451 md 2013 pennsylvania's preliminary objections

7/27/2019 451 MD 2013 Pennsylvania's Preliminary Objections

1/19

INTHECOMMONWEALTHCOURTOFPENNSYLVANIA

MCOLAM.CUCINOTTA,and TAMARA. CUC1NOTTA,f o r m e r l y TAMARA . DAVIS,

P e t i t i o n e r s

v .

COMMONWEALTHOFPENNSYLVANIA,Respondent

4

411.1.

No.451 M.D. 013

r 4 - 1Mrnmo f >>C7


2/19

BACKGROUND1 . On eptember6,2013,e t i t i o n e r s N i c o l a V I . C u c i n o t t a and Tamara .

C u c i n o t t a f i l e d w i t h t h i s Honorable Co urt aP e t i t i o n f o r Review( " P e t i t i o e ) . A

t r u e andc o r r e c t copyofh e P e t i t i o n i s a t t a c h e d h e r e t o asE x h i b i t A.2 . P e t i t i o n e r s p u r p o r t t o make o n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a l l e n g e s t o two p r o v i s i o n s

ofh e Marriage Law 23 a . C . S . 1102and1704 c l a i m i n g t h a t t h o s e s e c t i o n sv i o l a t e A r t i c l e I , S e c t i o n s 1 , 3,26 and 28,ofh e C o n s t i t u t i o n of e n n s y l v a n i a .

3 . These p r e l i m i n a r y o b j e c t i o n s a r e t i r n e l y f i l e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t ha p p l i c a b l e P e n n s y l v a n i a r u l e s of o u r t .

FIRSTPRELIMINARYOBJECTIONSOVEREIGNIMMUNITY

4 . The Corn monwealt h i s immu n e from s u i t under p r i n c i p l e s ofs o v e r e i g n immunity.

5 . P e t i t i o n e r s havename d t h e Commo nwe alth as t h e s o l e r e s p o n d e n t i ns e e k i n g a e c l a r a t i o n t h a t 23 a . C . S . 1102and1704 a r e u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .

6. P e t i t i o n e r s havename d i n t h e i r P e t i t i o n no Comrnonwealth o f f i c i a l o r

agencya l l e g e d l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r e n f o r c i n g t h e MarriageLaw r o v i s i o n s t h a t t h e y

c h a l l e n g e and seek t o ha ve d e c l a r e d u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .

7 . A r t i c l e I , S e c t i o n 11,of h e P e n n s y l v a n i a C o n s t i t u t i o n p e r m i t s s u i t s

a g a i n s t t h e Commo nwe altho n l y t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e L e g i s l a t u r e has s p e c i f i c a l l ywaived t s immunity.

2


3/19

8 . The General Assembly ha s n o t waived t h e Commonwea lth'ss o v e r e i g n immunity o p e r m i t an c t i o n f o r d e c l a r a t o r y judgment e e k i n g t o ha vea

s t a t u t e d e c l a r e d u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .

9. There i s a c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n between s u i t s a g a i n s t t h e Commonwea lth

(whi ch a r e w i t h i n t h e r u l e ofmmunity),and u i t s brou ght a g a i n s t r e s p o n s i b l e s t a t e

o f f i c i a l s t o d e c l a r e a t a t u t e t o be n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o r t o r e s t r a i n s t a t e o f f i c i a l s from

e n f o r c i n g p r o v i s i o n s ofas t a t u t e claimed t o beu n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l (which a r e n o t

w i t h i n t h e mle of immu nit y). W i l k i n s b u r g P o l i c e O f f i c e r s A s s o c . v .Commonwealth,564A.2d1015, 1018 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1 989),a f f ' d , 636A.2d134(Pa. 9 9 3 ) .

1 0 . Because h e Commonwea lth governmentand t s v a r i o u s a g e n c i e s and

o f f i c e r s a r e r e g a r d e d ass e p a r a t e e n t i t i e s , " t h e Commonw ea lthofPennsylvaniani t s e l f , which s c l e a r l y nota Commonw ea lthagency, . . e n j o y s a b s o l u t e immunity

p u r s u a n t t o 1 P a . C . S . 310." Finnv . R e n d e l l , 9 9 0 A.2d100,105 (Pa. Cmwith.20 1 0 ) s i n g l e judge o p i n i o n ofe a d b e t t e r , P i. )q u o t i n g Bonsavage v . BoroughofWarri or Run,76A.2d1330 , 331 (Pa. Cmwlth.1996))em phasis n o r i g i n a l ) ; seea l s o Stac khouse v . Commonwealth,892A.2d 54,59(Pa. Cmwith.),a l l o c a t u r

d e n i e d , 9 0 3 A.2d539 Pa.0 0 6 ) .

3


4/19

1 1 . Because t h e P e t i t i o n a s s e r t s no b a s i s f o r w a i v e r , h i s a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h eCommonwea lth of e n n s y l v a n i a i s b a r r e d as a m a t t e r of law by t h e d o c t r i n e ofs o v e r e i g n immunity.'

WHEREFORE, espondent Commonwealth of Pennsylvania r e s p e c t f u l l yr e q u e s t s t h a t t h i s Honorable Court s u s t a i n i t s p r e l i m i n a r y o b j e c t i o n based ons o v e r e i g n immunity and d i s m i s s t h e p e t i t i o n f o r review a g a i n s t t h e Commonwealthof ennsylvania w i t h p r e j u d i c e .

SECONDPRELIMINARYOBJECTION GENERALDEMURRER1 2 . P e t i t i o n e r s seek a judgment d e c l a r i n g u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s of

t h e Marriage Law h a t l i m i t m a r r i a g e between one ma n and one woman.1 3 . P e t i t i o n e r s have s e t f o r t h o n l y t h a t t h e y a r e " a d u l t women of f u l l

c a p a c i t y " who have chosen t o be m a r r i e d t o one a n o t h e r . " P e t i t i o n a t . Theyf a i l t o p l e a d f a c t s d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t they meet a l l r e q u i r e m e n t s of h e MarriageLaw. See 23 a . C . S . 1102, 3 0 1 - 0 4 .

WHEREFORE, espondent Coinmonwealth of Pennsylvania r e s p e c t f u l l yr e q u e s t s t h a t t h i s Honorable Court s u s t a i n i t s p r e l i m i n a i y o b j e c t i o n s i n t h e n a t u r eofa e n e r a l demurrer and d i s m i s s t h e p e t i t i o n f o r review f o r l e g a l i n s u f f i c i e n c y .

I Under h e P e n n s y l v a n i a R u l e s of i v i l P r o c e d u r e , immunity r o r n s u i t i s an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s ep r o p e r l y r a i s e d as a ne w m a t t e r i n a r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g . Smolsky v . P e n n s y l v a n i a GeneralA s s e m b l y , 34 A.2d 316, 31 7 n . 7 ( P a . CmwIth. 2 0 1 1 ) . The c o u r t s have p e r m i t t e d l i m i t e de x c e p t i o n t o t h i s r u l e and have a l l o w e d p a r t i e s t o r a i s e t h e a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e of r n r n u n i t y as ap r e l i m i n a r y o b j e c t i o n . Sweeney v . Merrymead Farm, n c . , 799 A.2d 972 P a . Cmwlth. 2 0 0 2 ) .The r n r n u n i t y d e f e n s e must be l e a r l y a p p l i c a b l e on h e f a c e of h e c o m p l a i n t . I d .

4


5/19

THIRDPRELIMINARYOBJECTION DEMURRERA r t i c l e 1 , S e c t i o n 3

1 4 . P e t i t i o n e r s c l a i m t h a t t h e Marriage Law r o v i s i o n s v i o l a t e A r t i c l e 1 ,

3 , of h e P e n n s y l v a n i a C o n s t i t u t i o n by i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h t h e i r r i g h t s of o n s c i e n c e . "1 5 . P e t i t i o n e r s do n o t p l e a d any f a c t s i d e n t i f y i n g how t h e Marriage Law

p r o v i s i o n s impose a burden on h e i r r e l i g i o u s l i b e r t y by n t e r f e r i n g w i t h t h ei r r i g h t sof c o n s c i e n c e ; t h e y make only a s i n g l e , l e g a l l y c o n c l u s i v e s t a t e m e n t t h a tP e n n s y l v a n i a ' s l i r n i t a t i o n on m a r r i a g e " i n t e r f e r e s w i t h t h e i r r i g h t s of o n s c i e n c e . "P e t i t i o n 2 .

1 6 . P e n n s y l v a n i a c o u r t s have u s u a l l y i n t e r p r e t e d A r t i c l e 1 , 3, i n e a s e sa l l e g i n g t h a t t h e r e l i g i o u s l i b e r t i e s of a p e r s o n have been Mfringed upon. SeeGibbons v . Kugle, 90 8 A.2d 91 6 (Pa. S u p e r . 2006); K n a p p v . Knapp, 758 A.2d1205 Pa. u p e r . 2000); W i k o s k i v . W i k o s k i , 513 A.2d 986 P a. Super. 1 9 8 6 ) .

1 7 . P e t i t i o n e r s f a i l t o i d e n t i f y any a c t u a l o r i m r n i n e n t i n f r i n g e m e n t ont h e i r r e l i g i o u s r i g h t s under A r t i c l e 1 , , of h e Pennsylvania C o n s t i t u t i o n .

WHEREFORE, espondent Commonwealth of Pennsylvania r e s p e c t f u l l yr e q u e s t s t h a t t h i s Honorable Court s u s t a i n i t s p r e l i m i n a r y o b j e c t i o n s i n t h e n a t u r e

of a demurrer as t o Pa. C o n s t . a r t . 1 , , and a c c o r d i n g l y d i s m i s s t h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w f o r l e g a l i n s u f f i c i e n c y .

FOURTHPRELIMINARYOBJECTION DEMURRERA r t i c l e I , S e c t i o n 2 8

5


6/19

1 8 . P e t i t i o n e r s c l a i m t h a t t h e Marriage Law r o v i s i o n s v i o l a t e A r t i c l e I ,

- 28, fh e P e n n s y l v a n i a C o n s t i t u t i o n because t h e r e i s no impediment o P e t i t i o n e r s

b e i n g m a r r i e d t o onea n o t h e r o t h e r thant h e i r s e x , which impediment P e t i t i o n e r s

c o n t e n d d e n i e s theme q u a l i t y ofi g h t s under h e law basedo n h e i r g e n d e r .1 9 . P e t i t i o n e r s donot p l e a d f a c t s t h a t wouldd e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e o n l y

i r n p e d i m e n t t o t h e i r b e i n g m a r r i e d t o one a n o t h e r i s t h e i r s e x , nordoP e t i t i o n e r sp l e a d f a c t s t h a t wouldd e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e MarriageLawp r o v i s i o n s a c t u a l l y

i n f r i n g e on h e i r r i g h t t o e q u a l i t y based onh e i r s e x .20. A t a t u t e i s presumedt o bec o n s t i t u t i o n a l andw i l l not be adjudged

u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l " u n l e s s i t c l e a r l y , p a l p a b l y and p l a i n l y v i o l a t e s t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . "

P e n n s y l v a n i a n s A g a i n s t G a r n b l i n g ExpansionFu nd v . Commonwealth, 8 7 7 A.2d383, 393 (Pa.2005) "PAGE"). A l l doubts andi n f e r e n c e s a r e t o ber e s o l v e d i nf a v o r ofmding a t a t u t e t o be o n s t i t u t i o n a l . PAGE,7 7 A.2 d393.

21. Under A r t i c l e I , 28, of h e P e n n s y l v a n i a C o n s t i t u t i o n , e q u a l i t y of

r i g h t s undert h e law s h a l l n o t be d e n i e d or a b r i d g e d because ofan n d i v i d u a l ' s s e x .

This p r o v i s i o n of t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n i s i n t e n d e d t o e q u a l i z e t h e b e n e f i t s and t h e

burdens betwe en t h e s e x e s , sot h a t gender a l o n e i s not an e x c l u s i v e method of

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . DiFloridov . D i F l o r i d o , 459a.41, 31 A.2d 174 1975).2 2 . The MarriageLaw doesnot deny i n d i v i d u a l s e q u a l i t y undert h e law

ba sed ons e x . R a t h e r , t h e Marriage Lawr e a t s menand women q u a l l y , a l l o w i n g

6


7/19

b o t h ama nandawoma n o e n t e r i n t o t h e c o n t r a c t of a r r i a g e w i t h someoneof h eo p p o s i t e s e x .

2 3 . Men ndwomena l s o a r e t r e a t e d e q u a l l y undert h e laww i t h r e s p e c t t ot h e b e n e f i t s and b u r d e n s r e c e i v e d t h a t one r e c e i v e s a f t e r m a r r i a g e . There i s no

d i s t i n c t i o n under t h e lawr e s p e c t i n g t h e b e n e f i t s a c c o r d e d t o and burdensimposed

u ponam a r r i e d r n a n andam a r r i e d woman. T h eya r e t r e a t e d i d e n t i c a l l y .WHEREFORE,espondentCommonwe alt h of P e n n s y l v a n i a r e s p e c t f u l l y

r e q u e s t s t h a t t h i s Honorable Courts u s t a i n i t s p r e l i m i n a r y o b j e c t i o n s i n t h e n a t u r eofademurrera s t o Pa. C o n s t . r t . I , 28, and a c c o r d i n g l y d i s m i s s t h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w w i t h p r e j u d i c e f o r l e g a l i n s u f f i c i e n c y .

FIFTHPRELIMINARYOBJECTIONDEMURRERA r t i c l e I , e c t i o n 2 5

24. P e t i t i o n e r s c l a i m t h a t t h e M a r r i a g e Lawr o v i s i o n s v i o l a t e A r t i c l e I , 25, of t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a C o n s t i t u t i o n b e c a u s e t h e l i r n i t a t i o n on m a r r i a g e

t r a n s g r e s s e s P e t i t i o n e r s i n h e r e n t r i g h t t o p u r s u e t h e i r ownh a p p i n e s s .25. P e t i t i o n e r s p l e a d no f a c t s t o s u p p o r t a c l a i m t h a t t h e M a r r i a g e Law

t r a n s g r e s s e s any i n h e r e n t r i g h t r e s e r v e d t o t h e p e o p l e , l e t a l o n e P e t i t i o n e r s '

i n h e r e n t r i g h t t o p u r s u e t h e i r own a p p i n e s s .WHEREFORE,espondentCommonwealt h ofP e n n s y l v a n i a r e s p e c t f u l l y

r e q u e s t s t h a t t h i s Honorable Courts u s t a i n i t s p r e l i m i n a r y o b j e c t i o n s i n t h e n a t u r e

7


8/19

of ad e m u r r e r as o Pa. o n s t . r t . 1 , 5,and a c c o r d i n g l y d i s m i s s t h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w w i t h p r e j u d i c e f o r l e g a l i n s u f f i c i e n c y .

SIXTHPRELIMINARY OBJECTIONDEMURRERA r t i c l e I , S e c t i o n 2 6

26. P e t i t i o n e r s c l a i m t h a t t h e M a r r i a g e Law r o v i s i o n s v i o l a t e A r t i c l e 1 ,

26, oft h e P e n n s y l v a n i a C o n s t i t u t i o n b e c a u s e P e n n s y l v a n i a ' s l i m i t a t i o n onm a r r i a g e d e n i e s them t h e enjoyment of t h e c i v i l r i g h t s of m a r r i a g e andd i s c r i m i n a t e s a g a i n s t themi n t h e e x e r c i s e ofh e i r c i v i l r i g h t s .

2 7 . P e t i t i o n e r s p l e a d n o f a c t s d e m o n s t r a t i n g an y d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a g a i n s tthem i n t h e e x e r c i s e of h e i r c i v i l r i g h t s ; t h e y o f f e r o n l y al e g a l c o n c l u s i o n , s t a t e di n a i n g l e s e n t e n c e , t h a t t h e M a r r i a g e Lawr o v i s i o n s d i s c r i m i n a t e a g a i n s t themi nt h e e x e r c i s e ofh e i r c i v i l r i g h t s . See e t i t i o n a t 2 .

28. As t a t u t e i s presumed t o be c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and w i l l be foundu n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o n l y " i f t h e p a r t y c h a l l e n g i n g t h e lawcanprove t h a t i t c l e a r l y ,

p a l p a b l y andp l a i n l y v i o l a t e s t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . " Nixon v . Dep't of ub .W e l f a r e ,576A.2d 385, 398 Pa. 2003)emphasis a d d e d ) . Therei s av e r y heavyb u r d e n ofp e r s u a s i o n u pon onewho t t a c k s t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of h e s t a t u t e t o d e m o n s t r a t e

t h a t t h e s t a t u t e i n q u e s t i o n p l a i n l y v i o l a t e s t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . Common wealthv .Barud,8 1A.2d 1 6 2 , 165 Pa. 9 9 6 ) . A l l d o u b t s and n f e r e n c e s a r e t o b e e s o l v e d

i n f a v o r of i n d i n g as t a t u t e t o be c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . common wealthv . H e n d r i c k s o n ,724 A.2d 315,317Pa.1 9 9 9 ) .

8


9/19

29. A r t i c l e I , S e c t i o n 26,of t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a C o n s t i t u t i o n i s a n a l y z e d

"under t h e same s t a n d a r d s used . whe n r e v i e w i n g e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c l a i m s under

t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendmento t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . " Love . Borough ofS t r o u d s b u r g , 59 7 A.2d 1137, 1139 (Pa. 1 9 9 1 ) . Top r o p e r l y s t a t e an e q u a lp r o t e c t i o n c l a i m , " ap l a i n t i f f must a l l e g e t h a t he i s r e c e i v i n g d i f f e r e n t t r e a t m e n tfrom t h a t r e c e i v e d byo t h e r s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d i n d i v i d u a l s . " Mye rs v . Ridge, 71 2A.2d791,79 9 Pa. r n w l t h . 1 9 9 8 ) .

30. P e t i t i o n e r s f a i l t o s e t f o r t h any f a c t s t h a t meet t h e i r burden o rd e m o n s t r a t e they a r e r e c e i v i n g d i f f e r e n t t r e a t m e n t fromo t h e r s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d

i n d i v i d u a l s ; r a t h e r , P e t i t i o n e r s s e t f o r t h o n l y c o n c l u s i o n s of law i n ana t t e m p t t op r o v e t h a t t h e MarriageLawp r o v i s i o n s v i o l a t e t h e A r t i c l e I , S e c t i o n 26, oft h eP e n n s y l v a n i a C o n s t i t u t i o n .

WHEREFORE, espondentCommonwe alth ofP e n n s y l v a n i a r e s p e c t f u l l yr e q u e s t s t h a t t h i s Honorab leCourts u s t a i n i t s p r e l i m i n a r y o b j e c t i o n s i n t h e n a t u r e

ofademurrer as t o Pa. C o n s t . a r t . I , 6, anda c c o r d i n g l y d i s m i s s t h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w w i t h p r e j u d i c e f o r l e g a l i n s u f f i c i e n c y .

SEVENTHPRELIMINARYOBJECTIONDEMIJRRERA r t i c l e I , S e c t i o n I

31. P e t i t i o n e r s c l a i m t h a t t h e Marriage Law r o v i s i o n s v i o l a t e A r t i c l e I ,

1 , of h e P e n n s y l v a n i a C o n s t i t u t i o n b e c a u s e P e n n s y l v a n i a ' s l i m i t a t i o n on m a r r i a g e" d e n i e s them t h e i n h e r e n t r i g h t s of pursu ing t h e i r ownh a p p i n e s s . " P e t i t i o n e r s '

9


10/19

s i n g l e a v e r r n e n t i n r e g a r d t o ad e n i a l of h e i r A r t i c l e I , S e c t i o n 1 , r i g h t s i s b a s e ds o l e l y on a t a t e d c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e M a r r i a g e Lawe n i e s them t h e r i g h t t o p u r s u e

t h e i r own a p p i n e s s . P e t i t i o n a t 5 1 2 .3 2 . P e t i t i o n e r s don o t a l l e g e any f a c t s t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e M a r r i a g e

Law n anyway e n i e s themt h e i n h e r e n t r i g h t ofu r s u i n g t h e i r own a p p i n e s s .3 3 . P e t i t i o n e r s don o t s t a t e anyo t h e r r i g h t under A r t i c l e I , S e c t i o n 1 , t h a t

has beend e n i e d o r i n f r i n g e d . P e t i t i o n e r s do n o t s t a t e anyc l a s s i f i c a t i o n t h a t h a sbeenc r e a t e d o r s t a n d a r d of e v i e w t h a t has n o t been me t under A r t i c l e I , S e c t i o n 1 .

10


11/19

WHEREFORE, espondent Commonwealth o f P e n n s y l v a n i a r e s p e c t f u l l yr e q u e s t s t h a t t h i s Honorable C o u r t s u s t a i n i t s p r e l i m i n a r y o b j e c t i o n s i n t h e n a t u r eo f a d e m u r r e r an d d i s m i s s t h e p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w w i t h p r e j u d i c e f o r l e g a li n s u f f i c i e n c y .

Dated: October 7, 2013 By: W i l l i a m H .LambA t t o r n e y I . D . No .0492724 a s t Market t r e e tP.O.Bo x 565Wes t h e s t e r ,PA [email protected](610) 30-8000

11

R e s p e c t f u l l y s u b m i t t e d ,LAM M e lE R L PC

Coungel o r R e s p o n d e n tCommonwealth o f e n n s y l v a n i a


12/19

IN THECOMMONWEALTHCOURTOFENNSYLVANIANICOLAM.CUONOTTA,and TAMARA. CUC1NOTTA,f o r m e r l y TAMARA. DAVIS,

P e t i t i o n e r s

v .COMMONWEALTHOF ENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

No . 51M.D. 013

CERTIFICATEOF ERVICEI , WilliamH. a m b, e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t , o n h i s d a t e , I e r v e d t h e f o r e g o i n g

Respondent's P r e l i m i n a r y O b j e c t i o n s t o t h e P e t i t i o n f o r R e vi e w byc a u s i n g aco py o f h e s am e t o be d e p o s i t e d i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s m a i l , f i r s t - c l a s s , p o s t a g ep r e p a i d , t H a r r i s b u r g , e n n s y l v a n i a a d d r e s s e d t o t h e f o l l o w i n g :

C l e t u s P.Lym a n , s q u i r eM i c h a e l S . e t t e r , E s q u i r eM i c h a e l T. Sweeney, s q u i r eLYMAN&SH1612 a t i m e r S t r e e tP h i l a d e l p h i a ,PA9103T e l : 215)32-7040

Da t e d:Oc t o be r7, 013 W i l l i a m H.LambA t t o r n e y I . D . No . 049272 4 a s t Ma rket t r e e tP.O.Box 565W e s t h e s t e r ,PA19381(610)30-8000


13/19

IN THE COMMONWEALTHCOURTOFPENNSYLVANIANICOLAM.CUCINOTTA, andTAMARA J. CUCINOTTA,formerlyTAMARA J. DAVIS,

Plaintiffs,v.

COMMONWEALTHOFPENNSYLVANIA, :Defendant.

NOTICETODEFENDTO:COMMONWEALTH.OF PENNSYLVANIA

RECEIVEDE P 100 1 3

.Rej

-CootAo n L0, TJe y eneL i t i g a t i o n S e c t i o n

-

Youhave beensued incourt. If youwish todefend againstthe claims setforth in thefollowing pages,youmusttake actionwithin twenty (20) days after this complaintand notice areserved,byenteringa written appearance personally orbyattorneyand filing inwritingwith thecourtyourdefenses orobjections to the claimsset forthagainstyou. Youare warnedthatifyou failto do sothe case may proceedwithout you and ajudgmentmay beentered againstyoubythecourtwithoutfurthernoticefor any moneyclaimedin the complaintorforany otherclaimor reliefrequested bythe plaintiff. You may lose moneyor property or otherrightsimportant toyou.YOU SHOULDTAKETHIS PAPER TO YOURLAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOUDONOTHAVE A LAWYER,GO TOOR TELEPHONETHE OFFICE SET FORTHBELOW. THIS OFFICE CANPROVIDE YOU WITHINFORMATIONABOUT HIRINGALAWYER. IFYOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIREALAWYER, THISOFFICEMAYBEABLE TOPROVIDEYOU WITHINFORMATION ABOUTAGENCIESTHATMAYOFFERLEGALSERVICES TO ELIGIBLEPERSONSATAREDUCEDFEEOR NOFEE.

DAUPHINCOUNTYLAWYERREFERRALSERVICE213NorthFrontStreetHarrisburg,PA 17101(717) 232-7536

RE C E I V E DBYSE P1 72 0 1 3

o F F I c E OFGE NE R AL C OUNSE LR E FE R R E D


14/19

INTHECOMMONWEALTH COURT OFPENNSYLVANIANICOLAM. CUCINOTTA, andTAMARA J. CUCINOTTA,formerly TAMARAJ.DAVIS,

Plaintiffs,v.

COMMONWEALTH OFPENNSYLVANIA, :Defendant.COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYJUDGMENT

1. Nicola M. Cucinotta is anindividualwithanaddressat551 Foxwood Lane,Paoli, PA 19301.

2, Tamara J. Cucinotta, formerlyTamaraJ.Davis,isanindividualwithanaddressat 551 Foxwood Lane, Paoli, PA19301.

3. Commonwealth ofPennsylvania is properly addressed forthis actionat the office oftheAttorney General,15thFloor,Strawberry Square,Harrisburg, PA17120.

4. Plaintiffs bringthis actionfor judgmentpursuantto42Pa.C.S. 7531-7541, declaring theyhavetheright to bemarried toone another under ArticleI, g1, 3,25, 26,and 28of the Pennsylvania Constitution, notwithstanding any purportedtraditionalor statutorydefinitionof marriage limited toonemanand one woman.

5. This court has originaljurisdictionover thisactionpursuantto 42 Pa.C.S. 761(a),wherebytheCommonwealthCourtshallhaveoriginaljurisdictionofallcivilactionsagainsttheCommonwealth government.

6. Plaintiffs are adult women offull capacity"Plaintiffs have chosen to be married to oneanother.


15/19

7. There is no impediment to plaintiffs being marriedtoone another other than their sex,which raises a questionof thedefinition of marriageinPennsylvania caselaw,suchas De Santov. Barnsley,76A.2d 952(Pa.Super.1984),and inthePennsylvania MarriageLaw, 23 Pa.C.S.1101et seq.

8. DeSantoheld that a marriage was betweena man and awoman and that anychange would be properly legislative. DeSantoexpresslydeclined to consider the PennsylvaniaConstitution becausethe parties hadnot raised the PennsylvaniaConstitutionin the Courtof Common Pleas.

9. The MarriageLawwas amendedin1996toprovide that,amarriage is"a civil contractby whichone manand one womantakeeach other forhusband andwife." 23 Pa.C.S. 1102.

10. PennsylvaniaConstitution, ArticleI,25, nullifiesgovernmental acts that transgress ArticleI. asultra vires:

"25. Toguard againsttransgressions of thehighpowerswhich wehave delegated,we declare thateverything in thisarticle is excepted out ofthegeneralpowers of governmentand shallforeverremain inviolate."11. Purported denial of the rights, benefits,and mutual

obligationsof marriage violatesArticle I, 1,3, 26, and28,which say:

" 1. Allmenareborn equally free and independent,andhavecertain inherent and indefeasiblerights, among whichare those of enjoyinganddefending lifeandliberty, ofacquiring, possessing and protecting property andreputation, andof pursuingtheirown happiness."

-2-


16/19

"3. Allmenhave anatural andindefeasibleright toworship AlmightyGodaccordingtothe dictatesoftheirownconsciences; noman can ofrightbecompelled to attend,erect or support anyplace of worshiporto maintain anyministryagainsthisconsent;nohumanauthoritycan,inanycase whatever,controlorinterfere with therightsofconscience,andnopreferenceshallever be givenbylaw toanyreligious establishmentsormodes ofworship.""26. Neither the Commonwealthnor anypoliticalsubdivisionthereofshalldenytoany persontheenjoymentof anycivilright,nordiscriminateagainst anypersonintheexerciseof anycivilright."w28. Equalityof rightsunder the law shall not be deniedor abridgedin theCommonwealth ofPennsylvania because ofthesexof theindividual.12. The limitationon marriage inPennsylvania caselawand

theMarriage Law transgressesplaintiffs inherentrights ofpursuingtheir ownhappiness,interfereswiththeirrights ofconscience,deniesthem theenjoyment ofthe civilrightsofmarriage,discriminates againstthem intheexerciseoftheircivilrights, anddeniesthem equalityofrights under the lawbecauseoftheirsex.

-3-


17/19

WHEREFORE,plaintiffsNicolaM.Cucinottaand TamaraJ.Cucinottademandjudgment intheirfavoragainsttheCommonwealthof Pennsylvania,declaring thattheyhave therighttobemarriedtooneanother withall the benefits and obligations pertaining,pursuant toPennsylvaniaConstitution,Article I, 1,3, 25,26,and28,notwithstandinganypurportedtraditionalorstatutory definitionof marriagelimitedtoone man andonewoman.

Cletus P. LymanMichael S.FettneMichaelT.SweeneyIDNos.15445,53859, 65794LYMAN&ASH1612Latimer StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19103Tel (215) 732-7040Fax(215) [email protected]@lymanash.comCounsel for Plaintiffs

-4-


18/19

VERIFICATION. NICOLAM.CUCTNOTTAsaysthe following:Iamaplaintiffin this matter and thefactscontained in

the foregoing complaintare true and correct to thebestofmyknowledge, information, and belief.

T understandthatthesestatements aremadesubjectto thepenalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904, relatingtounswornfalsificationtoauthorities.

Dated:September 5, 2013.


19/19

; ..:...

VERIFICATIONTAMARAJ.CUCINOTTA says thefollowing:

Iamaplaintiff inthis matter andthe factscontainedintheforegoingcomplaint aretrueandcorrecttothebestof myknowledge,information, andbelief.

Iunderstandthatthese statementsare madesubjectto thepenaltiesof 18 Pa.C.S. 4904, relating tounswornfalsificationtoauthorities_

Dated: September 5,2013.TamaraJ.Cucinotta

451 md 2013 pennsylvania's preliminary objections

Documents