Winburn et al v. State of Utah et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 5 Motion to Reopen Case; finding as moot 8 Motion to Seal Case. (See image for details.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 4/21/2014. (jwt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

PIDGE WINBURN & AMY FOWLER,
Plaintiffs,
v.

MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER
Case No. 2:13-cv-01129
United States District Court Judge
Tena Campbell

STATE OF UTAH, LDS CHURCH,
Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead
Defendants.
On December 27, 2013, attorney E. Craig Smay (“Smay”) filed a Class Action
Complaint, on behalf of Plaintiffs Amy Fowler (“Fowler”), Pidge Winburn (“Winburn”) and
other “similarly situated” individuals, alleging that Defendants, the State of Utah and Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“Defendants”), had “regularly denied plaintiffs freedom of
religion and the right to marry” (doc. 2, p. 4). On January 2, 2014, the case was terminated
pursuant to a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Fowler and Winburn who asserted that they
had not authorized Smay to file a lawsuit or complaint on their behalf (doc. 3).
On January 17, 2014, Smay filed a “Motion to Reopen” the case arguing that it had been
improperly dismissed (doc. 5).1 In support of his motion, Smay asserts that because Fowler and
Winburn’s names “appear[ed] in the press”2 they “exhausted” any right to object to their
involvement in the case as a class action plaintiffs (doc. 5, pg.1).

1

The motion is currently before Magistrate Judge Pead pursuant to a 28 USC §636
(b)(1)(A) referral from District Court Judge Tena Campbell (doc. 9).
2

Smay is presumably referencing a December 31, 2013, Salt Lake Tribune article
regarding Fowler and Winburn’s first Christmas together as a legally married same sex couple
(doc. 3-1).

On April 10, 2014, Smay filed a “Motion To Seal” asking that the case be sealed in order
to “protect the identity of plaintiffs and others who may wish to become nominal plaintiffs
herein.” (doc. 8).
Local rule DUCivR7-1 states that any motion and memorandum filed with the Court must
include: (1) a section stating the relief sought and the “specific grounds for the motion”; and (2)
additional sections that include a “recitation of relevant facts, supporting authority, and
argument.” DUCivR 7-1. Upon review, the Court concludes that the “Motion to Reinstate” and
memorandum in support thereof are deficient and fail to comply with the requirements of the
local rule. Specifically, the one page document filed with the Court fails to include any recitation
of relevant facts, supporting authority or argument. Further, while the motion vaguely references
“FRCP 23" the document lacks any analysis of Rule 23 or its applicability to the pending request
to reinstate.
It is not the province of the Court to undertake the task of constructing arguments on a
party’s behalf. Accordingly, the pending Motion To Reopen (doc. 5) is hereby denied, and the
Motion To Seal is moot (doc. 8).

DATED this 21st day of April, 2014.

____________________________________
Dustin Pead
U.S. Federal Magistrate Judge

2