Write a bench memo explaining whether or not the court should abstain from hearing the case based on Pullman, Burford, Younger, and the Colorado River doctrine and their application to the abstention fact pattern.
Write a bench memo explaining whether or not the court should abstain from hearing the case based on Pullman, Burford, Younger, and the Colorado River doctrine and their application to the abstention fact pattern.
Write a bench memo explaining whether or not the court should abstain from hearing the case based on Pullman, Burford, Younger, and the Colorado River doctrine and their application to the abstention fact pattern.
Base the memo on the abstention fact pattern. I will include a sample bench memo, which deals with Forum Non Conveniens. I will also include cases, outlines, notes based on abstention.
———-
Added on 23.04.2016 12:01
Clark, et al. v. Harris (E.D. PA)
This case is one of many proceeding through the federal courts to challenges same-sex.
I. Pertinent Facts
Plaintiffs in the federal action are four gay and lesbian Philadelphia residents, two same-sex adult couples: Jamie Clark and Sara Borden; and Reed Feldman and Drake Swift. Plaintiffs argue that the right to marry is a fundamental right, giving every individual the opportunity to exercise choice in this important relationship. As such, the government must not interfere in that choice unless it demonstrates compelling state interests and carefully tailors its restrictions to protect those interests. Governmental restrictions on individual rights must be justified by more than simply strongly, or even widely, held opinions or traditions, and use of government power to prohibit the exercise of the right to marry fails to meet this test.
On August 1, 2015, an Administrative Law proceeding was filed by Jamie Clark challenging PA.C.S.A. 72-1-917, that governs public employees and employers, also known as Public Act 917. The Act prohibits public employers from providing medical assistance and other fringe benefits to any person cohabitating with public employees unless that person is legally married to the employee or a legal dependent or eligible to inherit under state intestacy lawsnone of which would permit a same-sex couple any recognized rights. As a state employee, before filing a claim in state court, Clark must first exhaust her administrative remedies before the Philadelphia County Administrative Law Judge for Public Employee Claims of Discrimination, who hears only claims of discrimination under state laws, particularly as they relate to who is entitled to health and other benefits under the Commonwealths marriage and intestacy laws. Jamie Clark works at the Department of Human Resources for the Commonwealth while Sara Borden stays at home and cares for the couples two children. In that proceeding, Jamie Clark has also sought a declaration that invalidates all Commonwealth laws that ban marriages. That proceeding allowed that claim to stand and has permitted full discovery against the Secretary of State. Discovery is now almost complete. The Attorney General is defending that administrative complaint. Upon the Judge rendering a decision, plaintiff will have 60 days to ask for reconsideration or choose to file a complaint in state court asserting any state or federal claims that the plaintiff might have. Should the administrative decision be upheld in a subsequent judicial proceeding, however, plaintiff is responsible for the States full costs and expenses of defending such action. On September 15, 2015, Reed Feldman, a state judicial administrative clerk, filed a state court proceeding in the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court against the State Attorney General, George Stark, and Secretary of State, Martha Higgins, identical in all respects to Clarks administrative proceeding. Discovery is complete in that case and cross-motions for summary judgment were denied. Trial is set for July 20, 2016.
. .
The post Write a bench memo explaining whether or not the court should abstain from hearing the case based on Pullman, Burford, Younger, and the Colorado River doctrine and their application to the abstention fact pattern. appeared first on My Nursing Paper.
