and Trial Counsel
ZACHERY P. KELLER (0086930)
Assistant Attorney General
Constitutional Offices Section
30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Theodore E. Wymyslo, M.D., Director
of the Ohio Department of Health

8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing document was filed electronically on October 11,
2013. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing
system.

/s/ Bridget E. Coontz
Bridget E. Coontz (0072919)*
Assistant Attorney General

9