Ali v. Cooper, 17-cv-03658-EMC. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180524a70
Visitors: 21
Filed: May 23, 2018
Latest Update: May 23, 2018
Summary: ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING Docket No. 45 EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . Plaintiff alleges she was married in a Muslim solemnization ceremony in the State of Washington. See Second Amended Complaint 28. California law provides that "[a] marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in California." Cal. Fam. Code 308. Though Washington law appears to require a license before any persons can b
Summary: ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING Docket No. 45 EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . Plaintiff alleges she was married in a Muslim solemnization ceremony in the State of Washington. See Second Amended Complaint 28. California law provides that "[a] marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in California." Cal. Fam. Code 308. Though Washington law appears to require a license before any persons can be..
More
ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
Docket No. 45
EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
Plaintiff alleges she was married in a Muslim solemnization ceremony in the State of Washington. See Second Amended Complaint ¶ 28. California law provides that "[a] marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in California." Cal. Fam. Code § 308. Though Washington law appears to require a license before any persons can be married, see RCWA § 26.04.140, Washington courts appear to hold that failure to procure a license "does not render a marriage void or even voidable." State v. Denton, 97 Wn.App. 267, 271 (1999); see also RCWA § 26.04.010(1) ("Marriage is a civil contract between two persons who have each attained the age of eighteen years, and who are otherwise capable.").
The parties did not address this issue in their briefing and so are ordered to submit supplemental briefing not to exceed 3 pages by Tuesday, May 29 at 4:00p.m., addressing the question whether Plaintiff plausibly alleges a valid marriage under Washington law and thus a valid marriage under California law.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
