IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

MARCIE FISHER-BORNE, for )
herself and as guardian ad )
litem for M.F.-B., a minor, )
et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) 1:12CV589
)
JOHN W. SMITH, in his official )
capacity as the Director of the )
North Carolina Administrative )
Office of the Courts, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
ELLEN W. GERBER, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) 1:14CV299
)
ROY COOPER, et al., )
)
Defendants. )


ORDER

Two parties, Thom Tillis, North Carolina Speaker of the
House of Representatives, and Phil Berger, President Pro Tempore
of the North Carolina Senate, have filed a motion, by and
through counsel, to intervene (1:12CV589 (Doc. 119); 1:14CV299
(Doc. 75)) and a motion for extension of time to file an Answer
as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 24(c). (1:14CV299
Case 1:12-cv-00589-WO-JEP Document 124 Filed 10/09/14 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -

(Doc. 79).)
1
The motions for extension of time recite that
Plaintiffs counsel was contacted but did not state a position;
this court will find that Plaintiffs object to the requested
extension.
The Intervenors allege that additional time is required to
investigate the files and conduct appropriate research in order
to adequately prepare the pleading required by Rule 24(c) --
here, an answer to the First Amended Complaint. (Id. at 2.)
The Intervenors request an additional eight days to prepare and
file an Answer.
This court recognizes that only a short time has passed
since the Supreme Court of the United States denied review in
Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014). However,
these cases have been pending for a lengthy period of time and
the defendants have been clear in their position that Bostic
would, or could, be outcome determinative. (See, e.g.,
1:14CV299 (Doc. 57) at 5 (Given the similarity between these
challenged laws, the State Defendants herein have consistently
represented to this Court that the Fourth Circuits holding in

1
Because the motions in each of the two cases are
identical, for ease of reference, this court will refer only to
the motions filed in 1:14CV299.
Case 1:12-cv-00589-WO-JEP Document 124 Filed 10/09/14 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -

Bostic would likely control the analysis of North Carolinas
marriage laws.).)
Nevertheless, although alleging a short time to prepare,
the motion for extension of time fails to recite what facts or
files are necessary for review in connection with the motion to
intervene. The motion to intervene alleges the failure of the
existing defendants to challenge the application of Bostic
rather than objecting to any facts which have been admitted or
denied. (See 1:14CV299 (Doc. 76) at 15)
2
(It is therefore
evident that the existing defendants have no intention of
seeking to distinguish Bostic on the ground that outcome-
determinative concessions made by the Attorney General of
Virginia in that case have not been made by North Carolina in
these cases.).) The Intervenors fail to explain what facts
that have not been denied are necessary to challenge the
application of Bostic.
In light of the stage of this litigation, and the arguments
and positions previously asserted by both parties to this case,
this court does not find good cause to extend the time for
filing a proposed Answer as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c).

2
All citations in this Order to documents filed with the
court refer to the page numbers located at the bottom right-hand
corner of the documents as they appear on CM/ECF.

Case 1:12-cv-00589-WO-JEP Document 124 Filed 10/09/14 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -

Such an answer is a procedural requirement to a motion to
intervene. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c)(The motion must state the
grounds for intervention and be accompanied by a pleading that
sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is
sought.).
This court finds the motion for extension of time should be
denied as requested. The motion to intervene is presently under
consideration by this court and the Intervenors shall have until
12:00 noon on Friday, October 10, 2014, to file a completed
motion to intervene, including a pleading that sets out the
claim or defense for which intervention is sought.
IT IS ORDERED that the motions for extension (1:12CV589
(Doc. 123); 1:14CV299 (Doc. 79)) are DENIED.
This the 9th day of October, 2014.



_______________________________________
United States District Judge


Case 1:12-cv-00589-WO-JEP Document 124 Filed 10/09/14 Page 4 of 4