| Bostic v. Rainey | |
|---|---|
| 2:13-cv-395 | |
| Full name | Timothy Bostic, et al. v. Janet M. Rainey, et al. |
| Filed | 2013-07-?? |
| Plaintiffs | Timothy B. Bostic and Tony C. London; Carol Schall and Mary Townley |
| v. | |
| Defendants | Robert F. McDonnell, in his official capacity as Governor of Virginia (removed); Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Virginia (removed); Janet M. Rainey, in her official capacity as State Registrar of Vital Records; George E. Schaefer, III, in his official capacity as Clerk of Court for Norfolk Circuit Court |
| Court | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division |
| Current status | Briefings and filings due September 24 and 30, and October 21, 24, and 31 |
Bostic v. Rainey (formerly Bostic v. McDonnell) is a 2013 federal court case seeking to overturn Virginia's marriage ban.
The case was filed on July 18, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division. It was initially assigned to Chief Judge Rebecca Beach Smith, then reassigned to Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen on July 24.
The initial complaint had only two plaintiffs, Timothy Bostic and Tony London, who want to be married in Virginia. The original defendants included the Governor and Attorney General of Virginia, plus the Norfolk County Clerk. The state defendants moved to have the claims against them dismissed, on sovereign immunity grounds, and the Commonwealth of Virginia sought to intervene so that their interests would be represented.
On September 3, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Two new plaintiffs were added: Carol Schall and Mary Townley, who were married in California and whose marriage is not recognized in Virginia. The Attorney General and Governor were removed as defendants, and the State Registrar of Vital Records was added in their place. The defendants have until September 24 to respond, and both sides have a deadline of September 30 to file motions for summary judgment. Replies to these motions are due by October 24, and each side can reply in defense of their own motion by October 31. If necessary, the court will schedule oral arguments.
This case was filed two weeks before Harris v. McDonnell, which is a class-action suit. The plaintiffs in this case requested to be excluded from the Harris class, because the Bostic case was filed first and is already proceeding along an expedited schedule.
Timeline[]
- 2013-07-18: #1: Complaint
- 2013-08-09: #7: Motion to dismiss state defendants
- 2013-08-09: #8: Memorandum in support
- 2013-09-06: #20: Motion to dismiss motion as moot by state defendants (multi-listed)
- 2013-09-19: #22: Order granting #20 (multi-listed)
- 2013-08-09: #9: Motion to intervene by Virginia
- 2013-08-09: #10: Memorandum in support
- 2013-09-06: #20: Motion to dismiss motion as moot by state defendants (multi-listed)
- 2013-09-19: #22: Order granting #20 (multi-listed)
- 2013-08-22: #14: Motion to suspend briefing by plaintiffs
- 2013-08-22: #15: Memorandum in support
- 2013-08-30: #17: Motion granted, setting the following deadlines:
- 2013-09-03: Plaintiffs to file amended complaint
- 2013-09-24: Defendants must respond or answer within 21 days of amended complaint being filed
- 2013-09-30: Cross-motions for summary judgment are due
- 2013-10-24: Responses to motions for summary judgment are due
- 2013-10-31: Replies to responses are due
- Oral argument will be scheduled if necessary
- 2013-09-03: #18: First amended complaint
- 2013-09-05: #19: Notice of voluntary dismissal of Defendants McDonnell and Cuccinelli
- 2013-09-16: #21: Answer by Defendant Registrar Rainey
- 2013-09-20: #23: Answer by Defendant Clerk Schaefer