U S D C: Nited Tates Istrict Ourt

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

Eastern District of Louisiana

Jonathan P. Robicheaux, Derek Penton, Nadine Blanchard and Courtney Blanchard
Plaintiffs/Petitioners
v. Civil Action No. _______________

Devin George in his official capacity as the State Registrar and Center Director at
Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Tim Barfield in his official
capacity as the Louisiana Secretary of Revenue, and Kathy Kliebert in her official
capacity as the Louisiana Secretary of Health and Hospitals
Defendants/Respondents

COMPLAINT FOR DELARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, come
JONATHAN P. ROBICHEAUX, a person of full age and majority who is a resident of
Orleans Parish, residing in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisianas
district,
DEREK PENTON, a person of full age and majority who is a resident of Orleans Parish,
residing in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisianas district,
COURTNEY BLANCHARD, a person of full age and majority who is a resident of
Lafourche Parish, residing in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisianas
district, and
NADINE BLANCHARD, a person of full age and majority who is a resident of
Lafourche Parish, residing in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisianas
district,
and respectfully represent:
Case 2:14-cv-00097-MLCF-MBN Document 1 Filed 01/14/14 Page 1 of 18

COMPLAINT FOR DELARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIE - Robicheaux et al v. George et al
Page 2
THE PARTIES

1.
Made defendants herein are:
Devin George in his official capacity as State Registrar and Center Director at Louisiana
Department of Health and Hospitals;
Tim Barfield in his official capacity as Secretary, Louisiana Department of Revenue; and
Kathy Kliebert in her official capacity as Secretary, Louisiana Department of Health and
Hospitals.
2.
The Plaintiff, Jon Robicheaux, is a man residing in Louisiana who was legally married to
his Husband, Plaintiff, Derek Robicheaux in Clayton County, Iowa on September 23, 2012 after
having been in a committed relationship together since 2005 commingling funds, living together
and holding themselves out as monogamous partners that are living together as one union.
3.
The Plaintiff, Courtney Blanchard, is a woman residing in Louisiana who was legally
married to her Wife, Plaintiff, Nadine Blanchard in Clinton County, Iowa on August 30, 2013
after having been in a committed relationship with a child, C.B., commingling funds, living
together and holding themselves out as monogamous partners that are living together as one
union.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4.

Page 3
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343
because the suit raises federal questions under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the United States Constitution,
including without limitation the Fourteenth Amendment.
5.

Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) because the Defendants perform their official duties in this district,
as well as throughout the State of Louisiana, and this is the judicial district in which a substantial
part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property
that is the subject of the action is situated.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
6.
The State of Louisiana prevents any official or court of the State of Louisiana from
recognizing a valid marriage from another State or Country that is between a same-sex couple,
thus depriving a legally married same-sex couple from securing any benefits of marriage within
the State of Louisiana and stripping them of any rights to which a same-sex couple was vested
prior to residing in the State of Louisiana.
The State Laws at Issue
7.
On September 18, 2004 by popular vote, an amendment was made to the Louisiana
Constitution that reads as follows:
Article XII, Section 15. Marriage in the state of Louisiana shall consist only of the
union of one man and one woman. No official or court of the state of Louisiana
shall construe this constitution or any state law to require that marriage or the
legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any member of a union other than the

Page 4
union of one man and one woman. A legal status identical or substantially similar
to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized. No
official or court of the state of Louisiana shall recognize any marriage contracted
in any other jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman.

8.

Article 3520 of the Louisiana Civil Code reads as follows:
Art. 3520. Marriage

A. A marriage that is valid in the state where contracted, or in the state where the
parties were first domiciled as husband and wife, shall be treated as a valid
marriage unless to do so would violate a strong public policy of the state whose
law is applicable to the particular issue under Article 3519.

B. A purported marriage between persons of the same sex violates a strong public
policy of the state of Louisiana and such a marriage contracted in another state
shall not be recognized in this state for any purpose, including the assertion of any
right or claim as a result of the purported marriage.

Acts 1991, No. 923, 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1992; Acts 1999, No. 890, 1.

Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Couples Are
Similarly Situated for Purposes of Marriage Benefits

9.
The United State Supreme Court has called marriage the most important relation in life,
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374,384 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted), and an
expression of emotional support and public commitment. Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 95
(1987). It is "a far-reaching legal acknowledgement of the intimate relationship between two
people...." United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307, Slip Op., at 20 (U.S. June 26, 2013). This is as
true for same-sex couples as it is for opposite-sex couples.


Page 5
10.

Same-sex couples such as Plaintiffs are identical to opposite-sex couples in all of the
characteristics relevant to marriage.

11.
Same-sex couples make the same commitment to one another as opposite-sex couples.
Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples build their lives together, plan their futures together
and hope to grow old together. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples support one another
emotionally and financially and take care of one another physically when faced with injury or
illness.
12.
Same-sex couples who marry are just as willing and able as opposite-sex couples to
assume the obligations of marriage.
13.
The Plaintiffs and other same-sex couples in Louisiana, if their marriages in other states
in which marriage is legal were recognized, would benefit no less than opposite-sex couples
from the many legal protections and the social recognition afforded to married couples.
14.
There was a time when an individual's sex was relevant to his or her legal rights and
duties within the marital relationship. For example, husbands had a duty to support their wives
but not vice versa and husbands had legal ownership of all property belonging to their wives.
But these legal distinctions have all been removed such that the legal rights and duties of
husbands and wives are now identical.

Page 6
15.
The exclusion from marriage undermines the Plaintiffs abilities to achieve the life goals
and dreams with their spouses; threatens their mutual economic stability; and denies them "a
dignity and status of immense import." United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307, Slip Op., at 18
(U.S. June 26, 2013).
The Exclusion of Same-Sex Couples from the Recognition of Marriage
and the Benefits of Marriage Causes Substantial Harm to Couples and Their Families

16.
By refusing to recognize same-sex marriage marriages from others states, the States laws
deprive same-sex couples married in other states of numerous legal protections that are available
to opposite-sex couples in Louisiana by virtue of their marriages. By way of example only: The
State provides that a living spouse is entitled to benefits upon the death of his or her spouse
should the decedent die intestate. Louisiana Civil Code Art. 890. There is no protection for the
widow or widower for same-sex spouses married in another State in which they were legally and
properly married.
17.
Same-sex married couples are excluded from this and many other legal protections
provided for married couples under Louisiana law.
18.
The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage also denies them eligibility for
numerous federal protections afforded to married couples including in the areas of immigration
and citizenship, taxes, and social security. Some of the federal protections for married couples
are only available to couples if their marriages are legally recognized in the state in which they

Page 7
live. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 416(h)(1)(A)(i) (marriage for eligibility for social security benefits
based on law of state where couple resides at time of application); 29 C.F.R. 825.122(b) (same
for Family Medical Leave Act). Thus, even Plaintiffs, who are already married, cannot access
such federal protections as long as Louisiana refuses to recognize their existing marriage.
19.
The exclusion from marriage also harms same-sex couples and their families in less
tangible ways.
20.
Although the Plaintiffs are in long-term committed relationships, they and other same-sex
couples are denied the stabilizing effects of marriage, which helps keep couples together during
times of crisis or conflict.
21.
Excluding same-sex married couples from recognizing their marriages also harms
couples and their children by denying them the social recognition that comes with marriage.
Marriage has profound social significance both for the couple that gets married and the family,
friends and community that surround them. The terms "married" and "spouse" have universally
understood meanings that command respect for a couple's relationship and the commitment they
have made.
22.
The exclusion from the esteemed institution of marriage also demeans and stigmatizes
lesbian and gay couples and their children by sending the message that they are less worthy and
valued than families headed by opposite-sex couples.

Page 8

23.
The impact of the exclusion from marriage on same-sex couples and their families is
extensive and real. The denial of the right to marry causes these couples and their families to
suffer significant emotional, physical, and economic hardships.
24.
The plaintiffs recognize that marriage entails both benefits to and obligations on the
partners and welcomes both.
Excluding Same-Sex Couples from the Recognition and Benefits of Marriage Is Not
Rationally Related to a Legitimate Government Interest -
Let Alone Able to Withstand Heightened Scrutiny

25.
As the evidence will show, the prohibition against recognition of marriage for same-sex
couples in Louisiana is not closely tailored to serve an important government interest or
substantially related to an exceedingly persuasive justification. In fact, as the evidence also will
show, the prohibition fails any level of constitutional scrutiny. It is not even rationally related to
any legitimate justifications that were offered in support of it when the Constitution was
amended in 2004 or to any legitimate interest of the State that Defendants might now offer as a
basis for denying same-sex married couples recognition in Louisiana.
26.
The Supreme Court has made clear that the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give effect
to private biases and has expressly rejected moral disapproval of marriage for same-sex couples
as a legitimate basis for discriminatory treatment of lesbian and gay couples. Windsor, Slip Op.,

Page 9
at 21 (an "interest in protecting traditional moral teachings reflected in heterosexual-only
marriage laws" was not a legitimate justification for federal Defense of Marriage Act).
The State of Louisiana Is Not Entitled to Ignore the Constitution of the United States
by Amending its Constitution and Enacting Laws to Enshrine
Its Prejudices That Have No Legitimate State Interest

27.

As stated by Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316:
This Government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The
principle that it can exercise only the powers granted to it would seem too
apparent to have required to be enforced by all those arguments which its
enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary
to urge; that principle is now universally admitted. But the question respecting the
extent of the powers actually granted is perpetually arising, and will probably
continue to arise so long as our system shall exist. In discussing these questions,
the conflicting powers of the General and State Governments must be brought
into view, and the supremacy of their respective laws, when they are in
opposition, must be settled.

If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might
expect it would be this -- that the Government of the Union, though limited in its
powers, is supreme within its sphere of action. This would seem to result
necessarily from its nature. It is the Government of all; its powers are delegated
by all; it represents all, and acts for all. Though any one State may be willing to
control its operations, no State is willing to allow others to control them. The
nation, on those subjects on which it can act, must necessarily bind its component
parts. But this question is not left to mere reason; the people have, in express
terms, decided it by saying, [p406] "this Constitution, and the laws of the United
States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof," "shall be the supreme law of
the land," and by requiring that the members of the State legislatures and the
officers of the executive and judicial departments of the States shall take the oath
of fidelity to it. The Government of the United States, then, though limited in its
powers, is supreme, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution,
form the supreme law of the land, "anything in the Constitution or laws of any
State to the contrary notwithstanding."


Page 10
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I:
Deprivation of the Fundamental Right to Marry in
Violation of the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
(42 U.S.C. 1983)

28.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as
though fully set forth herein.
29.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution precludes any State from
"depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const.
amend. XIV, 1. Governmental interference with a fundamental right may be sustained only
upon a showing that the legislation is closely tailored to serve an important governmental
interest.
30.
The Supreme Court has long recognized that marriage is a fundamental right and that
choices about marriage, like choices about other aspects of family, are a central part of the liberty
protected by the Due Process Clause.
31.
Louisiana law denies the Plaintiffs and other individuals in same-sex marriages this
fundamental right by denying them access to the state-recognized institution of marriage and
refusing to recognize the marriages they entered into in other states and countries.


Page 11
32.
The State can demonstrate no important interest to justify denying the Plaintiffs this
fundamental right. Indeed, it cannot demonstrate that the denial is tailored to any legitimate
interest at all.
33.
The State's refusal to recognize marriages entered into by same-sex couples in other
jurisdictions and prohibition for the courts and officials of the State from doing so violates the
Due Process Clause.
34.
The Defendants, acting under color of state law, are depriving Plaintiffs of rights secured
by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in
violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983.
COUNT II:
Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation in
Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
(42 U.S.C. 1983)

35.
36.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution provides that "no State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, 1.

Page 12
37.
By denying the Plaintiffs and other lesbian and gay couples the ability have their out-of-
state marriages recognized, the State, through Defendants, disadvantages lesbian and gay people
on the basis of their sexual orientation. It denies them significant legal protections. And it
"degrade[s] [and] demean[s]" them by "instruct[ing] ...all persons with whom same-sex couples
interact, including their own children," that their relationship is "less worthy" than the
relationships of others. Windsor, Slip Op., at 25.
38.

Same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are similarly situated for purposes of
marriage.
39.
The evidence will show that classifications based on sexual orientation demand
heightened scrutiny.
40.
Lesbians and gay men are members of a discrete and insular minority that has suffered a
history of discrimination in the State and across the United States.
41.
Sexual orientation bears no relation to an individual's ability to perform or contribute to
society.
42.
Sexual orientation is a core, defining trait that is so fundamental to one's identity that a
person may not legitimately be required to abandon it (even if that were possible) as a condition

Page 13
of equal treatment. Sexual orientation generally is fixed at an early age and highly resistant to
change through intervention. Efforts to change a person's sexual orientation through
interventions by medical professionals have not been shown to be effective. No mainstream
mental health professional organization approves interventions that attempt to change sexual
orientation, and many including the American Psychological Association and the American
Psychiatric Association have adopted policy statements cautioning professionals and the
public about these treatments.
43.
Prejudice against lesbians and gay men continues to seriously curtail the operation of the
political process preventing this group from obtaining redress through legislative means.
Lesbians and gay men lack statutory protection against discrimination in employment, public
accommodations, and housing at the federal level and in more than half of the states, including
Louisiana. Lesbians and gay men have far fewer civil rights protections at the state and federal
level than women and racial minorities had when sex and race classifications-were declared to be
suspect or quasi suspect.
44.
For all these reasons, classification based on sexual orientation should be reviewed under
heightened scrutiny, but this one cannot survive under any level of constitutional scrutiny The
State's exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is not rationally related to any legitimate
governmental interest. All it does it disparage and injure lesbian and gay couples and their
children.


Page 14
45.
The State's prohibition of marriage for same-sex couples and its refusal to recognize the
marriages of same-sex couples entered into elsewhere violates the Equal Protection Clause.
46.
Defendants, acting under color of state law, are depriving Plaintiffs of rights secured by
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
COUNT III:
Discrimination on the Basis of Sex in
Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
(42 U.S.C. 1983)

47.
48.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution provides that "no State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, 1.
49.
State law defines marriage as ". . . the union of one man and one woman and No
official or court of the state of Louisiana shall recognize any marriage contracted in any other
jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman. Article XII, Section 15 of the
Louisiana Constitution.


Page 15
50.
By defining marriage in this way, the State discriminates on the basis of sex. The only
reason that the legal marriage is prohibited is the sex of the partners.
51.
The marriages of Plaintiffs, for example, are denied recognition solely because they are
both men and both women, respectively.
52.
The Supreme Court has made clear that perpetuation of traditional gender roles is not a
legitimate government interest.
53.
Given that there are no longer legal distinctions between the duties of husbands and
wives, there is no basis for the sex-based eligibility requirements for the recognition of a legal
marriage performed in another state.
54.
The Defendants can demonstrate no exceedingly persuasive justification for this
discrimination based on sex.
55.
State law prohibiting marriage and recognition of marriage for same-sex couples thus
violates the Equal Protection Clause.


Page 16
56.
Defendants, acting under color of state law, are depriving Plaintiffs of rights secured by
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in
violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT IV:
Deprivation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause
of the United States Constitution

57.
58.
Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and
judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws
prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be
proved, and the Effect thereof.

59.
28 USC 1738 reads:
The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United
States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State,
Territory or Possession thereto.

The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or
Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within
the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk
and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge
of the court that the said attestation is in proper form.

Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated,
shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States

Page 17
and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of
such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.

60.
State law defines marriage as ". . . the union of one man and one woman and No
official or court of the state of Louisiana shall recognize any marriage contracted in any other
jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman. Article XII, Section 15 of the
Louisiana Constitution.
61.
By prohibiting the courts and officials of the State of Louisiana from recognizing
marriage contracted in another state, the State is violating the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the
United States Constitution.
62.
Plaintiffs herein have been denied requests to file as married couples filing jointly
pursuant to Louisiana Department of Revenue policy as stated in Internal Revenue Service
Revenue Ruling 2013-17, as shown in Revenue Information Bulletin No. 13- 024, dated
September 13, 2013 for Individual Income Tax, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
63.
Plaintiffs Nadine Blanchard and Courtney Blanchard have been denied requests to file for
joint adoptions of their son, CB, although Courtney Blanchard is the biological mother and
Nadine Blanchard is the birth mother, because they are a same sex married couple by the
Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:

Page 18
1. Enter a declaratory judgment that Article XII, Section 18 of the Louisiana Constitution
and Louisiana Civil Code Article 3520 B (1) violate the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
and Louisiana Civil Code Article 3520 B (1) violate the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
and Louisiana Civil Code Article 3520 B (1) violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause of
the United States Constitution.
4. Enter a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from denying the Plaintiffs and all
other same-sex couples the benefits of marriage and to recognize marriages validly
entered into by the Plaintiff and his Husband and other same-sex couples outside of the
State of Louisiana;
5. Award costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988; and
6. Enter all further relief to which Plaintiffs may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted:

SCOTT J. SPIVEY (#25257)
815 Dauphine St, Ste D
New Orleans, LA 70116
(504) 684-4904 (office phone)
(888) 502-3935 (office fax)
Scott@SpiveyESQ.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs, Jon Robicheaux,
Derek Penton, Courtney Blanchard and
Nadine Blanchard

Case 2:14-cv-00097-MLCF-MBN Document 1-1 Filed 01/14/14 Page 1 of 1

14-97 B (1)
Scott Spivey
815 Dauphine St., Suite D
Jan 17 2014
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date) .
u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
on (date) ; or
u I left the summons at the individuals residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individuals last known address; or
u I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or
u I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
u Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Servers signature
Printed name and title
Servers address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
0.00

14-97 B (1)
Scott Spivey
Jan 17 2014
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
on (date) ; or
on (date) ; or
u Other (specify):
.
Date:
Servers signature
Servers address
0.00

14-97 B (1)
Scott Spivey
Jan 17 2014
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
on (date) ; or
on (date) ; or
u Other (specify):
.
Date:
Servers signature
Servers address
0.00

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT
EASTERN DI STRI CT OF LOUI SI ANA
J ONATHAN P. ROBI CHEAUX, ET AL. * CI VI L ACTI ON
VERSUS * NO. 14- 0097
DEVI N GEORGE * SECTI ON F ( 5)
I t havi ng come t o t he Cour t s at t ent i on t hat Ci vi l Act i on No.
13- 5090, Sect i on F( 5) i s r el at ed t o t he above case,
I T I S ORDERED t hat t he above mat t er s ar e consol i dat ed.
Pur suant t o t he Cour t s di r ect i ve, al l pl eadi ngs her eaf t er
f i l ed i n t hi s consol i dat ed pr oceedi ng shal l bear t he capt i on of t he
l ead consol i dat ed case t oget her wi t h t he docket number of al l cases
wi t hi n t he consol i dat i on t o whi ch t he document appl i es or t he
not at i on " ALL CASES" i f i t appl i es t o al l cases.
The cl er k of cour t i s di r ect ed t o est abl i sh a mast er f i l e and
a mast er docket sheet f or t he consol i dat ed gr oup of cases.
Al l ent r i es shal l be made on t he mast er docket sheet onl y,
wi t h a not at i on l i st i ng t he cases t o whi ch t he document appl i es,
except t hat or der s and document s t er mi nat i ng a par t y or di sposi ng
of a case wi l l al so be ent er ed on t he i ndi vi dual docket sheet . Al l
document s shal l be f i l ed i n t he mast er f i l e onl y, except t hat
or der s and document s t er mi nat i ng a par t y or di sposi ng of a case
wi l l al so be f i l ed i n t he r ecor d of t he i ndi vi dual case.
I n t he event t hat a case i s separ at ed f r omt he consol i dat ed
gr oup i t shal l be t he r esponsi bi l i t y of counsel t o j oi nt l y
desi gnat e t he document s necessar y t o t he cont i nued l i t i gat i on of
t he case t o f i l e such desi gnat i on and copi es of t he document s.
2
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NOTICE
All Civil, Criminal and Miscellaneous cases allotted to Magistrate J udge
Division "5" are reassigned to Magistrate J udge Michael B. North.
WILLIAM W. BLEVINS
CLERK OF COURT
March 1, 2014
J ONATHAN P. ROBICHEAUX ET AL. CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 14-0097 c/w 13-5090
14-0327
DEVIN GEORGE ET AL. SECTION F(5)
J U D G M E N T
For the written reasons of the Court on file herein, accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED, ADJ UDGED AND DECREED that the plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment is DENIED and defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this day of September, 2014.

MARTIN L.C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE

3rd

JONATHAN P. ROBICHEAUX, et al.,

Plaintiffs

v.

JAMES D. BUDDY CALDWELL, et al.,

Defendants

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 14-CV-0097 c/w 13-CV-5090
14-CV-0327
SECTION F(5)

JUDGE MARTIN L.C. FELDMAN
MAGISTRATE MICHAEL NORTH

NOTICE OF APPEAL
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3 and 4(a) and 28 U.S.C. 1291, notice
is hereby given that plaintiffs Jonathan P. Robicheaux, Derek Penton, Nadine Blanchard, and
Courtney Blanchard appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from this
Court's Judgments entered on September 3, 2014 (Master Case No. 13-5090 - Rec. Doc. 132,
Consolidated Case No. 14-0097 - Rec. Doc. 7), and any and all other rulings, orders, or actions
of this Court entered or taken in connection with the aforementioned Judgments.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Richard G. Perque
Richard G. Perque (La. Bar No. 30669)
Law Office of Richard G. Perque, LLC
700 Camp Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
richard@perquelaw.com
Telephone: (504) 681-2003
Facsimile: (504) 681-2004
Attorney for Jonathan P. Robicheaux, Derek
Penton, Nadine Blanchard, and Courtney
Blanchard
(Case No. 14-0097)


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 5, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send notice of filing to all counsel of
record.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Richard G. Perque
Richard G. Perque (La. Bar No. 30669)
Law Office of Richard G. Perque, LLC
700 Camp Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
richard@perquelaw.com
Telephone: (504) 681-2003
Facsimile: (504) 681-2004
Attorney for Jonathan P. Robicheaux, Derek
Penton, Nadine Blanchard, and Courtney
Blanchard
(Case No. 14-0097)

for the

Eastern District of Louisiana
Jonathan P. Robicheaux
Plaintiff/Petitioner
v.

Devin George in his official capacity as the State Registrar and Center Director at Louisiana
Department of Health and Hospitals, Tim Barfield in his official capacity as the Louisiana
Secretary of Revenue, and Kathy Kliebert in her official capacity as the Louisiana Secretary of
Health and Hospitals
Defendants/Respondents Defendant/Respondent

Civil Action No. 14-cv-00097 Section: F(5)
c/w 13-5090
14-0327

District Judge: Martin Leach-Cross Feldman

Magistrate Judge: Michael North

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3 and 4(a) and 28 U.S.C. 1291, notice
is hereby given that plaintiffs Garth Beauregard and Robert Welles appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from this Court's Judgments entered on September 3, 2014
(Rec. Doc. 7), and any and all other rulings, orders, or actions of this Court entered or taken in
connection with the aforementioned Judgments.

__________________________
Scott J. Spivey (LSBA #25257)
LANDRY & SPIVEY
320 N. Carrollton Ave, Suite 101
(504) 297-1236 phone
(888) 503-3935 e-fax
scott@spiveyesq.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs, Garth Beauregard and Robert Welles


Robicheaux v. George
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Page 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 5, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send notice of filing to all counsel of
record.


__________________________
Scott J. Spivey
LANDRY & SPIVEY
320 N. Carrollton Ave, Suite 101
(504) 297-1236 phone
(888) 503-3935 e-fax
scott@spiveyesq.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs, Garth Beauregard and Robert Welles


U S D C: Nited Tates Istrict Ourt

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

U S D C: Nited Tates Istrict Ourt

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Você também pode gostar