Tanco, et al. v. Haslam, et al.

Filing 91

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF THE COURT signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 8/24/2015. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.) (ds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
VALERIA TANCO and SOPHY JESTY,
IJPE DeKOE and THOMAS KOSTURA,
and JOHNO ESPEJO and MATTHEW
MANSELL,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WILLIAM E. “BILL” HASLAM, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:13-cv-01159
Judge Aleta A. Trauger

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
IN SUPPORT OF FINAL ORDER AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Following the United State Supreme Court’s resolution of this case on appeal in
Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 1039 (2015), the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Entry of Final
Order and Permanent Injunction (Docket No. 86) with an attached proposed final order (id.,
Attach. No. 1), and the defendants filed a Response in opposition (Docket No. 87) with a
competing attached proposed final order (id., Attach. No. 1). The parties dispute the language
that should be included in ¶¶ 1, 2, and 4 on page 2 of the final order.
In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs challenged Article XI, § 18 of the Tennessee Constitution
and Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-3-113 only to the extent that they denied recognition to outof-state same-sex marriages lawfully performed, a point that the court emphasized in its opinions
in this case (see Docket Nos. 67 and 78). The plaintiffs argue that the court has authority under
Rule 54(c) to award them all relief to which they are entitled, which they contend includes a
declaration that exceeds the relief that they requested in the Complaint. That would be a bridge
too far. Whatever flexibility Rule 54(c) provides, it does not permit the court to rewrite the

scope of the lawsuit. Therefore, subject to minor stylistic changes, the court will adopt the
defendants’ proposed wording of ¶¶ 1 and 2.
As to ¶ 4, which relates to fee shifting under § 1988(b), the court adopts both the plaintiffs’
request for an explicit deadline to file a Rule 54(d) application and the defendants’ reservation of the right
to raise objections to that application.

For these reasons, the court will contemporaneously enter a Final Order and Preliminary
Injunction. Entry of that Order shall constitute judgment in the case.
It is so ORDERED.
Enter this 24th day of August, 2015.

_____________________________
ALETA A. TRAUGER
United States District Judge