Professional Documents
Culture Documents
,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GAIL VASTERLING, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.
1416-CV03892
Division 6
reasoning and case law set forth in the Plaintiffs Suggestions in Opposition and joins fully in its
filing. As argued in the Plaintiffs Opposition, the City believes the motion to intervene is an
untimely motion with no legal basis offered by an entity that has no authority to act as a party
and has been filed at a point where this Court no longer has jurisdiction to rule in its favor.
Further, as demonstrated by Exhibit J to the Plaintiffs Opposition, the City has already
acted in reliance on this Courts ruling and the State defendants representation they would not
appeal by offering benefits to same-sex spouses.1 In addition to the City having acted in
reliance, City employees have already begun registering for new benefits offered to same sex
spouses.
Finally, the City has already satisfied the judgment against it.
See 11/14/14
Satisfaction of Judgment. To expose the City to additional litigation, during which the City will
incur its own legal fees and be exposed to Plaintiffs legal fees, is unconscionable and unjust at
1
In addition to already offering benefits to same-sex spouses, the City has worked
extensively on an internal basis and with its pension attorneys to revise the Citys pension plan to
include pension benefits to same-sex spouses. Although the ordinance has not yet been passed,
the City has incurred legal fees in preparation for its passage.
WHEREFORE, based upon the Plaintiffs Opposition, in which the City fully joins, and
the above stated reasons, Defendant City of Kansas City, Missouri, respectfully requests the
Court deny the General Assemblys motion to intervene and for such other relief as it deems
appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
Office of the City Attorney