6:14-cv-04246-JMC

Date Filed 11/21/14

Entry Number 7

Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION

Judith Ann Haas (aka Judith Ann

Morales), Damari Indart (aka Damari
Crespo) and Brandon Lee Velez (aka
Brandon Lee Coleman),
Plaintiffs,
v.
South Carolina Department of Motor
Vehicles and Kevin Shwedo, in his
official capacity as Executive Director of
the South Carolina Department of Motor
Vehicles
Defendants.
_________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.

6:14-4246-JMC

ANSWER
(ALL DEFENDANTS)

Defendants South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles and Kevin Shwedo, in his
official capacity as Executive Director of the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles,
comprising both or all Defendants, answering the Complaint herein, allege and show the
following:
FOR A FIRST DEFENSE
1. The Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
FOR A SECOND DEFENSE
2. Some or all of Plaintiffs claims are moot.
FOR A THIRD DEFENSE
3. Any allegation of the Complaint not hereinafter admitted or qualified is denied.

6:14-cv-04246-JMC

Date Filed 11/21/14

Entry Number 7

Page 2 of 8

4. Paragraph 1 of the Complaint is merely descriptive of this action, and as such requires
neither admission nor denial. Insofar as such allegations attempt to establish liability on
the part of the Defendants, Defendants would deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
5. Paragraphs 2 through 5 set forth legal conclusions which can neither be admitted nor
denied. Insofar as such allegations attempt to establish liability on the part of the
Defendants, Defendants would deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
6. Paragraph 6 is denied for lack of information.
7. Paragraph 7 is admitted.
8. The first sentence of Paragraph 8 is admitted. The second sentence of Paragraph 8 sets
forth legal conclusions which can neither be admitted nor denied. Insofar as such
allegations attempt to establish liability on the part of the Defendants, Defendants would
deny same and demand strict proof thereof. The third sentence of Paragraph 8 is merely
descriptive of this action, and as such requires neither admission nor denial. Insofar as
such allegations attempt to establish liability on the part of the Defendants, Defendants
would deny same and demand strict proof thereof. Defendants would further deny that
Plaintiffs have sued the agents of the Defendant Executive Director of the Department of
Motor Vehicles, as is alleged in Paragraph 8.
9. Paragraphs 9 and 10 set forth legal conclusions which can neither be admitted nor denied.
Insofar as such allegations attempt to establish liability on the part of the Defendants,
Defendants would deny same and demand strict proof thereof. In addition, Defendants
would refer the Court to the full text of the statute quoted in Paragraph 10.
10. Paragraph 11 is admitted.

6:14-cv-04246-JMC

Date Filed 11/21/14

Entry Number 7

Page 3 of 8

11. Answering Paragraphs 12 and 13, Defendants would refer the Court to the documents
referenced therein for the best evidence of their contents. Defendants would also advise
that on November 20, 2014, the Department of Motor Vehicles issued Operational
Newsbreak Vol. 11, Issue 36 (attached hereto), which changed departmental policy so as
to permit spouses in a marriage, including spouses in a same-sex marriage, to use married
names. Except as expressly admitted, the allegations of Paragraphs 12 and 13 are denied.
12. Paragraph 14 is admitted, but as noted above, the policy on which the DMV decision
referenced therein was based has been superseded by Operational Newsbreak Vol. 11,
Issue 36. In addition, on information and belief, Plaintiff Haas has now been issued a new
drivers license with her name of choice on it.
13. Paragraphs 15 through 17 are denied for lack of information.
14. Answering Paragraph 18, Defendants would refer the Court to the documents referenced
therein for the best evidence of their contents. Except as expressly admitted, the
allegations of Paragraph 18 are denied.
15. Paragraph 19 sets forth legal conclusions which can neither be admitted nor denied.
Insofar as such allegations attempt to establish liability on the part of the Defendants,
Defendants would deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
16. The first sentence of Paragraph 20 is denied. The remainder of Paragraph 20 is denied for
lack of information.
17. Paragraphs 21 and 22 are denied for lack of information.
18. Answering Paragraph 23, Defendants would refer the Court to the documents referenced
therein for the best evidence of their contents. Except as expressly admitted, the
allegations of Paragraph 23 are denied.

6:14-cv-04246-JMC

Date Filed 11/21/14

Entry Number 7

Page 4 of 8

19. The first sentence of Paragraph 24 is denied. The remainder of Paragraph 24 is denied for
lack of information.
20. Paragraphs 25 through 27 are denied for lack of information.
21. The first sentence of Paragraph 28 is denied. The remainder of Paragraph 28 is denied for
lack of information.
22. Paragraph 29 is admitted.
23. Paragraph 30 is denied for lack of information.
24. Paragraph 31 is denied.
25. Answering Paragraph 32, this Defendant reiterates and realleges each and every
paragraph and affirmative defense of this Answer as if set forth herein verbatim.
26. The first, second and fourth sentences of Paragraph 33 set forth legal conclusions which
can neither be admitted nor denied. Insofar as such allegations attempt to establish
liability on the part of the Defendants, Defendants would deny same and demand strict
proof thereof. The remainder of Paragraph 33 is denied for lack of information.
27. The first sentence of Paragraph 34 is admitted The remainder of Paragraph 34 is denied.
28. The first two sentences of Paragraph 35 set forth legal conclusions which can neither be
admitted nor denied. Insofar as such allegations attempt to establish liability on the part
of the Defendants, Defendants would deny same and demand strict proof thereof. The
remainder of Paragraph 35 is denied for lack of information.
29. Paragraph 36 is denied.
30. Paragraphs 37 and 38 set forth legal conclusions which can neither be admitted nor
denied. Insofar as such allegations attempt to establish liability on the part of the
Defendants, Defendants would deny same and demand strict proof thereof.

6:14-cv-04246-JMC

Date Filed 11/21/14

Entry Number 7

Page 5 of 8

31. Answering Paragraph 39, this Defendant reiterates and realleges each and every
paragraph and affirmative defense of this Answer as if set forth herein verbatim.
32. Paragraphs 40 and 41 set forth legal conclusions which can neither be admitted nor
denied. Insofar as such allegations attempt to establish liability on the part of the
Defendants, Defendants would deny same and demand strict proof thereof. In addition,
Defendants would refer the Court to the full text of the constitutional provision quoted in
Paragraph 41, although Defendants deny that it creates liability in them under the facts of
this case.
33. The first sentence of Paragraph 42 is merely descriptive of Plaintiffs belief, and as such
requires neither admission nor denial. Insofar as such allegations attempt to establish
liability on the part of the Defendants, Defendants would deny same and demand strict
proof thereof. The remainder of Paragraph 42 is denied.
34. Paragraphs 43 and 44 consist of a combination of legal conclusions and of the opinions of
Plaintiffs and/or their attorneys. Such allegation can neither be admitted nor denied.
Insofar as such allegations attempt to establish liability on the part of the Defendants,
Defendants would deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
35. Paragraph 45 is denied.
36. Answering Paragraph 46, this Defendant reiterates and realleges each and every
paragraph and affirmative defense of this Answer as if set forth herein verbatim.
37. Paragraph 47 is denied.
38. Answering Paragraph 48, this Defendant reiterates and realleges each and every
paragraph and affirmative defense of this Answer as if set forth herein verbatim.

6:14-cv-04246-JMC

Date Filed 11/21/14

Entry Number 7

Page 6 of 8

39. Paragraphs 49 and 50 set forth legal conclusions which can neither be admitted nor
denied. Insofar as such allegations attempt to establish liability on the part of the
Defendants, Defendants would deny same and demand strict proof thereof. In addition,
Defendants would refer the Court to the full text of the constitutional provision quoted in
Paragraph 49, although Defendants deny that it creates liability in them under the facts of
this case.
40. Paragraph 51 is denied.
41. Paragraphs 52 through 54 are denied.
42. The prayer for relief (Complaint, P. 14, Paragraphs (1) through (6)) is denied.
FOR A THIRD DEFENSE
43. This action is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
FOR A FOURTH DEFENSE
44. Defendant Shwedo, in his official capacity, is immune from suit pursuant to the Eleventh
Amendment of the United States Constitution, as is the Department of Motor Vehicles.
FOR A FIFTH DEFENSE
45. Some or all of Plaintiffs claims are barred by the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity.
FOR A SEVENTH DEFENSE
46. Defendant Shwedo was acting in the course and scope of his employment, was exercising
his discretion as a public employee and officer of the State of South Carolina, and was
acting in good faith and, therefore, is immune from suit.

6:14-cv-04246-JMC

Date Filed 11/21/14

Entry Number 7

Page 7 of 8

FOR AN EIGHTH DEFENSE

47. Defendant Shwedo at no time violated any clearly established statutory or constitutional
rights which were known or should have been known to him, and therefore Defendant
Shwedo is entitled to immunity.
FOR A NINTH DEFENSE
48. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over some or all of Plaintiffs claims.
FOR A TENTH DEFENSE
49. That any claims for punitive damages are barred, in that such claims violate both the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 3 of the
South Carolina Constitution.
FOR AN ELEVENTH DEFENSE
50. Plaintiffs have failed to take steps that could have mitigated any financial losses claimed
by them.
FOR A TWELFTH DEFENSE
51. At the time of the events alleged, and at the time of the filing of this action, South
Carolinas laws regarding same-sex marriage had not been ruled unconstitutional, and
Defendants were under a legal duty to act as they did.
WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Complaint of the Plaintiff, Defendants pray that
the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, for the costs of this action, and for such other and
further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

6:14-cv-04246-JMC

Date Filed 11/21/14

Entry Number 7

Page 8 of 8

DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, P.A.

BY: s/ Kenneth P. Woodington
WILLIAM H. DAVIDSON, II, Fed. I.D. No. 425
KENNETH P. WOODINGTON, Fed. I.D. No. 4741
DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, P.A.
1611 DEVONSHIRE DRIVE, 2ND FLOOR
POST OFFICE BOX 8568
COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA 29202-8568
wdavidson@dml-law.com
kwoodington@dml-law.com
T: 803-806-8222
F: 803-806-8855
ALAN WILSON
Attorney General
Federal ID No.10457
ROBERT D. COOK
Solicitor General
Federal ID No. 285
Email: BCOOK@SCAG.GOV
J. EMORY SMITH, Jr.
Deputy Solicitor General
Federal ID No. 3908
Email: ESMITH@SCAG.GOV
Office of the Attorney General
Post Office Box 11549
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Phone: (803) 734-3680
Fax: (803) 734-3677
ATTORNEYS for Defendants

Columbia, South Carolina

November 21, 2014

6:14-cv-04246-JMC

Date Filed 11/21/14

Entry Number 7-1

Page 1 of 1

Operational
Newsbreak

November 20, 2014

Volume 11 Issue 3 6

The South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles administers the State's motor vehicle licensing and titling laws by
maintaining strict controls to deliver secure and valid identification, licenses, property records, while accurately accounting
for the receipt and timely distribution of all revenue collected in order to best serve our citizens.

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

1

Same Sex Marriages

DMVsuggestionsbox
@scdmv.net

Same Sex Marriages

Effective immediately, South Carolina Department of Motor

Vehicles will accept any marriage certificate from any state,
including the District of Columbia.
Page 14 of Procedure DL-003 Acceptable Documents for US
Citizens and
Page 18 of Procedure DL-004 Acceptable Documents for
International Customers were changed as follows.

A. Removed the following statement.

Same sex marriages are not recognized in this state according to SC Code of Law
20-1-15 and Article XVII, Section 15 of the South Carolina Constitution.
B. Replaced the terms husband and wife with spouses.

Husband OR wife Spouses can change middle or last names at the time of marriage. Either
party can choose to keep their pre-married name, or can adopt some combination of
middle and last names from either spouse.

DMV will only accept a court order or a marriage certificate to make a legal name
change as indicated on page 14 of Procedure DL-003.

REMINDER: Customer service is priority. Employees must treat every customer with
respect and dignity.

http://intrwebsvr2/dmvintranet/