lIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CATHERINA PARETO and KARLA CASE NO. 2014-1661-CA-01
ARGUELLO; JUAN CARLOS RODRIGUEZ and
DAVID PRICE; VANESSA ALENIER and
MELANIE ALENIER; TODD DELMAY and
JEFFREY DELMAY; SUMMER GREENE and
PAMELA FAERBER; DON PRICE JOHNSTON
and JORGE DIAZ; and EQUALITY FLORIDA
INSTITUTE, INC.,
Plai nt i f f s ,
v .
HARVEY RUVIN, as Clerk of t h e Court s of
Mi ami-Dade Count y, Flori da, i n h i s of f i c i al
c ap ac i t y,
Def endant .
PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE
Plai nt i f f s , by t h ei r unders i gned c ouns el, h ereby res p ond i n op p os i t i on t o t h e Mot i on t o
Int erv ene f i led on February 25, 2014 by Flori da Fami ly Ac t i on, Inc ., Flori da Democ rat i c League,
Inc ., and Peop le Uni t ed To Lead Th e St ruggle For Eq uali t y, Inc . ( c ollec t i v ely, "Mov ant s "),
s eeki ng t o i nt erv ene i n t h i s mat t er as Part y-Def endant s .
Mov ant s do not s at i s f y t h e s t andard f or i nt erv ent i on as t h ey do not h av e "an i nt eres t of
s uc h a di rec t and i mmedi at e c h arac t er t h at [ t h ey] w i ll ei t h er gai n or los e by t h e di rec t legal
op erat i on and ef f ec t of t h e judgment ." Uni on Cent ral Li f e Ins uranc e Comp any v . Carli s le, 593
So.2d 505, 507 ( Fla. 1992).
Indeed, a w eek ago, i n s i mi lar li t i gat i on c h allengi ng Flori da's marri age ban, a mot i on t o
i nt erv ene f i led by one of t h e Mov ant s h ere -- Flori da Fami ly Ac t i on, Inc . ( "FFA") -- w as deni ed
Filing # 13484702 Electronically Filed 05/09/2014 12:32:38 PM
even under t h e more l i b era l f edera l i nt ervent i on rul e, b eca use FFA h a s onl y a " g enera l i z ed
i nt erest i n opposi ng sa me- sex ma rri a g e [ t h a t ] does not ent i t l e FFA t o i nt ervene. " Brenner et . a l v.
Ri ck S cot t , U. S . D i st ri ct Court f or t h e Nort h ern D i st ri ct of Fl ori da , Ca se No. 4:14- cv- 00107- RH-
CAS (Copy a t t a ch ed a s Ex . A). Th a t i s ex a ct l y t h e ca se h ere a s w el l .
I . I NTROD UCTI ON
P l a i nt i f f s seek a n i nj unct i on of t h e enf orcement of t h e Fl ori da l a w s b a rri ng sa me- sex
coupl es f rom ma rri a g e, t h ereb y req ui ri ng D ef enda nt t o i ssue ma rri a g e l i censes t o P l a i nt i f f s a nd
a l l ot h erw i se q ua l i f i ed sa me- sex coupl es w h o a ppl y f or ma rri a g e l i censes. Th e rel i ef t h ey seek
w i l l not a f f ect opposi t e- sex coupl es' el i g i b i l i t y t o ob t a i n ma rri a g e l i censes, req ui re Mova nt s or
t h ei r memb ers t o t a ke or ref ra i n f rom t a ki ng a ny a ct i on, or a f f ect Mova nt s' l eg a l ri g h t s a nd
ob l i g a t i ons i n a ny w a y . On Feb rua ry 25, 2014, Mova nt s f i l ed a Mot i on t o I nt ervene. Th ey a l l eg e
t h ey a re t h ree non- prof i t org a ni z a t i ons w h o h a ve w orked i n Fl ori da t o " preserve a nd prot ect
ma rri a g e a s a f ounda t i ona l soci a l i nst i t ut i on" a nd t o support t h e pa ssa g e b y pub l i c ref erendum of
Amendment 2, t h e Fl ori da Const i t ut i ona l provi si on ex cl udi ng sa me- sex coupl es f rom t h e
f reedom t o ma rry . Th ei r Mot i on f a i l s t o meet t h e l eg a l st a nda rd f or i nt ervent i on under Fl ori da
l a w .
Mova nt s ca nnot est a b l i sh t h e di rect a nd i mmedi a t e i nt erest req ui red f or i nt ervent i on, a s a
j udg ment i n t h i s ca se w i l l not h a ve a ny l eg a l i mpa ct on t h em. Mova nt s h a ve not ci t ed a ny
a ut h ori t y t h a t a ut h ori z es a support er of a ci t i z en i ni t i a t i ve t o i nt ervene i n a sui t ch a l l eng i ng t h e
va l i di t y of t h e l a w pa ssed b y such i ni t i a t i ve, nor t h a t a ut h ori z es a pri va t e ci t i z en or org a ni z a t i on
t o i nt ervene i n a n a ct i on ch a l l eng i ng t h e const i t ut i ona l i t y of a st a t e l a w of g enera l a ppl i ca t i on.
As sh ow n h erei n, Fl ori da l a w i s sq ua rel y t o t h e cont ra ry .
29959667. 1 2
I n a d d i t i o n , t h e p u r e l y go ve r n me n t a l i n t e r e s t s a t s t a k e i n t h e d e f e n s e o f t h i s ma t t e r a r e
a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e e x i s t i n g De f e n d a n t - a n a ge n t o f t h e S t a t e , w i t h a bl e c o u n s e l - w h o
h a s a p p e a r e d a n d f i l e d d e f e n s e s , a n d Mo va n t s i mp r o p e r l y s e e k t o i n s e r t c o l l a t e r a l i s s u e s i n t o t h i s
c a s e . Th e mo t i o n s h o u l d be d e n i e d .
I I . LEGAL S TANDARD FOR I NTERVENTI ON
Fl o r i d a Ru l e o f C i vi l Pr o c e d u r e 1. 230 p r o vi d e s t h a t "[a ]n y o n e c l a i mi n g a n i n t e r e s t i n
p e n d i n g l i t i ga t i o n ma y a t a n y t i me be p e r mi t t e d t o a s s e r t h i s r i gh t by i n t e r ve n t i o n , bu t t h e
i n t e r ve n t i o n s h a l l be i n s u bo r d i n a t i o n t o , a n d i n r e c o gn i t i o n o f , t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e ma i n
p r o c e e d i n g, u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e o r d e r e d by t h e c o u r t i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n . "
I n C a r l i s l e , t h e Fl o r i d a S u p r e me C o u r t h e l d t h a t i n e va l u a t i n g a mo t i o n t o i n t e r ve n e , a
c o u r t mu s t f i r s t "d e t e r mi n e t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t a s s e r t e d i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o s u p p o r t i n t e r ve n t i o n . " 593
S o . 2d a t 507. Th u s , a n "a p p r o p r i a t e i n t e r e s t " mu s t be e s t a bl i s h e d be f o r e t h e c o u r t i s p e r mi t t e d t o
e x e r c i s e d i s c r e t i o n a s t o a n y o t h e r f a c t o r s a n d c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . I d . As t h e C o u r t e x p l a i n e d , t h e
"a s s e r t e d i n t e r e s t mu s t bo t h (a ) a l r e a d y be a t i s s u e i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g, a n d (b) be o f a k i n d t h e
w o u l d - be i n t e r ve n e r i s a p r o p e r p a r t y t o r a i s e , i . e . , e i t h e r a n e c e s s a r y o r p r o p e r p a r t y t o t h e s u i t . "
I d .
An "a p p r o p r i a t e i n t e r e s t " i s "a n i n t e r e s t o f s u c h a d i r e c t a n d i mme d i a t e c h a r a c t e r t h a t t h e
i n t e r ve n e r w i l l e i t h e r ga i n o r l o s e by t h e d i r e c t l e ga l o p e r a t i o n a n d e f f e c t o f t h e ju d gme n t . " I d .
(e mp h a s i s s u p p l i e d ). I t mu s t be c r e a t e d by "a c l a i m t o t h e d e ma n d i n s u i t o r s o me p a r t t h e r e o f , a r
a c l a i m t o , o r l i e n u p o n , t h e p r o p e r t y o r s o me p a r t t h e r e o f , w h i c h i s t h e s u bje c t o f l i t i ga t i o n . " I d .
A s h o w i n g o f "i n d i r e c t , i n c o n s e q u e n t i a l o r c o n t i n ge n t i n t e r e s t s i s w h o l l y i n a d e q u a t e . " Fa i r c l o t h
v. Mr . Bo s t o n Di s t i l l e r C o r p . , 245 S o . 2d 240, 244 (Fl a . 1970); Ki s s o o n v. Ar a u jo , 849 S o . 2d 426,
429 (Fl a . l s` DC A 2003). Mo r e o ve r , i n t e r ve n t i o n s h o u l d be d e n i e d w h e r e t h e p e t i t i o n r a i s e s
29959667. 1 3
i s s u e s c o l l a t e r a l t o t h o s e u nde r c o ns i de r a t i o n i n t h e l a w s u i t . Se e Ho l l e y v . Ada ms , 238 So . 2d 401
( F l a . 19 7 0) .
As w e no w s h o w , t h e Mo v a nt s do no t h a v e a ny di r e c t i nt e r e s t i n t h e o u t c o me o f t h i s
l i t i g a t i o n. Th e y h a v e o nl y g e ne r a l p o l i t i c a l i nt e r e s t s i n t h e s u b j e c t ma t t e r o f t h i s c a s e , w h i c h a r e
no t j u di c i a l l y c o g ni z a b l e a nd a r e i ns u ffi c i e nt t o j u s t i fy i nt e r v e nt i o n.
IIL MOVANTS DO NOT HAVE A DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE INTEREST IN THE
OUTCOME OF THIS SUIT
A. A Ju dg me nt Wo u l d No t Imp a c t Mo v a nt s ' Vo t i ng Ri g h t s
Th e e nt r y o f a j u dg me nt t h a t P l a i nt i ffs s e e k h e r e w i l l h a v e no " di r e c t l e g a l o p e r a t i o n a nd
e ffe c t " o n t h e Mo v a nt s . Mo v a nt s s u p p o r t e d t h e e na c t me nt o f Ame ndme nt 2, a s w a s t h e i r r i g h t .
Mo v a nt s ' i ndi v i du a l me mb e r s fr e e l y e x e r c i s e d t h e i r r i g h t t o v o t e o n Ame ndme nt 2. Bu t , t h a t
a me ndme nt i s no w Ar t i c l e I s e c t i o n 27 o f t h e F l o r i da Co ns t i t u t i o n. Mo v a nt s h a v e no s p e c i a l
r e l a t i o ns h i p t o s e c t i o n 27 ; i ns t e a d, t h e y h a v e o nl y t h e s a me g e ne r a l i z e d i nt e r e s t i n t h e l a w t h a t
o t h e r l i k e - mi nde d c i t i z e ns o f F l o r i da p o s s e s s .
Th e Uni t e d St a t e s Su p r e me Co u r t 's r e c e nt de c i s i o n i n Ho l l i ng s w o r t h v . P e r r y, 133 S. Ct .
2562 ( U. S. 2013) , i s i ns t r u c t i v e . In P e r r y, t h e Co u r t h e l d t h a t p r i v a t e a dv o c a c y g r o u p s s u p p o r t i ng
P r o p o s i t i o n 8 ( t h e Ca l i fo r ni a c i t i z e n i ni t i a t i v e t h a t b a nne d s a me- s e x ma r r i a g e ) l a c k e d s t a ndi ng t o
a p p e a l a di s t r i c t c o u r t de c i s i o n h o l di ng P r o p o s i t i o n 8 t o b e u nc o ns t i t u t i o na l , b e c a u s e t h e y
" s u ffe r e d no c o nc r e t e a nd p a r t i c u l a r i z e d i nj u r y" a s a r e s u l t o f t h e de c i s i o n i nv a l i da t i ng P r o p 8.
133 S. Ct . a t 2659 . Ju s t a s i n t h i s c a s e , " [ t ] h e s e p r o p o ne nt s h a d no t b e e n o r de r e d t o do o r r e fr a i n
fr o m do i ng a nyt h i ng i n t h e c h a l l e ng e d j u dg me nt . " Id. a t 2662. Ra t h e r , " [ t ] h e i r o nl y i nt e r e s t w a s
t o v i ndi c a t e t h e c o ns t i t u t i o na l i t y v a l i di t y o f a g e ne r a l l y a p p l i c a b l e Ca l i fo r ni a l a w , w h i c h i s
i ns u ffi c i e nt t o c o nfe r s t a ndi ng . " Id. In s h o r t :
29 9 59 667 . 1 4
Once Prop 8 was approved by t h e vot ers, t h e measure became a "duly enact ed
const i t ut i onal amendment or st at ut e. " Pet i t i oners h ave no role speci al or
ot h erwi se - - i n enforcement of Proposi t i on 8. Th ey t h erefore h ave no "personal
st ak e" i n defendi ng i t s enforcement t h at i s di st i ng ui sh able from t h e g eneral
i nt erest of every ci t i z en of C ali forni a. No mat t er h ow deeply commi t t ed
pet i t i oners may be t o uph oldi ng Proposi t i on 8 or h ow "z ealous [ t h ei r] advocacy, "
t h at i s not a "part i culari z ed" i nt erest suffi ci ent t o creat e a case or cont roversy
under A rt i cle I I I .
I d. at 2663.
Th e C ourt furt h er concluded t h at t h e proponent s were not aut h ori z ed t o assert t h e S t at e' s
i nt erest on t h e S t at e' s beh alf. I d. A s t h e C ourt put i t , t h e proponent s soug h t "an unelect ed
appoi nt ment for an unspeci fi ed peri od of t i me as defenders of t h e i ni t i at i ve, h owever and t o
wh at ever ex t ent t h ey ch oose t o defend i t , " but i nt ervent i on i s "not a veh i cle for t h e vi ndi cat i on of
value i nt erest s. " I d. Th e C ourt also poi nt ed out t h at i t h ad never i dent i fi ed i ni t i at i ve proponent s
as q uali fi ed defenders of t h e measures t h ey advocat ed. I d.
A ll of t h i s i s t rue h ere, as well. Movant s' arg ument would g rant st andi ng t o every person
wh o vot ed for an amendment t o t h e F lori da C onst i t ut i on t o i nt ervene i n act i ons ch alleng i ng t h e
leg ali t y of t h at amendment . Th ere i s no leg al precedent for t h at proposi t i on and Movant s h ave
ci t ed none.
Th e one "vot i ng " case t h at Movant s ci t e, Dubose v. K elly, 181 S o. 11 ( F la. 19 38) , i n no
way support s t h ei r i nt ervent i on i n t h i s case. Movant s assert t h at i n Dubose, "t h e S upreme C ourt
long ag o affi rmed t h e ri g h t of ci t i z ens t o i nt ervene i n li t i g at i on t h at t h reat ens t o undue ( si c) t h ei r
vot es on a publi c i ssue. " A s sh own by even a cursory readi ng , i t does no such t h i ng .
Dubose i nvolved a sui t by a C i t y C ommi ssi oner seek i ng t o enj oi n t h e C i t y C lerk from
i mplement i ng an elect i on t o recall t h e C ommi ssi oner. Th e successful i nt ervener t h ere was a
ci t i z en wh o h ad si g ned t h e recall pet i t i on i n accordance wi t h t h e provi si ons of t h e C i t y C h art er.
29 9 59 667. 1 5
The i n t er v en er sought t o oppose i n j un c t i on of t he el ec t i on i n or d er t o pr eser v e hi s r i ght t o v ot e i n
t he sc hed ul ed r ec a l l el ec t i on .
Thi s c a se i s en t i r el y d i ffer en t . The i n t er v en er i n Dubose wa s seek i n g t o pr eser v e hi s r i ght
t o v ot e pr ospec t i v el y i n a n el ec t i on . An i n j un c t i on of t he el ec t i on woul d pr ev en t hi m fr om
ex er c i si n g hi s r i ght t o v ot e on t he r ec a l l pet i t i on . Her e, Mov a n t s wi l l n ot be pr ev en t ed fr om
v ot i n g on a n y t hi n g.
I t bea r s empha si zi n g t ha t per mi t t i n g a n y c i t i zen t o i n t er v en e i n l i t i ga t i on c ha l l en gi n g t he
c on st i t ut i on a l i t y of l a ws woul d r en d er mea n i n gl ess t he l ega l st a n d a r d for i n t er v en t i on , a n d woul d
open t he fl ood ga t es t o a l l ot her gr oups a n d i n d i v i d ua l s on bot h si d es of t he i ssue t ha t ha v e a
v i ew a bout whet her sa me- sex c oupl es shoul d be per mi t t ed t o ma r r y i n F l a r i d a . As t he U. S.
Supr eme Cour t r ec ogn i zed i n P er Y y , i n t er v en t i on i s n ot a v ehi c l e for t he v i n d i c a t i on of v a l ue
i n t er est s.
B. A Jud gmen t Woul d Not I mpa c t Mov a n t s' Ad v oc a c y Ri ght s or Thei r Ri ght s
t o Speec h or Rel i gi on
Mov a n t s' r i ght t o publ i c l y a d v oc a t e t hei r pol i t i c a l v i ews on ma r r i a ge d oes n ot i n c l ud e a
r i ght t o i n t er v en e i n c our t c a ses wher e, a s her e, t hei r own l ega l i n t er est s a r e n ot d i r ec t l y a ffec t ed .
P l a i n t i ffs c a n fi n d n o F l or i d a c a se fi n d i n g t ha t a pol i t i c a l posi t i on , n o ma t t er how d eepl y or
si n c er el y hel d , ha s been d eemed t o be a l ega l l y suffi c i en t " i n t er est " suppor t i n g i n t er v en t i on .
Mov a n t s c i t e t o on l y on e suc h pur por t ed c a se, Na t i on a l Wi l d l i fe F ed er a t i on I n c . v .
G l i sson , 531 So. 2d 996 ( F l a . 1 St DCA 198 8 ) . Tha t c a se d oes n ot suppor t t hei r mot i on . To t he
c on t r a r y , i t hi ghl i ght s why i n t er v en t i on i s n ot per mi ssi bl e her e.
I n G l i sson , Al a c hua Coun t y a men d ed i t s l a n d use pl a n , c ur t a i l i n g d ev el opmen t i n t he
Cr oss Cr eek V i l l a ge a r ea a n d pr eser v i n g t he n a t ur a l ha bi t a t of t he a r ea 's wi l d l i fe. I n d i v i d ua l s
who l i v ed i n t ha t a r ea fi l ed sui t c ha l l en gi n g t he v a l i d i t y of t he a men d men t . Two en v i r on men t a l
29959667. 1
groups sought to i n te rv e n e to support the ame n dme n t, on be half of se v e ral me mbe rs who
submi tte d affi dav i ts i n di c ati n g that the y we re re si de n ts an d re al prope rty own e rs an d/or busi n e ss
own e rs an d ope rators i n the Cross Cre e k are a. The affi an ts te sti fi e d as to the i r ac tual use of the
are a i n q ue sti on , as we ll as the pote n ti al i mpac t on the i r li v e s an d busi n e sse s should plai n ti ffs
pre v ai l i n the i r sui t agai n st Alac hua Coun ty.
I n te rv e n ti on was prope r i n Gli sson be c ause the adv oc ac y groups re pre se n te d i n di v i duals
who li v e d i n , or own e d busi n e sse s i n , the affe c te d are a, an d who ac c ordi n gly would e xpe ri e n c e
di re c t an d i mme di ate i mpac t from the n e w lan d use plan . As suc h, the Gli sson i n te rv e n e rs
re pre se n te d i n di v i duals who would "gai n or lose the q uali ty of use of the i r lan d at i ssue " as a
re sult of the di spute d zon i n g judgme n t. Ki ssoon , 849 So. 2d at 430.
That i s n ot the c ase he re . Mov an ts wi ll n ot lose an y ri ghts or be subje c te d to an y n e w
obli gati on s or c on strai n ts as was the c ase wi th the i n te rv e n e rs i n Gli sson .
I n an an alogous Cali forn i a c ase , Soc i ali st Worke rs 1974 Cali forn i a Campai gn Commi tte e
v . Brown , 53 Cal. App. 3d 879 (1975), the c ourt de n i e d i n te rv e n ti on i n a c ase i n v olv i n g a
c halle n ge to the c on sti tuti on ali ty of a Cali forn i a statute whe re the would-be i n te rv e n e r was an
adv oc ac y organ i zati on whose v e ry purpose was adv oc ac y on the un de rlyi n g i ssue s i n the
li ti gati on . The c ourt the re n ote d that an i n te re st i n the le gal pre c e de n t that mi ght be c re ate d by
the lawsui t di d n ot c on sti tute a "di re c t an d i mme di ate " i n te re st i n the c ase .
The same i s true he re . Whate v e r the outc ome i n thi s c ase , i t wi ll hav e n o "di re c t an d
i mme di ate " e ffe c t on Mov an ts or the i r me mbe rs. The y wi ll re tai n the ri ght to marry, to obtai n
marri age li c e n se s, to e n joy the be n e fi ts assoc i ate d wi th marri age , an d to adv oc ate the i r v i e ws
re gardi n g marri age .
299s96 6 ~ . i 7
Movants have c i ted no l eg al au thor i ty to su p p or t thei r p osi ti on that havi ng str ong l y - hel d
p ol i ti c al vi ews i s a g r ou nd f or i nter venti on and the P l ai nti f f s have f ou nd none. The onl y c ases
they c i te (not p r evi ou sl y d i sc u ssed ) i nvol ve i nter vener s wi th c onc r ete, l eg al l y c og ni z ab l e
i nter ests i n the u nd er l y i ng l i ti g ati on, su c h that the ou tc ome of the c ase wou l d d i r ec tl y al ter the
i nter vener ' s l eg al r i g hts or ob l i g ati ons:
I nsu r anc e c omp ani es wi th ex p l i c i t c ontr ac tu al su b r og ati on r i g hts to r ec over p ai d med i c al
ex p enses wer e p er mi tted to i nter vene i n su i ts b y thei r i nsu r ed s ag ai nst tor tf easar s.
(Ab el ove; C ar l i sl e)
A c ond omi ni u m assoc i ati on, au thor i z ed as the c ond omi ni u m manag er b y F l or i d a statu te,
was p er mi tted to i nter vene i n a su i t b y c ond omi ni u m u ni t owner s ag ai nst eng i neer s f or
d amag es c au sed b y a d ef ec ti ve p l u mb i ng sy stem. The u ni t owner s wer e asser ti ng c l ai ms
f or d amag es to thei r c ond omi ni u m u ni ts wher eas the assoc i ati on was asser ti ng a c l ai m f or
d amag es to the c ommon ar eas. (I 3 ay P ar k Tower s)
Two c ommu ni ty assoc i ati ons c l ai mi ng a r i g ht to u se r ec r eati on ar eas owned b y a thi r d
c ommu ni ty assoc i ati on wer e al l owed to i nter vene i n a su i t b etween the d evel op er and the
thi r d c ommu ni ty assoc i ati on r eg ar d i ng the sal e and tr ansf er of the r ec r eati on ar eas.
(Sweetwater )
No su c h c onc r ete, l eg al l y c og ni z ab l e i nter ests ar e at i ssu e her e, wher e Movants have onl y
a g ener al i z ed p ol i ti c al i nter est i n the c hal l eng ed l aw. I n f ac t, Movants' al l eg ed i nter ests i n thi s
c ase ar e f ar mor e i nd i r ec t than i n many c ases wher e i nter venti on has b een d eni ed b y F l or i d a
c ou r ts.
F or ex amp l e, F ai r c l oth v. Mr . Boston D i sti l l er C or p ., 245 So.2d 240, i nvol ved a
c onsti tu ti onal c hal l eng e to a state l aw on equ al p r otec ti on g r ou nd s, as i n thi s c ase, wher e a b ottl er
of al c ohol i c b ever ag es sou g ht to i nval i d ate a state ex c i se tax on the manu f ac tu r e of c er tai n
al c ohol i c b ever ag es. Another b ottl er sou g ht to i nter vene, to ad voc ate a p osi ti on b enef i c i al to i ts
p r op osed p r osp ec ti ve p r od u c ts (and f i nanc i al i nter ests) , and was d eni ed . The F l or i d a Su p r eme
C ou r t hel d that the ex c i se tax r ate ap p l i c ab l e to the movant' s c u r r ent p r od u c ts was not at i ssu e,
29959667.1
thus the case did not involve adj udication of any matter in which the movant had a direct and
immediate interest j ustifying its intervention.
S imilarly, in Kissoon v. Arauj o, 849 S o. 2d 426, the estate of a deceased p atient broug ht a
medical malp ractice claim ag ainst three p hysicians alleg ing they were resp onsible for a p atient' s
death. The defendants attemp ted to establish that another p hysician, Dr. Kissoon, was
resp onsible for the p atient' s death. Dr. Kissoon soug ht to intervene, alleg ing that a verdict in
favor of the defendants would have a devastating effect on his rep utation, subj ect him to
p rofessional investig ation by the F lorida Board of Medicine, and hinder his p ractice of medicine.
His intervention was denied because "none of these alleg ed consequences are a direct leg al effect
of a j udg ment in this case. " S ee also F asig v. F lorida S ociety of P atholog ists, 769 S o. 2d 1151
(F la. 5~ ~ ' DCA 2000)(denying p atients' motion to intervene in an action broug ht by a g roup of
doctors seeking a declaratory j udg ment ag ainst an insurance comp any allowing them to bill
p atients directly for "p rofessional comp onent" fees, because a ruling in the case would not have
imp osed any direct liability on p atients ar p revented p atients from contesting fees in the future).
In this case, Movants' alleg ed "interests" which do not constitute any leg ally
cog nizable interest whatsoever are far more indirect, remote and conting ent than in these
illustrative cases, and are clearly insufficient to j ustify the requested intervention. Indeed, as
exp lained above, no matter how the case is decided, Movants' rig hts and oblig ations will not be
altered or affected in any way.
IV. MOVANTS ' S UGGES TION THAT THE DEF ENDANT WILL NOT
ADEQUATELY DEF END THE CHALLENGED LAWS DOES NOT P ROVIDE
MOVANTS WITH A P ROTECTED INTERES T
Movants sug g est that the Defendant will not "adequately" defend the constitutionality of
F lorida' s marriag e laws denying marriag e to same-sex coup les and, thus, they should be allowed
z99s966~ . ~ 9
t o i n t e r v e n e f o r t h i s r e as o n al o n e . Be f o r e t h at co ul d e v e n be a co n s i de r at i o n f o r t h e Co ur t ,
h o we v e r , Mo v an t s mus t f i r s t e s t abl i s h t h e i r r e q ui s i t e i n t e r e s t i n t h i s cas e , an d t h e n mus t al s o
e s t abl i s h i n ade q uat e r e p r e s e n t at i o n by t h e De f e n dan t . So ut h l an d L i f e In s ur an ce Co . v . Abe l o v e ,
556 So . 2d 805, 806 ( F l a. St " DCA 1990); F as i g, 769 So . 2d at 1154. Th e y h av e n o t do n e s o an d
can n o t da s o .
F ur t h e r mo r e , Mo v an t s can n o t e s t abl i s h i n ade q uat e r e p r e s e n t at i o n by t h e De f e n dan t ,
bas e d o n t h e i r co n j e ct ur e as t o h o w "we l l " t h e De f e n dan t may de f e n d P l ai n t i f f s ' cl ai ms . If t h at
we r e s o , an y p e r s o n o r gr o up s e e ki n g t o i n t e r v e n e al ways co ul d cl ai m t h at t h e e x i s t i n g p ar t i e s
wi l l n o t ze al o us l y r e p r e s e n t t h e i r p e r s p e ct i v e o n t h e i s s ue s . Th e f act t h at Mo v an t s mi gh t br i n g
an o t h e r s e t o f v i e wp o i n t s t o t h e l i t i gat i o n i s an i n s uf f i ci e n t bas i s t o cal l i n t o q ue s t i o n t h e
ade q uacy o f t h e e x i s t i n g p ar t i e s ' r e p r e s e n t at i o n .
Th us , me r e di f f e r e n ce s i n s t r at e gy ar e n o t e n o ugh t o j us t i f y i n t e r v e n t i o n . U . S. v . L o s
An ge l e s , 288 F . 3d 391, 402 ( 9r~ Ci r . 2002). "Th e f act t h at Mo v an t s wo ul d h av e be e n l e s s p r o n e
t o agr e e t o t h e f act s an d wo ul d h av e t ake n a di f f e r e n t v i e w o f t h e ap p l i cabl e l aw do e s n o t me an
t h at t h e e x i s t i n g p ar t i e s di d n o t ade q uat e l y r e p r e s e n t t h e i r i n t e r e s t s i n t h e l i t i gat i o n . " U . S. v .
P h i l ade l p h i a, 798 F . 2d 81, 90 ( 3d Ci r . 1986). A p r o s p e ct i v e i n t e r v e n e r can n o t r e but t h e
p r e s ump t i o n o f ade q uat e r e p r e s e n t at i o n by me r e l y di s agr e e i n g wi t h t h e e x i s t i n g p ar t i e s ' l i t i gat i o n
s t r at e gy. Ch i gl o v . P r e s t o n , 104 F . 3d 185, 188 ( 8t " Ci r . 1997).
As n o t e d, t h i s mat t e r i n v o l v e s p ur e l y go v e r n me n t al i n t e r e s t s , an d a go v e r n me n t al
r e p r e s e n t at i v e i s de f e n di n g t h e l aws ui t . P l ai n t i f f s h av e s ue d a p r o p e r go v e r n me n t al p ar t y ( t h e
Cl e r k wh o i mp l e me n t s an d e n f o r ce s t h e s ubj e ct mar r i age l aws ), wh o h as ap p e ar e d an d f i l e d an
An s we r an d De f e n s e s . Mo v an t s may n o t l i ke t h e man n e r i n wh i ch t h e Cl e r k i s de f e n di n g t h e
s ui t , but t h e Cl e r k i s de f e n di n g t h e s ui t .
29959667. 1 1 ~
Moreover, pursuant to 86.091, F l ori d a S tatutes, P l ai nti f f s provi d ed noti c e of th i s
c onsti tuti onal c h al l enge of F l ori d a' s marri age l aws to th e Attorney General , a governmental
representati ve, wh o h as th e statutory ri gh t to i ntervene. As to th e si ngul ar l egal i ssue bef ore th i s
Court wh eth er th e state of F l ori d a c an establ i sh a l egi ti mate governmental i nterest served by
th e c h al l enged l aws th e S tate' s i nterests are ad equatel y represented .
V. CONCLUS ION
Movants d o not gai n th e ri gh t to i ntervene i n P l ai nti f f s' c ase merel y bec ause of th ei r
strongl y h el d pol i ti c al vi ews about marri age or th e l aws c h al l enged i n th i s c ase. Th i s c ase, l i k e
many oth ers, rai ses i mportant and of ten pol i ti c al l y c ontenti ous i ssues, but th at d oes not rel i eve
persons seek i ng to bec ome parti es of th e obl i gati on to sati sf y th e l ong- establ i sh ed l egal stand ard s
f or i nterventi on. To th e c ontrary, th e f ac t th at c ertai n segments of th e publ i c at l arge h ol d strong
opi ni ons both pro and c on about th e i ssue of marri age f or same- sex c oupl es argues strongl y
agai nst al l owi ng i nterventi on unl ess th e woul d - be i ntervener c an d emonstrate th e requi red
" d i rec t and i mmed i ate" i nterest i nth e c ase. Openi ng th i s c ase to i nterested members of th e
general publ i c woul d mul ti pl y th e number of parti es and greatl y i nc rease th e burd en on th e Court
and th e exi sti ng parti es.
a99s966~ .i 11
Movants cannot e stab l i sh any such " d i r e ct and i mme d i ate " l e g al i nte r e st. T h e i r asse r te d
i nte r e sts ar e an e f f or t to cause und ue d e l ay and p r e j ud i ce to P l ai nti f f s, wh o suf f e r e ve r y d ay th at
th e y ar e d e ni e d th e r i g h t to mar r y. T h e i nte r e sts at stak e ar e g ove r nme ntal , and a g ove r nme ntal
d e f e nd ant i s th e ap p r op r i ate p ar ty to r e p r e se nt th ose i nte r e sts.
P l ai nti f f s r e sp e ctf ul l y r e q ue st th at th e Moti on to I nte r ve ne b e DENI ED.
DAT ED: May 9, 2014 R e sp e ctf ul l y sub mi tte d ,
Sh annon P . Mi nte r
C h r i stop h e r F. Stol l
Davi d C . C od e l l
Asaf Or r
NAT I ONAL C ENT ER FOR
LESBI AN R I GHT S
870 Mar k e t Str e e t, Sui te 370
San Fr anci sco, C A 94102
T e l e p h one : (415) 365-1335
Facsi mi l e : (415) 392-8442
E-mai l :smi nte r @ ncl r i g h ts. or g
cstol l @ ncl r i g h ts. or g
d cc~ d e l l ~ a~ ncl r i g h ts. or ~
aor r @ ncl r i g h ts. or g
El i z ab e th Sch war tz (Fl a. Bar No.
114855)
ELI ZABET H F. SC HWAR T Z, P A
690 Li ncol n R oad , Sui te 304
Mi ami Be ach , FL 33139
T e l e p h one : (305) 674-9222
Facsi mi l e : (305) 674-9002
E-mai l : e sch war tz @ sob e l aw. com
Mar y B. Me e k s (Fl a. Bar No. 769533)
MAR Y MEEKS, P . A.
P . O. Box 536758
Or l and o, Fl or i d a 32853
T e l e p h one : (407) 362-7879
Facsi mi l e :
Emai l : mar yb me e k s@ aol . com
s/Nancy . I . Fag g i ane l l i
Syl vi a H. Wal b ol t (Fl a. Bar No. 33604)
Lui s P r ats (Fl a. Bar No. 329096)
Nancy J . Fag g i ane l l i (Fl a. Bar No. 347590)
C AR LT ON FI ELDS J OR DEN BUR T , P . A.
4221 W. Boy Scout Bl vd . , Ste . 1000
T amp a, FL 33601
T e l e p h one : (813) 223-7000
Facsi mi l e : (813) 229-4133
Emai l : swal b ol t@ cf j b l aw. com
1p r ats@ cf j b l aw. com
nf ag g i ane l l i @ cf j b l aw. com
J e f f r e y Mi ch ae l C oh e n (Fl a. Bar . No. 91495)
C r i sti na Al onso (Fl a. Bar . No. 327580)
C AR LT ON FI ELDS J OR DEN BUR T , P . A.
Mi ami T owe r
100 South e ast 2nd Str e e t
Sui te 4200
Mi ami , Fl or i d a 33131
T e l e p h one : (305) 530-0050
Facsi mi l e : (305) 530-0055
Emai l : j mcoh e n@ cf j b l aw. com
cal onso@ cf j b l aw. com
C ounse l f or P l ai nti f f s
29959667. 1 I Z
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY t h a t a t r u e a nd c o r r e c t c o py o f t h e fo r e g o i ng wa s e l e c t r o ni c a l l y
fi l e d wi t h t h e Cl e r k o f Co u r t t h r o u g h t h e Fl o r i da Co u r t s e Fi l i ng P o r t a l t o be se r v e d t h i s 9t" da y o f
Ma y 2014, o n c o u nse l o f r e c o r d l i st e d be l o w t o :
SYLVIA H. WALBOLT
E-ma i l : swa l bo l t @CFJBIa w.c o m
Se c . E-ma i l : r o sbo r ne @CFJBIa w.c o m
Se c . E-ma i l : t pa e c f@c fdo m.ne t
LUIS P RATS
E-ma i l : 1pr a t s@CFJBIa w.c o m
Se c . E-ma i l : l c o ffe y@,CFJBIa w.c o m
NANCY J. FAGGIANELLI
E-ma i l : nfa g g i a ne l l i @CFJBIa w.c o m
Se c . E-ma i l : ppa r r e y@CFJBIa w.c o m
CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P .A.
Co r po r a t e Ce nt e r Th r e e
a t Int e r na t i o na l P l a za
4221 W. Bo y Sc o u t Bo u l e v a r d
Ta mpa , Fl o r i da 33607-5780
Te l e ph o ne : (813) 223-7000
Fa c si mi l e : (813) 229-4133
JEFFREY MICHAEL COHEN
E-ma i l : jmc o h e n@CFJBIa w.c o m
Se c . E-ma i l : pwa t so n@CFJBIa w.c o m
Se c . E-ma i l : mi a e c f@c fdo m.ne t
CRISTINA ALONSO
E-ma i l : c a l o nso @CFJBIa w.c o m
Se c . E-ma i l : c sc h mi dl e @CFJBIa w.c o m
CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P .A.
Mi a mi To we r
100 So u t h e a st Se c o nd St r e e t
Su i t e 4200
Mi a mi , Fl o r i da 33131
Te l e ph o ne (305) 530-0050
Fa c si mi l e (305) 530-0055
Sh a nno n P . Mi nt e r
Ch r i st o ph e r F. St o l l
Da v i d C. Co de l l
Lu i s G. Mo nt a l do
P .O. Bo x 13267
Mi a mi , FL 33101
E-ma i l : c o c g e nc o u nse l @mi a mi da de .g o v
Se c . &ma i l : l a r r u za @mi a mi da de .g o v
Ei l e e n Ba l l Me h t a
BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA P RICE &
AXELRODLLP
1450 Br i c ke l l Av e nu e
Su i t e 2300
Mi a mi , FL 33131
E-ma i l : e me h t a @bi l zi n.c o m
Se c . E-ma i l : e se r v i c e @bi l zi n.c o m
Co u nse l fo r De fe nda nt
Ho r a t i o G. Mi h e t
LIBERTY COUNSEL
P o st Offi c e Bo x 540774
Or l a ndo , FL 32854-0774
E-ma i l : 1l mi h e t ~ a ~ l i be r t.~ e du
Se c . E-ma i l : c o u r t ~ l c ~ o r ~
Co u nse l fo r Int e r v e no r s
29959667.1 13
Asaf Orr
NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN
RIGHTS
870 Market Street, Su i te 370
San Franc i sc o , CA 94102
E-mai l: smi nter@ nc lri g h ts. o rg
E-mai l: c sto ll@ nc lri g h ts. o rg
E-mai l: d c o d ell@ nc lri g h ts. o rg
E-mai l: ao rr@ nc lri g h ts. o rg
Eli z ab eth F. Sc h wartz
ELIZABETH F. SCHWARTZ, P. A.
690 Li nc o ln Ro ad , Su i te 304
Mi ami Beac h , FL 33139
E-mai l: esc h wartz @ so b elaw. c o m
Mary B. Meeks
MARY MEEKS, P. A.
P. O. Bo x 536758
Orland o , FL 32853
E-mai l: maryb meeks@ ao Lc o m
Co u nsel fo r Plai nti ffs
s/Nanc y J Fag g i anelli
29959667. I 14
Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 40 F i l ed 04/24/14 Page 1 of 5
Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F OR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF F LORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
JAMES DOMER BRENNER et al . ,
Pl ai nti ffs,
CONSOLIDATED
v. CASE NO. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS
RICK SCOTT, etc. , et al . ,
Defend ants.
ORDER DENYING LEAVE F OR F LORIDA
F AMILY ACTION TO INTERVENE BUT
ALLOWING IT TO PARTICIPATE AS AMICUS
In th ese consol i d ated acti ons, th e p l ai nti ffs ch al l enge p r ovi si ons of th e
F l or i d a Consti tuti on and F l or i d a Statutes on same-sex mar r i age. Th e d efend ants
i ncl ud e F l or i d a' s Gover nor and Attor ney Gener al , both of wh om d i sagr ee wi th th e
p l ai nti ffs on th e mer i ts. F l or i d a F ami l y Acti on, Inc. ("F F A"), a "cul tur al acti on
or gani z ati on" th at op p oses same-sex mar r i age, h as moved to i nter vene i n each
consol i d ated acti on as a d efend ant. Th i s or d er d eni es th e moti ons but al l ows F F A
to fi l e a ti mel y ami cus memor and um on any l egal i ssue submi tted by th e p ar ti es.
Consol i d ated Case No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS
EXHIBIT A
Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 40 F i l ed 04/24/14 Page 2 of 5
Page 2 of 5
F ed er al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr oced ur e 24(a) enti tl es a p er son to i nter vene as of
r i gh t i f (1) a fed er al statute gi ves th e p er son an uncond i ti onal r i gh t to i nter vene, or
(2) th e p er son "cl ai ms an i nter est r el ati ng to th e p r op er ty or tr ansacti on th at i s th e
sub j ect of th e acti on, and i s so si tuated th at d i sp osi ng of th e acti on may as a
p r acti cal matter i mp ai r or i mp ed e th e movant's ab i l i ty to p r otect i ts i nter est, unl ess
th e ex i sti ng p ar ti es ad eq uatel y r ep r esent th at i nter est. "
No fed er al statute gi ves F F A an uncond i ti onal r i gh t to i nter vene i n an acti on
of th i s k i nd . So Rul e 24(a)(1) d oes not enti tl e F F A to i nter vene.
Und er Rul e 24(a)(2), th e "i nter est" th at a p r op osed i nter venor cl ai ms
must b e a p ar ti cul ar i z ed i nter est r ath er th an a gener al gr i evance. See
Howar d v. McLucas, 782 F . 2d 956, 959 (11th Ci r . 1986) (usi ng
stand i ng cases to d eter mi ne th at i nter venor s wi th onl y gener al i z ed
gr i evance coul d not i nter vene); Ath ens Lumb er Co. , I nc. v. F ed er al
E l ecti on Commi ssi on, 690 F . 2d 1364, 1366 (11th Ci r . 1982) (ci ti ng
stand i ng cases to d eter mi ne th at i nter venor 's cl ai med i nter est th at
uni ons woul d b e fi nanci al l y over wh el med i n fed er al el ecti ons too
gener al i z ed to sup p or t cl ai m for i nter venti on of r i gh t).
Ch i l es v. Th or nb ur gh , 865 F . 2d 1197, 1212-13 (l l th Ci r . 1989).
F F A "cl ai ms an i nter est" i n th e same-sex-mar r i age i ssue, b ut i t i s a
gener al i z ed i nter est, not a p ar ti cul ar i z ed i nter est i n any th i ng d i r ectl y affecti ng F F A
or i ts memb er s. No F F A memb er seek s to enter asame-sex -mar r i age or wi l l b e
d i r ectl y affected i f oth er s enter same-sex mar r i ages. F F A's gener al i z ed i nter est i n
op p osi ng same-sex mar r i age d oes not enti tl e F F A to i nter vene. See Hol l i ngswor th
Consol i d ated Case No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS
Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 40 F i l ed 04/24/14 Page 3 of 5
Page 3 of 5
v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2663 (2013) (hol d i ngon the i ssue of stand i ngthat a
si mi l ar ad vocacy organi z ati on had no rol e i n the enforcement of a same-sex-
marri age consti tuti onal amend ment after i ts p assage and therefore l ack ed a
"p ersonal stak e" i n the l i ti gati on "that [wa]s d i sti ngui shab l e from the general
i nterest of every ci ti z en"); see al so Chi l es, 865 F . 2d at 1213 ("[S]tand i ng cases . . .
are rel evant to hel p d efi ne the typ e of i nterest that the i ntervenor must assert. ").
Another ground al so sup p orts thi s resul t. The ex i sti ng d efend ants, esp eci al l y
the Governor and Attorney General , can b e rel i ed up on to ad equatel yi nd eed ,
z eal ousl yd efend these acti ons on the meri ts. Und er the p l ai n l anguage of Rul e
24(a)(2), a p erson i s not enti tl ed to i ntervene when an ex i sti ng p arty al read y
ad equatel y rep resents the i nterest cl ai med b y the p rop osed i ntervenor.
I I
F ed eral Rul e of Ci vi l Proced ure 24(b ) gi ves a d i stri ct court d i screti on to
al l ow a p erson to i ntervene on a "ti mel y moti on" i f (1) a fed eral statute gi ves the
p erson a cond i ti onal ri ght to i ntervene, or (2) the p erson "has a cl ai m or d efense
that shares wi th the mai n acti on a common questi on of l aw or fact. "
No fed eral statute gi ves F F A a cond i ti onal ri ght to i ntervene i n an acti on of
thi s k i nd . But F F A asserts a d efense that shares wi th the mai n acti ons common
questi ons of l aw. F F A's moti on to i ntervene was ti mel y. The. court has d i screti on
Consol i d ated Case No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS
Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 40 F i l ed 04/24/14 Page 4 of 5
Page 4 of 5
to al l owor d i sal l owi nterventi on. That F F A l ack s stand i ng to b ri ng i ts own
acti on d oes not p recl ud e i nterventi on. Chi l es, 865 F . 2d at 1213.
The b etter course here i s to d eny i nterventi on b ut to al l ow F F A to b e ful l y
heard as an ami cus. F actors that sup p ort thi s concl usi on i ncl ud e the meager i f not
nonex i stent b enefi t that woul d fl ow from al l owi ng F F A to i ntervene as op p osed to
j ust al l owi ng F F A to p arti ci p ate as an ami cus, the unnecessary p roced ural
comp l ex i ty that i nterventi on woul d entai l , and the l i k el i hood that al l owi ng F F A to
i ntervene woul d b ri ng forth other p rop osed i ntervenors who woul d assert onl y
general i z ed p ol i ti cal i nterests and whose p arti ci p ati on p rob ab l y woul d generate
more heat than l i ght. F F A's vi ews as ami cus wi l l b e wel come, b ut F F A's
i nterventi on woul d b ri ng l i ttl e ad d i ti onal val ue.
I I I
F or these reasons,
I T I S ORDERED:
1. F F A's moti ons to i ntervene, ECF No. 22 i n Case No. 4:14cv107 and
ECF No. 13 i n Case No. 4:14cv138, are DENI ED.
2. F F A may fi l e a memorand um as ami cus curi ae on any moti on. The
d ead l i ne for F F A to d o so i s the corresp ond i ng d ead l i ne for the memorand um of
the p arty whose p osi ti on F F A sup p orts. But when F F A sup p orts the movi ng p arty,
the d ead l i ne for F F A's ami cus memorand um i n sup p ort of the moti on i s the earl i er
Consol i d ated Case No. 4:14cv107-RH/CAS
Case 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 40 F i l ed 04/24/14 Page 5 of 5
Page 5 of 5
of (a) th e d ead l i ne for fi l i ng th e moti on, i f th er e i s a d ead l i ne, or (b) seven d ays
after th e fi l i ng of th e moti on, w i th out ath r ee-d ay ex tensi on based on el ectr oni c
ser vi ce of th e moti on.
3 . Th e page l i mi t for an ami cus memor and um i s 25 pages.
4. Each ami cus memor and um must i ncl ud e th e i nfor mati on l i sted i n
F ed er al Rul e of Appel l ate Pr oced ur e 29 (c)(5).
Th e cl er k must ad d F F A to th e d ock et as an ami cus so th at i ts
attor neys r ecei ve el ectr oni c noti ces of fi l i ngs.
SO ORDERED on Apr i 124, 2014.
s/Rober t L. Hi nk l e
Uni ted States Di str i ct Jud ge
Consol i d ated Case No. 4:14cv 107-RH/CAS