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
Plaintiffs have filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in each of these cases. (1:12CV589 (Doc. 116); 1:14CV299 (Doc. 72).) The motion, as well as subsequent pleadings, suggest that all parties consent to the motion. However, the proposed order attached to the motion suggests Case 1:12-cv-00589-WO-JEP Document 118 Filed 10/09/14 Page 1 of 3 - 2 -
injunctive relief should be issued as to the Register of Deeds Defendants. That suggestion is somewhat contrary to this courts understanding of the pleadings to date and the necessary parties. The status reports previously filed by the parties suggest the following: (1) There is no need for injunctive relief as to the Register of Deeds Defendants, as they are charged with the duty of implementing the law of North Carolina as construed by this court (see 1:12CV589 (Doc. 113); 1:14CV299 (Doc. 68).) As a result, this court understood from those reports that the Register of Deeds Defendants could be dismissed without prejudice. (2) The Clerks of Superior Court, including the Honorable David L. Churchill, Archie L. Smith, III, and Al Jean Bogle, as well as Defendant John W. Smith, were either not a proper party (Smith) or parties as to whom the cases were moot (Churchill, Smith, and Bogle). As a result, this court understood those parties could be dismissed without prejudice. (See 1:12CV589 (Doc. 112); 1:14CV299 (Doc. 67).) (3) The Intervening Defendant, designated as the State of North Carolina, by and through Roy Cooper, Attorney General, was Case 1:12-cv-00589-WO-JEP Document 118 Filed 10/09/14 Page 2 of 3 - 3 -
the remaining party as to whom relief should properly be granted or denied. (See 1:12CV589 (Doc 68); 1:14CV299 (Doc. 69).) To the extent any party should disagree with this courts understanding of the parties respective positions, notice of any such dispute shall be filed with this court on or before 5:00 p.m. today. IT IS SO ORDERED. This the 9th day of October, 2014.
_______________________________________ United States District Judge
Case 1:12-cv-00589-WO-JEP Document 118 Filed 10/09/14 Page 3 of 3