Case: 3:14-cv-00627-bbc Document #: 16 Filed: 12/18/14 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
KIERSTEN BLOECHL-KARLSEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 14-cv-00627-BBC

SCOTT WALKER, et al.,

Judge Barbara B. Crabb

Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker

Defendants.

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiffs Kiersten and Angela Bloechl-Karlsen, Stacie Christian and Julie Tetzlaff, James
and Alexis Langreder, and Nathaniel Walker and Leon Laufer (collectively, Plaintiffs), by and
through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), hereby
give notice of voluntarily dismissing the above-captioned action against all Defendants without
prejudice.
Plaintiffs are same-sex couples who married in Wisconsin after the United States District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (the District Court) issued a ruling on June 6,
2014, that declared unconstitutional Article XIII, Section 13, of the Wisconsin Constitution and
the various Wisconsin statutes limiting married spouses to husband and wife, Wolf v.
Walker, 986 F. Supp. 2d 982 (W.D. Wis. 2014) (Dkt. 118), but before the District Court entered
the order enjoining the State officials from enforcing Wisconsins marriage ban and staying the
relief until the conclusion of the appeal, Wolf v. Walker, Case No. 14-cv-64-bbc, F. Supp. 2d
, 2014 WL 2693963 (W.D. Wis. June 13, 2014) (Dkt. 134).

Case: 3:14-cv-00627-bbc Document #: 16 Filed: 12/18/14 Page 2 of 7

On September 4, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
unanimously affirmed the District Courts judgment invalidating and enjoining Wisconsins
prohibition of marriage for same-sex couples. Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2014).1
On September 9, 2014, the Wolf defendants filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the United
States Supreme Court, asking the Court to take the case in order to determine whether the
Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from defining and recognizing marriage as only the
legal union between one man and one woman, and asking the Court to conclude that Wisconsins
traditional marriage laws do not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Walker v. Wolf (No. 14-278,
docketed September 9, 2014).
On September 17, 2014, Plaintiffs in the above-captioned action filed a Complaint
seeking a declaration that Defendants refusal to recognize the marriages of couplesincluding
Plaintiffs, who were legally married in Wisconsin between June 6 and June 13, 2014violates
the rights of those couples and their families to due process and equal protection as guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Compl., Dkt. 1, filed Sept. 17,
2014.) Plaintiffs also sought a declaration that Defendants refusal to afford those couples and
their familiesincluding Plaintiffs and their familiesall the benefits, rights, and privileges
under Wisconsin law given to other couples legally married in Wisconsin and their families, on
account of those couples being of the same sex, violates the rights of those couples and their
families to due process and equal protection as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution. Id. In addition, Plaintiffs sought a grant of injunctive relief that
would enjoin Defendants refusal to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples, including
Plaintiffs, who were legally married in Wisconsin between June 6 and June 13, 2014, and from
1

On appeal, the Wolf case was consolidated for argument and disposition with Baskin v.
Bogan (Nos. 14-2386 to 14-2388).
2

Case: 3:14-cv-00627-bbc Document #: 16 Filed: 12/18/14 Page 3 of 7

refusing to afford to those couples and their families all the benefits, rights, and privileges given
to other couples legally married in Wisconsin and their families.2 Id. Defendants answer in this
action is due on December 22, 2014. (Order, Dkt. 15, entered Dec. 5, 2014.) To date, Defendants
have not served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment in this action.
On October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court denied certiorari by order in the Wolf action,
thereby rejecting Wisconsins appeal to reinstate its ban on marriage for same-sex couples.
Walker v. Wolf, No. 14-278, 135 S. Ct. 316, 317 (Oct. 6, 2014).
Subsequently, on October 13, 2014, the State of Wisconsin issued a statement saying that
it would recognize the marriages of approximately 550 same-sex couplesincluding Plaintiffs
who were legally married in Wisconsin during the week between the District Courts decision
overturning the ban on marriage for same-sex couples and Judge Crabbs subsequent stay of that
ruling. Jason Stein, Scott Walker says state will recognize June same-sex weddings, MILWAUKEE
JOURNAL-SENTINEL (Oct. 13, 2014), http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walkersays-state-will-recognize-june-same-sex-weddings-b99370354z1-279048011.html. In making
this statement, defendant Governor Scott Walkers administration also ordered that these samesex couples would be able to amend past tax returns. Id. Walkers spokesperson Laurel Patrick
said that Walkers administration would now treat same-sex and opposite-sex couples the same
for issuing marriage licenses and determining the rights, protections, obligations or benefits of
marriage. Id. Patrick further stated, Per the guidance from the Department of Justice, state
agencies will examine and update forms, manuals and other documents consistent with the
ruling, and the state will be treating licenses issued in June as valid marriage licenses. Id.

Plaintiffs also sought an award of costs and reasonable attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C.
1988 and any other relief deemed just and equitable.
3

Case: 3:14-cv-00627-bbc Document #: 16 Filed: 12/18/14 Page 4 of 7

Subsequently, the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families provided guidance to

the agencies it contracts with for SNAP (special needs adoption program) adoptions. With
regard to the rights of same-sex couples, on October 20, 2014, the Department stated:
The Supreme Courts action [in declining to review Wolf v. Walker] opened the
way for enforcing the order issued by the US District Court judge. That order
requires state agencies and employees to treat same-sex couples the same as
different sex couples in . . . determining the rights, protections, obligations or
benefits of marriage. For DCF that means that we must treat same-sex married
couples exactly the same as we would treat opposite-sex married couples. This
includes the several hundred same-sex couples who were married in Wisconsin
while the lawsuit was pending.
DCF has concluded that the adoption statutes (Wis. Stat. ch. 48) can and must be
interpreted in a gender-neutral fashion to the extent they refer to husband and
wife. For example, the following residents of Wisconsin are eligible to adopt a
minor child: A husband and wife jointly, or either the husband or wife if the
other spouse is a parent of the minor. Wis. Stat. 48.82(1)(a). DCF interprets
this provision as extending to all married couples, both different- and same-sex
couples.
E-mail dated October 22, 2014, from Assistant Attorney General, Maura Whelan, to John A.
Knight (emphasis added).
In addition, on October 21, 2014, the Wisconsin Department of Revenue updated the
commonly asked questions page of its website addressing the rights of same-sex couples with
regard to the filing of state income-tax returns and other tax-related topics. In doing so, the
Department issued the following guidance:
[Question:] Will the Department recognize the validity of same-sex marriage
licenses issued between June 6 and 13, 2014, before higher courts ruled in the
Wolf v. Walker case?
[Answer:] Yes. To the extent that any couple, regardless of sex, received a
marriage license and followed the requirements of ch. 765, Wis. Stats., the
department will treat those couples as married under Wisconsin law, even if they
received their license between June 6 and 13, 2014.

Case: 3:14-cv-00627-bbc Document #: 16 Filed: 12/18/14 Page 5 of 7

WIS. DEPT OF REVENUE, Same-Sex Couples, http://www.revenue.wi.gov/faqs/ise/samesex.html

(last visited Dec. 17, 2014). On this same webpage, the Department also addressed the question
of whether employers should treat spousal health insurance benefits of same-sex couples as
imputed income, as they had done in the past. The Department issued the following guidance:
[Question:] How does the U.S. Supreme Court decision relating to same-sex
marriage affect employers?
[Answer:] Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court denial of Wisconsin's petition for
certiorari in Walker v. Wolf on October 6, 2014, for Wisconsin tax purposes an
employer that provided health insurance benefits that covered a same-sex spouse
of the employee was required to impute income taxable to the employee equal to
the value of the employer-provided health insurance. The imputed income and
related withholding would be reported on the employees 2014 Form W-2.
This treatment will change for an employee who is lawfully married to a person of
the same sex.
For an employee who was lawfully married to a person of the same sex on
January 1, 2014, the employer should not include any imputed income on the
2014 Form W-2.
For an employee who first became lawfully married to a person of the same sex
after January 1, 2014, the employer should not include any imputed income on the
2014 Form W-2 from the date of marriage through December 31, 2014. Assuming
the health insurance covered the same-sex person as a domestic partner prior to
marriage, imputed income must be reported from January 1 until the date of
marriage, but no imputed income would be reported on the Form W-2 for the
period after marriage until the end of the year.
Id.
In light of the foregoing, and based on the States representations that it intends to accord
the marriages of same-sex couples who solemnized their marriages between June 6 and 13, 2014,
all of the same privileges and rights accorded to the marriages of opposite-sex couples, Plaintiffs
hereby file this Notice Of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. This notice is proper because
Defendants have not yet served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment in this

Case: 3:14-cv-00627-bbc Document #: 16 Filed: 12/18/14 Page 6 of 7

action. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Plaintiffs reserve the right to reinstate this action in the
future on any grounds that they deem in good faith to be just and proper.

DATE: December 18, 2014

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Alexandra L. Newman

Laurence J. Dupuis
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
WISCONSIN FOUNDATION
SBN: 1029261
207 E. Buffalo Street, Suite 325
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: (414) 273-4032 ext. 212
Email: ldupuis@aclu-wi.org

Hannah Y.S. Chanoine

Rory K. Schneider
MAYER BROWN LLP
1675 Broadway
New York, NY 10019-5820
Telephone: (212) 506-2500
Facsimile: (212) 262-1910
Email: hchanoine@mayerbrown.com
Email: rschneider@mayerbrown.com

John A. Knight
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
180 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2300
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 201-9740 ext. 335
Facsimile: (312) 288-5225
Email: jaknight@aclu.org

Richard B. Katskee
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-1101
Telephone: (202) 263-3000
Facsimile: (202) 263-5300
Email: rkatskee@mayerbrown.com
Alexandra L. Newman
Tyler D. Alfermann
MAYER BROWN LLP
71 S. Wacker Dr.
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 782-0600
Facsimile: (312) 701-7711
Email: anewman@mayerbrown.com
Email: talfermann@mayerbrown.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case: 3:14-cv-00627-bbc Document #: 16 Filed: 12/18/14 Page 7 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE has been electronically filed with the
Clerk of Court this 18th day of December, 2014, by using the CM / ECF system which will send
notice of electronic filing to all parties of record.
Laurence J. Dupuis
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
WISCONSIN FOUNDATION
SBN: 1029261
207 E. Buffalo Street, Suite 325
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: (414) 273-4032 ext. 212
Email: ldupuis@aclu-wi.org

By: /s/ Alexandra L. Newman

Hannah Y.S. Chanoine
Rory K. Schneider
MAYER BROWN LLP
1675 Broadway
New York, NY 10019-5820
Telephone: (212) 506-2500
Facsimile: (212) 262-1910
Email: hchanoine@mayerbrown.com
Email: rschneider@mayerbrown.com

John A. Knight
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
180 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2300
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 201-9740 ext. 335
Facsimile: (312) 288-5225
Email: jaknight@aclu.org

Richard B. Katskee
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-1101
Telephone: (202) 263-3000
Facsimile: (202) 263-5300
Email: rkatskee@mayerbrown.com
Alexandra L. Newman
Tyler D. Alfermann
MAYER BROWN LLP
71 S. Wacker Dr.
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 782-0600
Facsimile: (312) 701-7711
Email: anewman@mayerbrown.com
Email: talfermann@mayerbrown.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs