Electronically Filed

4/13/2020 5:09 PM
Steven D. Grierson
1 COMP CLERK OF THE COURT
YVETTE CHEVALIER, ESQ.
2
NV Bar: 8739
3
BEN LEHAVI, ESQ.
NV Bar: 14564
4 BEN'S LAW CASE NO: A-20-813585-W
5940 South Rainbow Boulevard
5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 Department 18
Phone: 702-518-9236
6 [email protected]
[email protected]
7
PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL
8

9
DISTRICT COURT
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
10

11
ELLE LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; CASE NO.
12 TEREMA TERESE WRIGHT, an individual;
RONNIE SHELTON OWENS, JR., an DEPT. NO.
13 individual; KAMAL KUMAR, an individual;
and BIMLA WATI RANIGADEO, an
14 individual.
Plaintiff(s), JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
15
-vs- EXEMPT FROM ARBITRATION
16

17 CLARK COUNTY, a governmental entity;

STATE OF NEVADA Governor Steve Sisolak; REQUEST FOR ORAL
18
DOES I through X and ROE CORPORATIONS ARGUMENT
19
I through X, inclusive. Hearing Date:
Hearing Time:
Defendant(s).
20

21

22

23 PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
AND
24 REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION,
RESTRAINING ORDER, AND/OR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
25

26

27

28
1

Doc ID: c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef

Case Number: A-20-813585-W
 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1
COME NOW, PLAINTIFFS ELLE LLC; TEREMA TERESE WRIGHT; RONNIE SHELTON
2

3 OWENS, JR.; KAMAL KUMAR; and BIMLA WATI RANIGADEO (hereinafter

4 PLAINTIFFS) by and through their attorneys of record, YVETTE CHEVALIER, Esq. and BEN

5 LEHAVI, Esq. of BEN'S LAW, and hereby complain and allege as follows:

6
1. That at all times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs, were and are residents of Clark County,
7
Nevada. ELLE LLC is a Nevada limited liability company that operates three wedding
8

9 chapels in Clark County: The Little Neon Chapel, Fremont Wedding Chapel, and Chapel

10 of the Crystals. KAMAL KUMAR; and BIMLA WATI RANIGADEO have an urgent

11 need to marry.

12 2. The true names of Does I through X and Roe Corporations I through X, their citizenship
13
and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, partnership or otherwise are
14
unknown to Plaintiffs who therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names.
15
Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege, that each of the Defendants,
16
designated as Does I through X and Roe Corporations I through X, are or may be, legally
17
responsible for the events referred to in this action, and caused damages to the Plaintiffs,
18
as herein alleged, and Plaintiffs will ask leave of this Court to amend the Complaint to
19

20
insert the true names and capacities of such Defendants, when the same have been

21 ascertained, and to join them in this action, together with the proper charges and

22 allegations.

23 3. Does I through X and Roe Corporations I through X may also be any other person or

24 entity responsible for the damages caused to Plaintiffs, through actions or contract. Does
25
I through X and Roe Corporations I through X are intended to include not only persons or
26
entities whose actions are responsible for Plaintiffs' injuries, but also persons or entities
27
that may be financially liable to compensate Plaintiffs for their damages.
28
2

Doc ID: c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef

 4. Roe Corporations I through X may be entities associated with Defendants CLARK
1
COUNTY, and STATE OF NEVADA Governor Steve Sisolak, or may be the true and
2

3 proper entities owning and/or managing the Clark County Marriage License Bureau, a

4 division of the Clark County Clerk's Office at the time of the incident that is the subject

5 of this Complaint.

6 5. That CLARK COUNTY operates, manages, and otherwise controls the Marriage License
7 Bureau, a division of the Clerk’s Office, in the State of Nevada.
8
6. That Governor Steve Sisolak issued a State of emergency for Nevada on or about March
9
17th subsequently relying on NRS 414 (Exhibit A) emergency authority to determine
10
what entities are essential and non-essential.
11
7. Initially, the Governor did not include marriage license bureaus in his directives to close
12
non-essential businesses.
13
8. Approximately one week later, the Clark County Marriage License Bureau notified the
14

15 public of its closure citing it is closed until May or until further notice.1

16 9. The Marriage License Bureau collects fees from couples who wish to marry. NRS

17 122.040 (Exhibit B) grants the County a monopoly over marriage license issuance by

18 stating that "before persons may be joined in marriage, a license must be obtained for that
19
purpose from the county clerk of any county in the State."
20
10. The Marriage License Bureau has previously created "Pop Up Offices" at McCarren
21
International Airport for the convenience of tourists who wish to obtain marriage
22
licenses.
23
11. The State of Nevada, via the Marriage License Bureau, requires a license for marriage to
24
be valid but has made no reasonable accommodations for the public.
25

26

27

28 1See Clark County Clerk's Office COVID 19 Operation Plan as of March 30, 2020, available at:
3
http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/clerk/Pages/covid19info.aspx

Doc ID: c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef

 12. It is unclear why the State of Nevada requires a license for marriage but clearly that
1
requirement makes marriage licenses essential. See NRS 122.040 (Exhibit B).
2

3 13. There are many reasons for people to opt in for the contract of marriage. The State may

4 not impair the Plaintiffs’ rights to contract. Some of those reasons are critical to

5 protecting individual liberties and constitutional rights to associate, to exercise religion,

6 and to obtain the benefits associated with marriage, without state inference.
7 14. Governor Steve Sisolak has misunderstood the essentiality of marriage by focusing on the
8
celebration aspects rather than the solemn fundamental right of Plaintiffs to associate and
9
exercise religious expression.
10
15. People marry to secure time sensitive health insurance access.
11
16. People marry to complete and comply with important time sensitive immigration
12
requirements and deadlines that could result in deportation and loss of standing for
13
purposes of immigration remedies.
14

15 17. People marry to adopt a child under circumstances that require the marriage of the

16 adopting couple.

17 18. People marry to honor life promises when a loved one is dying.2

18 19. People marry to birth children in wedlock for important principles and values.
19
20. People marry to honor religious canons related to eternal life before a God of their
20
choice.
21
21. People marry before military deployment or when leaving for out of state employment.
22
22. People marry to protect assets for inheritance, estates and probate.
23
23. People marry for many other important reasons that Defendants should consider essential.
24

25

26
2 The Clark County Marriage License Bureau acknowledges this on its website. See Affidavit for
27 Issuance of Marriage License to One Party -- Hospitalized Applicant, available at:
https://www.clarkcountynv.gov/clerk/Documents/Marriage%20License%20-
28 %20Affidavit%20of%20Issuance%20to%20One%20Party%20-
%20Hospitalized%20Applicant.pdf 4

Doc ID: c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef

 24. Pursuant to NRS 122.040 (Exhibit B) and 122.050 (Exhibit C), marriage license
1
applicants need to prove name and age. Providing the county clerk with a form of
2

3 identification listed in NRS 122.040 is sufficient to apply for a license and pay the fees.

4 25. Unlike other essential services, the Clark County Marriage License Bureau has made no

5 accommodations for emergency issuance of licenses despite requests from constituents in

6 grave need of a license. Nevada could have used a less restrictive order to combat the
7 spread of COVID-19 while still allowing wedding chapels and/or officiants to operate.
8
26. Like the Courts in Nevada, the Clark County Marriage License Bureau can operate using
9
electronic platforms that pose no COVID-19 risk to the public or employees.
10
27. Like the State of Nevada Office of Vital Records, the Defendants can coordinate to
11
provide marriage licenses as they do birth and death certificates.
12
28. The Plaintiffs have been denied access to compulsory marriage licenses.
13
29. The Plaintiff operator of wedding Chapels has suffered a government taking without just
14

15 compensation.

16 30. On April 6, 2020, via email, the County Clerk's Office notified Plaintiffs that licenses

17 would be issued on a case by case basis to "couples who truly cannot wait . . . ." This

18 email further stated that "couples will be issued their license, have a civil ceremony at the
19
window and leave with a certified copy of their marriage certificate" (Exhibit D). This
20
violates Plaintiffs' Constitutional rights to marry according to the dictates of their
21
religion, by requiring couples to undergo a civil marriage without a religious officiant.
22
31. On April 6, 2020, via email, the County Clerk's Office responded to Plaintiffs with a "we
23
are closed" reply in response to the request for an urgent marriage license needed by the
24
Plaintiffs whose immigration visa is expiring (Exhibit D).
25

26
32. The prerequisite condition of a civil ceremony conducted by the Clark County Marriage

27 License Bureau violates various constitutionally protected rights like freedom of religion,

28 and is also a taking as against Chapel Owners who cannot officiate wedding ceremonies.
5

Doc ID: c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef

 33. Although the Plaintiffs are sensitive to the COVID-19 pandemic emergency, Defendants
1
approach to marriage licenses violates the peoples' rights to marry and associate while
2

3 punishing Wedding Chapel Owners by replacing their roles in officiating weddings with

4 government civil service employees.

5 34. Removing the right to weddings that include religious vows and traditions, is a

6 constitutional violation of religious freedom.

7 35. A COVID-19 quarantine cannot usurp the power of God and the right of people to marry
8
if the State requires a license for marriage to be valid.
9
36. There are many alternatives and methods by which the Clark County Marriage License
10
Bureau can issue marriage licenses and collect fees without human to human contact.
11
37. As a result of the misclassification of marriage as non-essential, the Plaintiffs have
12
incurred damages in an amount exceeding $15,000.00.
13
38. As a result of the misclassification of marriage as non-essential, the Plaintiffs have found
14

15 it necessary to retain an attorney to prosecute the above matter and are entitled to

16 reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

17
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
18
(Injunction Against All Defendants
19
And/Or
20
Temporary Restraining Order
And/Or
21 Writ of Mandamus)

22 39. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through

23 38 as though set forth herein.

24 40. That on or about March 14, 2020 Plaintiffs were denied access to marriage licenses,
25
which NRS 122.040 (Exhibit B) requires for their marriages to be valid.
26
41. That on or about April 6, 2020 Plaintiffs inquired of the Marriage License Bureau for a
27
marriage license on a case by case basis as the County Clerk had stated would be
28
available via email, but Plaintiffs were denied
6 (Exhibit D).

Doc ID: c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef

 42. That on or about April 6, 2020 the Marriage License Bureau notified Chapel Owners that
1
it would issue emergency licenses but only if applicants submitted to a civil ceremony by
2

3 an employee of the County Clerk's Office (Exhibit D).

4 43. Defendants possessed a duty to compensate Chapel Owners for taking over their

5 businesses pursuant to NRS 414.070(3)(a) and NRS 414.070(3)(b) (Exhibit A).

6 44. Defendants have made no payments for the taking of Chapel Owners' property.
7 45. Defendants have not accommodated emergency marriage licenses required for Plaintiffs
8
to exercise their religious rights and fundamental rights to associate in marriage.
9
46. Defendants have denied marriage to COVID-19 victims who need to travel, protect their
10
estates, marry before death, marry before having children and marry in a manner upon
11
which religious canons requires under God.
12
47. The Plaintiff Chapel Owners are also people of color who are concerned the arbitrary
13
shut down of marriage as a rite of passage discriminates upon their race, religion,
14

15 ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation and sex.3

16 48. The Plaintiffs have merit to their claims and a great possibility of success for all the

17 reasons set forth herein.

18 49. The Nevada Constitution states: We the people of the State of Nevada Grateful to
19
Almighty God for our freedom in order to secure its blessings, insure domestic
20
tranquility, and form a more perfect Government, do establish this Constitution.
21
A. Article 1, Section 4. Liberty of conscience. "The free exercise and enjoyment of
22 religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall forever be
allowed in this State, and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on
23 account of his opinions on matters of his religious belief, but the liberty of consciene
[conscience] hereby secured, shall not be so construed, as to excuse acts of
24 licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace, or safety of this State."
25
B. Article 1, Section 21. Recognition of marriage. Provides that "[a]ll legally valid
26
marriages must be treated equally under the law." 4

27

28
3 See 42 USC § 1983. 7

Doc ID: c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef

1
C. Article 1, Section 22. Eminent domain proceedings: Restrictions and
2 requirements. Provides that property cannot be taken without compensation.
3
50. The Plaintiffs are likely to prevail because the State and County have violated inalienable
4

5 rights without providing accommodations for essential services. 5

6 51. The Defendants must be enjoined by injunction from "taking" the business of Wedding

7 Chapels without just compensation. Wedding Chapel owners, such as Plaintiff ELLE

8 LLC, pay for the right to operate a business that the Clark County Marriage License
9 Bureau seeks to usurp during this COVID-19 era. However, there is no rational reason for
10
the County to eliminate electronic wedding ceremonies by Wedding Chapels in favor of
11
civil weddings conducted by government employees on a restricted and limited basis.
12
52. More importantly, the Clark County Marriage License Bureau will not travel to hospitals,
13
nursing homes, and ceremonious locations to officiate the ceremony for the dying and
14
disabled.
15
53. Clark County Marriage License Bureau employees are not qualified to officiate weddings
16

17 in Russian, Spanish, Hebrew, Arabic and other languages as the Wedding Chapel owners

18 regularly do for the public.

19

20
4 Nevada Constitution, Article 1, Section 21. Recognition of marriage. [Effective November 24,
21 2020, if the provisions of Assembly Joint Resolution No. 2 (2017) are approved and ratified by
the voters at the 2020 General Election.]
22 5 14 USC § 1983 ("Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom,
or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be
23 subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be
24
liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for
25
redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in
such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree
26 was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of
Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of
27 the District of Columbia."); State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 140 (2002)("To
establish a claim under § 1983, the plaintiff must prove that the conduct complained of: (1) was
28 committed by a person acting under color of state law, and (2) deprived the plaintiff of rights,
8
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.").

Doc ID: c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef

 54. Clark County Marriage License Bureau employees cannot conduct the mandatory cultural
1
and customary ceremonious practices that some religions require, such as the breaking of
2

3 glass, or kneeling, etc. because of separation of church and state, and lack of qualification

4 to provide religious ceremonies.

5 55. Without injunctive relief, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm for which compensatory

6 damages alone are inadequate.

7 56. The Court may weigh the realistic requirements to enforce our Governor’s State of
8
Emergency provisions to stop the Spread of COVID-19, with the inalienable rights of the
9
public to stop unnecessary hardships because of failure to accommodate by Clark
10
County.
11
57. The measures employed by Defendants are unjustly excessive in scope.
12
58. The purpose of this injunction is to preserve the rights of the people to marry when doing
13
so does not pose harm to the public or employees of the Clark County Marriage License
14

15 Bureau.

16 59. The Plaintiffs pray this Court issue injunctive orders and declaratory relief directing the

17 State and County to minimize the harm to the public's right to associate, marry and

18 exercise religion in these holy unions.

19
60. Defendants have caused Plaintiffs irreparable injury by failing to provide a mechanism
20
for the issuance of marriage licenses.
21
61. Plaintiffs have found it necessary to secure the services of an attorney in order to
22
prosecute this action and Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
23

24

25

26

27

28
9

Doc ID: c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef

1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress or Alternatively Intentional Interference with
3 Contractual Relations)

4 62. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through

5 61 as though set forth herein.

6 63. Although the COVID-19 epidemic is traumatic and dangerous to the People, the
7 Defendants treatment of marriage licenses under strenuous circumstances for Plaintiffs is
8
extreme and outrageous conduct with reckless disregard for how denial of a marriage
9
license impacts the lives of Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.
10
64. Due to Defendants' refusal to accommodate Plaintiffs' dire need for marriage licenses,
11
they have suffered severe and extreme emotional distress; and,
12
65. It is Defendant’s conduct that is the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ emotional
13
distress.
14

15 66. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered severe stress injuries, expenses,

16 loss of revenues to be proven at trial, and have endured physical, mental and emotional

17 pain and suffering.

18 67. As a result of the injuries, Plaintiffs have incurred damages and expenses in excess of
19
$15,000.00.
20
68. Plaintiffs have found it necessary to secure the services of an attorney in order to
21
prosecute this action and are entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
22

23

24

25

26

27

28
10

Doc ID: c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef

1
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
2

3 (Civil Rights And Liberty Interests; 42 USC § 1983 And 42 USC § 1988; Violations Of
Nevada Constitution)
4
69. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through
5
68 as though set forth herein.
6
70. That Defendants did violate the Nevada and US Constitution by denying Plaintiffs'
7
protected liberty interests concerning "Freedom of Religion," "Freedom to Associate" and
8

9 other statutes, codes, ordinances and regulations set forth by various municipalities and

10 other governmental entities related to the proper and lawful conduct of government

11 entities such as Clark County in reference to denying important essential services that

12 concern life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

13
71. NRS 414.070 (Exhibit A) grants the Governor special power during emergency periods.
14
Respectfully, those powers are subject to NRS 414.070(5), which provides that the
15
Governor’s authority remains subject to the provisions of the State Constitution. More
16
importantly, the Governor is required to compensate takings within 90 days of the taking.
17
See NRS 414.070(3)(a) & (b) regarding compensation for assuming the role of Wedding
18
Chapels thereby causing loss of clientele, revenue, and good will without just
19

20
compensation and without being in the best interest of the public. Additionally, Due

21 Process was violated because the County has a special relationship with ELLE LLC

22 inasmuch as they pay for and qualify for special licensing to conduct ceremonies required

23 by State law.

24 72. NRS 414.070 (Exhibit A) is void for vagueness as applied in this case because such
25
constitutions regulations, codes, statutes and ordinances are enacted for the protection of
26
the public from harm caused by government infringing upon the rights of individuals.
27
73. To be valid in Nevada, a wedding must be administered by an officiant. However, the
28
11 which means couples who marry at the Clark
County employs non-religious officiants,

Doc ID: c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef

 County Marriage License Bureau are denied their First Amendment right to be married
1
by a religious officiant of their choosing.
2

3 74. Just as Court hearings are held using electronic platforms such as Blue Jeans, Court Call,

4 Zoom, Facetime, GoToMeeting, etc. that do not put employees or the public at risk for

5 COVID-19. Clark County, paying county employee salaries with tax dollars, need to

6 respect and honor these longstanding American rights that are just as important if not
7 more so than delivery of liquor, cannabis, car repairs, discount stores, and other truly
8
non-essential services that are allowed to operate during quarantine so long as they do so
9
in a safe manner consistent with the social distancing guidance issued by the Centers for
10
Disease Control.
11
75. Plaintiff ELLE LLC operates three licensed Chapels that administer weddings in foreign
12
languages. The Chapels specialize in Arabic and Russian marriage ceremonies for
13
members of the public for whom English is not a first language. Clark County has stated
14

15 they will Officiate Civil Ceremonies during emergencies (yet denied three inquiries about

16 the same). The County is not equipped to offer weddings in languages other than

17 English. This means limited English proficient customers will be treated differently than

18 those who speak English proficiently, or, in other words, will be discriminated against on
19
the basis of nationality.
20
76. Under this unreasonable and uncompensated "taking," members of the public with
21
disabilities will also suffer. ELLE LLC chapels accommodate disabled people by
22
officiating in hospitals, hospice, private residences, and provide sign language
23
interpreters for the deaf, which is another service not available at the Clark County
24
Marriage License Bureau, the office which the County has assigned the "exclusive"
25

26
authority to officiate weddings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

27 77. Plaintiffs are members of the public and, as such, are members of the class of persons

28 protected by the State Constitution and US Constitution, Bill of Rights, Statutes,

12

Doc ID: c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef

 Regulations, and Ordinances concerning the right to marry and practice religious rituals
1
associated therewith.
2

3 78. As a result of Defendants’ violations of the relevant laws, regulations, codes, statutes, and

4 ordinances, Plaintiffs have sustained injury, and have endured physical, mental and

5 emotional pain and suffering, as well as wage loss and the danger of being deported

6 because of expiring immigration deadlines.

7 79. As a result of these harms, Plaintiffs have suffered and incurred damages, and have lost
8
contracts and revenue in an amount exceeding $15,000.00.
9
80. Plaintiffs have found it necessary to secure the services of an attorney in order to
10
prosecute this action, and are entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
11
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
12
(NAC 414.XXX6 Is Void For Vagueness And Is
13
Thereby Illegal To Use For The Purpose Employed By Defendants)
14
81. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through
15
80 as though set forth herein.
16
82. With all due respect, Defendant Governor Steve Sisolak has exceeded the scope of
17
authority set forth in NAC 414. XXX.
18
83. Understandably, there are emergency circumstances requiring drastic measures to protect
19

20
the public from spreading and contracting COVID-19.

21 84. However important the emergency may be, the people must question an extreme "grab"

22 of authority.

23 85. The Plaintiffs believe this power grab is illegal for the following reasons:

24

25

26

27
6 As of the time of this writing, the regulation has not been codified in the Nevada
28 Administrative Code, and thus NAC 414.XXX serves as a placeholder for the numbers that will
replace XXX upon codification. 13

Doc ID: c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef

 86. ISSUE 1: The first issue in this case is whether NAC 414.XXX7 is void for vagueness as
1
applied by the Clark County Marriage License Bureau in its decision to suspend issuance
2

3 of marriage licenses (Exhibit E).

4 87. ISSUE 2: Assuming, arguendo, this Court finds the terms of NAC 414.XXX are

5 sufficiently explicit such that they clearly direct Clark County to suspend the operation of

6 its Marriage License Bureau, the second issue is whether such suspension infringes upon
7 the fundamental right to marry.
8
88. ISSUE 3: Assuming, arguendo, this Court finds that the Marriage License Bureau's
9
suspension of operations infringes upon the fundamental right to marry, the third issue is
10
whether NAC 414.XXX and actions thereunder survive strict scrutiny.
11
89. The Plaintiffs provide the Court these important arguments considering the request for
12
INJUNCTION and EX PARTE ORDERS are serious in nature and made while most
13
court proceedings are currently limited in scope due to COVID-19.
14

15
SUMMARY OF ORAL ARGUMENT
16
ISSUE 1: NAC 414.XXX Is Void For Vagueness
17
On March 20, 2020, Governor Steve Sisolak issued DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY
18
FOR COVID-19- DIRECTIVE 003 (Exhibit E).8 Directive 003 provides that "regulations
19
promulgated under this Directive"9 shall define "Essential Licensed Business" and "Non-
20
Essential Businesses." Section 9 of DIRECTIVE 003 states: "[b]businesses that do not comply
21

22

23
7 See attached Emergency Regulation Concerning COVID-19 Pandemic, promulgated pursuant
24
to Governor Sisolak's DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY FOR COVID-19- DIRECTIVE 003.
25
As of the time of this writing, the regulation has not been codified in the Nevada Administrative
Code, and thus the NAC 414.XXX serves as a placeholder for the numbers that will replace
26 XXX upon codification.
8 Governor Sisolak's DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY FOR COVID-19- DIRECTIVE 003
27 is available at: http://gov.nv.gov/News/Emergency_Orders/2020/2020-03-20_-_COVID-
19_Declaration_of_Emergency_Directive_003/
28 9 Section 1, Governor Sisolak's DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY FOR COVID-19-
DIRECTIVE 003. 14

Doc ID: c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef

1 with this Directive or regulations promulgated under his Directive . . . may be subject to criminal

2 prosecution . . . ."

3 In 1926, the United States Supreme Court in Connally v. General Construction Co., 269

4 U.S. 385, announced the void for vagueness doctrine as follows: "the terms of a penal statute . . .

5 must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will

6 render them liable to its penalties . . . and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of

7 an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning

8 and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law." The Nevada

9 Supreme court has long held that "[a]n ordinance which fails to give persons of ordinary

10 intelligence fair notice whether their contemplated conduct is permitted or forbidden must be

11 declared to be void for vagueness, and thus to deny due process of law."10 The United States

12 Supreme Court has more recently stated that "the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a

13 penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can

14 understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and

15 discriminatory enforcement."11

16 Here, the regulation at issue is NAC 414.XXX 12 (the "Regulation"), which defines

17 "Essential Licensed Business" and "Non-Essential Businesses." In other words, it defines the

18 businesses which may operate lawfully, and which businesses subject the operator to criminal

19 prosecution.

20 The Regulation does not in any way include or reference terms such as "wedding" or

21 "marriage." Neither does the Regulation distinguish between private and public/government run

22 businesses.13 The reader must therefore guess as to whether bureaus that issue marriage licenses,

23
10 Eaves v. Board of Clark County Com'rs, 620 P.2d 1248, 96 Nev. 921 (Nev. 1980).
24
11 Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983).
12 See attached Emergency Regulation Concerning COVID-19 Pandemic, promulgated pursuant
25
to Governor Sisolak's DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY FOR COVID-19- DIRECTIVE 003.
26 As of the time of this writing, the regulation has not been codified in the Nevada Administrative
Code, and thus the NAC 414.XXX serves as a placeholder for the numbers that will replace
27 XXX upon codification.
13 NAC 414.XXX does not define the term "business." Furthermore, NAC 414.XXX refers to
28 businesses that are in fact government agencies, such as "water" and "sewer" in Section (1)(b).
Water is provided by the Las Vegas Valley Water 15 District, a government agency whose board of

Doc ID: c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef

1 and businesses essential to the issuance thereof, 14 are "Essential Licensed Business," which may

2 operate lawfully, or are "Non-Essential Businesses," the operation of which subjects the operator

3 to criminal prosecution under Section 9 of Governor Sisolak's DECLARATION OF

4 EMERGENCY FOR COVID-19-DIRECTIVE 003 (Exhibit E).

5 If one attempted to ascertain, by way of analogy, whether a marriage license bureau

6 should be considered an "Essential Licensed Business" or a "Non-Essential Businesses" under

7 NAC 414.XXX, one would likely conclude that marriage license bureaus, and businesses

8 essential to the issuance of marriage licenses, are an "Essential Licensed Business." This is

9 because the nearest analogue listed in the Regulation is NAC 414.XXX(1)(w): "Professional or

10 technical services including legal, accounting, tax, payroll, real estate, and property management

11 services[.]"15 This is because a marriage license bureau, and businesses essential to the issuance

12 of marriage licenses, are providing a legal service insofar as that "[m]arriage, so far as its

13 validity in law is concerned, is a civil contract . . . ."16 Under NRS Chapter 122 (Exhibit B), the

14 only way to form a legal marriage is by first obtaining a marriage license from the county clerk,

15 and then obtaining a certificate of marriage from the person solemnizing the marriage. 17

16 In sum, NAC 414.XXX is void for vagueness insofar as it does not state explicitly

17 whether businesses whose operation are necessary for the formation of marriage are Essential,

18 and may therefore operate lawfully, or are Non-Essential, and therefore subject operators to

19 criminal prosecution. This Court should therefore rule that either: (1) Marriage license bureaus,

20

21 directors is comprised of the Clark County Commissioners. Sewage services are provided by the
Clark County Water Reclamation District, a government wastewater treatment agency.
22 14 NRS 122.010 requires that, in order to be valid, a marriage be solemnized as authorized in
NRS Chapter 122. Solemnization may be performed by a minister or other church or religious
23 official authorized to solemnize a marriage, notary public, judge, justice of the peace,
commissioner of civil marriages, deputy commissioner of civil marriages, marriage officiant or
24
mayor. Plaintiff ELLE LLC is a "Commercial wedding chapel" as defined in NRS 122.0015 and
25
employs persons authorized to solemnize marriages as listed in the preceding sentence. See also
Clark County Nevada webpage titled "How to Get a Marriage License" at
26 https://www.clarkcountynv.gov/clerk/services/Pages/how-to-get-a-marriage-license.aspx
15 Emphasis added.
27 16 NRS 122.010(1).
17 NRS 122.220 makes it a misdemeanor for a person to solemnize a marriage until the persons
28 proposing such marriage show the person solemnizing the marriage a license from the county
clerk. 16

Doc ID: c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef

1 and businesses necessary to the formation of marriage contracts, are Essential within the

2 meaning of NAC 414.XXX because they provide legal services, or (2) That NAC 414.XXX is

3 void for vagueness and therefore may not be enforced in a manner that penalizes the operation of

4 marriage license bureaus, and businesses necessary to the formation of marriage contracts. In

5 both cases, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court order the Clark County Marriage

6 License Bureau to immediately resume issuing marriage licenses and enjoin law enforcement

7 from taking any action to close other businesses necessary for the formation of marriage

8 contracts.

10 ISSUE 2: Suspension of Operation of the Marriage License Bureau Infringes Upon the

11 Fundamental Right to Marry

12 It is well established that the right to marry is fundamental right protected by the

13 Fourteenth Amendment. Beginning in 1888, the Supreme Court has stated, at least fifteen times,

14 that marriage is a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

15 Amendment.18

16

17 18 Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is "the most important relation in
life" and "the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither
18
civilization nor progress."; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right "to marry,
19
establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process
Clause.; Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage "one of
20 the basic civil rights of man," "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.";
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): "We deal with a right of privacy older than
21 the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a
coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being
22 sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not
political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for
23 as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."; Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12
(1967): "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights
24
essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371,
25
376, 383 (1971): "[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society" and is "a
fundamental human relationship."; Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-
26 40 (1974): "This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of
marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the
27 Fourteenth Amendment." Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality):
"[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court
28 must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to
17
which they are served by the challenged regulation."; Carey v. Population Services International,

Doc ID: c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef

1 The question in this case is whether the Clark County Clerk's decision to suspend all

2 services at the Clark County Marriage License Bureau infringes upon Plaintiffs' Fourteenth

3 Amendment right to marry. As noted, supra, in order to form a marriage contract in Nevada,

4 NRS Chapter 122 requires the couple to first obtain a marriage license from the county clerk,

5 and then obtain a certificate of marriage from the person solemnizing the marriage. 19

6 Thus, the Clark County Clerk's decision to suspend all services at the Clark County

7 Marriage License Bureau infringes upon Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment right to marry

8 because there is no way to obtain a lawful marriage contract in Nevada absent the services of the

9 County Clerk's Marriage License Bureau, and the services of the related businesses that provide

10 the solemnization services necessary for the formation of marriage contracts.

11 This Court should therefore rule that the Clark County Clerk's decision to suspend all

12 services at the Clark County Marriage License Bureau infringes upon Plaintiffs' fundamental,

13 constitutional right to marry because this decision by the County Clerk makes the exercise of that

14 fundamental right impossible in Clark County.

15

16
431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): "[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make
17 without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage,
procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education."; Zablocki v.
18
Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): "[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all
19
individuals."; Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): "[T]he decision to marry is a
fundamental right" and an "expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.";
20 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): "These
matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime,
21 choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of
22 existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."; M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519
U.S. 102, 116 (1996): "Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are
23 among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights
sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or
24
disrespect."; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): "[O]ur laws and tradition afford
25
constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception,
family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy
26 for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do."; Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584
(2015): "Over time and in other contexts, the Court has reiterated that the right to marry is
27 fundamental under the Due Process Clause."
19 NRS 122.220 makes it a misdemeanor for a person to solemnize a marriage until the persons
28 proposing such marriage show the person solemnizing the marriage a license from the county
clerk. 18

Doc ID: c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef

1

2 ISSUE 3: NAC 414.XXX Cannot Survive Strict Scrutiny

3 Assuming, arguendo, this Court finds that the Marriage License Bureau's suspension of

4 operations infringes upon the fundamental right to marry, the third issue is whether NAC

5 414.XXX, and the County Clerk's actions thereunder, survive strict scrutiny.

6 Strict scrutiny is the highest and most stringent standard of judicial review. When a law

7 or regulation "significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be

8 upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to

9 effectuate only those interests."20 In modern jurisprudence, the application of strict scrutiny

10 results in a judge striking down the law or regulation at issue unless the government can

11 demonstrate that the law or regulation: (1) is necessary to a compelling state interest; (2) the law

12 is narrowly tailored to achieving this compelling purpose; and (3) that the law uses the least

13 restrictive means to achieve the purpose.

14 Here, Plaintiffs concede that the Clark County Clerk has a compelling government

15 interest in protecting the public against the COVID-19 virus. However, Plaintiffs assert that a

16 complete suspension of issuance of marriage licenses is not a narrowly tailored means of

17 achieving its public health goals. Further, Plaintiffs contend that complete closure of the

18 Marriage License Bureau is not the least restrictive means to achieve the government's public

19 health goals. Put simply, this Court is able to review this Complaint, a task that involves the

20 efforts of Your Honor, and his or her support staff, in accordance with the social distancing

21 guidance issued by the Centers for Disease Control, as required by NAC 414.XXX. Surely, the

22 Clark County Clerk can find a way to perform the much simpler task of reviewing applications

23 and issuing marriage licenses in accordance with the social distancing guidance issued by the

24 Centers for Disease Control.

25 "[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to

26 marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. In

27

28
20 19
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 388 (1978).

Doc ID: c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef

1 explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these

2 choices, we stated as follows: These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a

3 person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to

4 the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define

5 one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."21

6 The existence of COVID-19 in our community does not in any way diminish our

7 residents' need to make choices central to their personal dignity and autonomy, liberties which

8 are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. In the case of individuals facing death at the hand

9 of COVID-19, marriage may be their only practical method of assuring the transfer of assets, or

10 the care of their children, following death. This Court must do what is right by ordering the

11 Clark County Marriage License Bureau to re-open, and must enjoin law enforcement from taking

12 any action to close other businesses, such as commercial wedding chapels, which are necessary

13 to the formation of marriage contracts. Plaintiffs further request that this court issue guidance

14 requiring the Marriage License Bureau, and other businesses which are necessary to the

15 formation of marriage contracts, to operate in accordance with the social distancing guidance

16 issued by the Centers for Disease Control.

17
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
18

19 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follows:

20 1. For Immediate Temporary Injunctive Relief allowing marriage in Clark County to

21 proceed similarly to court proceedings.

22 2. For a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Clark County Marriage License Bureau to
23 resume issuing marriage licenses.
24
3. For costs and expenses incurred thereto when the same are fully ascertained.
25
4. Damages for deprivation of Constitutional rights under 42 USC § 1983—Monell
26
Liability.
27

28
21 20(internal citations omitted).
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003)

Doc ID: c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef

 5. For pain and suffering sustained by Plaintiffs in an amount in excess of
1
$15,000.00.
2

3 6. For special damages pursuant to NRCP 9(g) (Exhibit F).

4 7. For costs of suit herein.

5 8. For reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to NRS 18.010.

6 9. For special and punitive damages and just compensation for the uncompensated
7 taking; and,
8
10. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
9
//
10
//
11 //

12

13
Respectfully Submitted this 13th day of April 2020.
14

15

16 /s/ Yvette Chevalier, Esq.

17
YVETTE CHEVALIER, ESQ.
18 NV Bar: 8739
19 BEN'S LAW

20 5940 South Rainbow Boulevard

Las Vegas, Nevada 89118
21
Phone: 702-518-9236
22
[email protected]
23 [email protected]
24
PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL
25

26

27

28
21

Doc ID: c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef

1 VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT

2 ELLE LLC, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:

3
That I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action; that Affiant has read the foregoing
4
Complaint and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true and correct except those matters
5

6 alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, Affiant believes them to be true

7
04 / 13 / 2020
8 ______________________________

9 PLAINTIFF DATE
10

11

12

13

14

15
VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT
16
TEREMA TERESE WRIGHT, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
17

18 That I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action; that Affiant has read the foregoing
19
Complaint and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true and correct except those matters
20
alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, Affiant believes them to be true
21

22
04 / 13 / 2020
______________________________
23
PLAINTIFF DATE
24

25

26

27

28
22

Doc ID: c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef

1 VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT

2 RONNIE SHELTON OWENS, JR., being first duly sworn, deposes and says:

3
That I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action; that Affiant has read the foregoing
4
Complaint and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true and correct except those matters
5

6 alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, Affiant believes them to be true

7
04 / 13 / 2020
8 ______________________________

9 PLAINTIFF DATE
10

11

12

13

14

15
VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT
16
KAMAL KUMAR, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
17

18 That I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action; that Affiant has read the foregoing
19
Complaint and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true and correct except those matters
20
alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, Affiant believes them to be true
21

22
04 / 13 / 2020
______________________________
23
PLAINTIFF DATE
24

25

26

27

28
23

Doc ID: c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef

1 VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT

2 BIMLA WATI RANIGADEO, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:

3
That I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action; that Affiant has read the foregoing
4
Complaint and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true and correct except those matters
5

6 alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, Affiant believes them to be true

7
04 / 13 / 2020
8 ______________________________

9 PLAINTIFF DATE
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
24

Doc ID: c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1
I hereby certify I e-served, emailed, faxed, and mailed this complaint on this 13th day of April
2
2020 to:
3
CLARK COUNTY
4 500 S Grand Central Pkwy.
Las Vegas, NV 89155-1111
5 Phone: (702) 455-0000 & (702) 455-3530
[email protected]
6
-and-
7
GOVERNOR STEVE SISOLAK
8
Office of the Attorney General
9 100 North Carson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717
10 Phone: (775) 684-1100
Fax: (775) 684-1108
11

12 Efile service to: [email protected].; [email protected]

13

14
Submitted by an employee of Ben’s Law:
15 /s/ Alix Goldstein_______
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
25

Doc ID: c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef

 Marriage Lawsuit - Official Complaint - Signature Required
Right to Marry La...ecution Copy).pdf
c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef
MM / DD / YYYY
Completed

04 / 13 / 2020 Sent for signature to ELLE LLC ([email protected]), Kamal

22:25:08 UTC Kumar ([email protected]), Bimla Wati Ranigadeo
([email protected]), Terema Wright ([email protected])
and Ronnie Owens ([email protected]) from [email protected]
IP: 185.245.87.15

04 / 13 / 2020 Viewed by Kamal Kumar ([email protected])

22:27:14 UTC IP: 96.72.191.6

04 / 13 / 2020 Viewed by ELLE LLC ([email protected])

23:27:57 UTC IP: 172.58.75.76

04 / 13 / 2020 Viewed by Bimla Wati Ranigadeo ([email protected])

23:43:29 UTC IP: 68.229.60.63

04 / 13 / 2020 Viewed by Terema Wright ([email protected])

23:43:35 UTC IP: 68.105.177.124
 Marriage Lawsuit - Official Complaint - Signature Required
Right to Marry La...ecution Copy).pdf
c7f462424350593fa8cbcb5d65bd9233f7721aef
MM / DD / YYYY
Completed

04 / 13 / 2020 Viewed by Ronnie Owens ([email protected])

23:44:28 UTC IP: 68.105.177.124

04 / 13 / 2020 Signed by Kamal Kumar ([email protected])

22:33:30 UTC IP: 96.72.191.6

04 / 13 / 2020 Signed by ELLE LLC ([email protected])

23:28:32 UTC IP: 172.58.75.76

04 / 13 / 2020 Signed by Terema Wright ([email protected])

23:43:52 UTC IP: 68.105.177.124

04 / 13 / 2020 Signed by Bimla Wati Ranigadeo ([email protected])

23:44:38 UTC IP: 68.229.60.63

04 / 13 / 2020 Signed by Ronnie Owens ([email protected])

23:45:40 UTC IP: 68.105.177.124

04 / 13 / 2020 The document has been completed.

23:45:40 UTC