3:14-cv-03504 #23

8/9/2019 3:14-cv-03504 #23

1/17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

COLUMBIA DIVISION

TERESA CULPEPPER,

on behalf of her minor child C. C.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

KEVIN A. SHWEDO,

in his official capacity as the Executive

Director of the South Carolina Department

of Motor Vehicles,

and

TAMMY KING,

in her official capacity as the Manager of the

Anderson Office of the South CarolinaDepartment of Motor Vehicles,

Defendants.

C.A. No.: 3:14-cv-03504

PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED P

FOR APPROVAL OF M

SETTLEMENT

The parties have settled this action. Plaintiff/Petitioner Teresa Culpepper (“

behalf of her minor child C. C. (“C. C.”), asks the Court to (1) appoint Plaintiff a

litem of C. C. for purposes of this settlement, and (2) approve the settlement of C

against Defendants in this matter on the terms summarized herein and set forth in

copy of the parties’ Settlement Agreement (Exhibit A). Plaintiff respectfully

Petition in accordance with Local Rule 17.02, D.S.C., and Judge Currie’s filing pref

3:14-cv-03504-CMC Date Filed 04/20/15 Entry Number 23 Page

8/9/2019 3:14-cv-03504 #23

2/17

I. Legal and factual basis of Plaintiff’s authority to seek settlement

At the time this matter was filed, and at the present time, Plaintiff was a

natural mother and legal guardian. Other facts which show good cause for the Co

Plaintiff as the guardian ad litem for C. C. include:

Plaintiff has had physical custody of C. C. from birth to the present;

Plaintiff has provided for the health, safety, care, and nourishment o

birth to the present.

For these reasons, Plaintiff asks the Court to find good cause to appoi

guardian ad litem for C. C. for purposes of approval of this settlement.

II. The nature of the action.

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that the Defendants, acting in their offici

unconstitutionally required that C. C., a sixteen-year-old high school student, rem

cosmetic makeup before being permitted to take a driver’s license photo in Mar

alleged in the Complaint, Defendants relied on the following language in SCDM

DL-201:

At no time will an applicant be photographed when it appears that

he/she is purposely altering his/her appearance so that the photowould misrepresent his/her identity.

(the “SCDMV Photo Policy”). (Compl. ¶ 58.)

In September 2014, Plaintiff brought the Complaint alleging Def


il d / / b

8/9/2019 3:14-cv-03504 #23

3/17

constitutionally protected liberty interest in C. C.’s personal appearance. Moreo

alleged that the SCDMV Photo Policy is unconstitutionally vague and overbr

SCDMV personnel to make arbitrary and capricious decisions based on their percep

particular individual should look as a male or female.

Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 19

the SCDMV’s Photo Policy unconstitutional as interpreted and applied by

prohibiting Defendants from applying the SCDMV Photo Policy in an unconstitu

and ordering Defendants to allow C.C. to be photographed for a driver’s license w

everyday makeup that C.C. wears on a regular basis. Plaintiff also asked that the C

policy as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and an unconstitutional grant

discretion and award reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 19

III. The stage of the proceedings at the time of settlement.

Defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss the action on the

Plaintiff’s claims had been mooted by a change in SCDMV procedure that Defend

would allow C. C. to retake a driver’s license photo while wearing regular every

Plaintiff submitted a memorandum in opposition, contending that the change in p

minor and did not alter or purport to supersede the defective language that led to d

against C. C. Defendants did not file a reply memorandum. At the parties’ join

motion remained pending while the parties pursued settlement discussions. There


3 14 03504 CMC D t Fil d 04/20/15 E t N b 23 P

8/9/2019 3:14-cv-03504 #23

4/17

IV. The nature and extent of injuries.

Plaintiff’s claimed injuries are the infringement of C. C.’s constitutio

summarized above and set forth in the Complaint.

V. Factors influencing the decision to settle the claim.

Defendants agreed to allow C. C. to take a driver’s license photograph wea

cosmetic makeup and to modify SCDMV’s policies and procedures and training

such a way as to address the alleged constitutional infirmities that led to the bri

action. Accordingly, Plaintiff believes that C. C.’s rights have been fully vindicate

in the SCDMV Photo Policy have been corrected, and accordingly there is no reas

further with this litigation.

VI. The amounts and nature of any insurance coverage relevant to th

Not applicable.

VII. The names of any creditors and amounts of their claims.

None.

VIII. The amount and terms of the settlement and detailed explanation

proceeds will be distributed.


3:14 cv 03504 CMC Date Filed 04/20/15 Entry Number 23 Page

8/9/2019 3:14-cv-03504 #23

5/17

in detail in the Settlement Agreement attached as Exhibit A. The settlement doe

any exchange of money or property.

IX. The nature of the release to be given.

The action is to be dismissed with prejudice.

X. The status of any other actions arising out of the same incident w

been or may be filed and the impact on the fairness of any settlem

action.

The parties are not aware of any other lawsuits, or potential lawsuit, related t

XI. Known, anticipated, or potential disputes as to the distribution o

or approval of the settlement.

There are no known, anticipated, or potential disputes as to the app

settlement. As noted, this settlement does not involve any exchange of money or ot

XII. Set forth the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs.

Plaintiff’s counsel have handled this representation as a matter pro bono pu

charging any attorneys’ fees or costs to the Plaintiff, and as part of the settlement ar

any award of attorneys’ fees or costs from the Defendants.


3:14 cv 03504 CMC Date Filed 04/20/15 Entry Number 23 Page

8/9/2019 3:14-cv-03504 #23

6/17

XIV. S.C. Code Ann. § 62-5-433.

Not applicable.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Wallace K. Lightsey

Of Counsel:(Pro Hac Vice Applications To Be Filed)

Peter Guirguis

Melanie M. Kotler

David B. SchwartzFULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP

666 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10103Tel.: (212) 318-3000

Fax: (212) 318-3400

[email protected] [email protected]

[email protected]

Michael D. Silverman

TRANSGENDER LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONFUND, I NC.

151 W. 19th StreetSuite 1103

New York NY 10011

Tel.: (646) 862-9396Fax: (914) 920-4057

[email protected]

Dated: April 20, 2015

Greenville, South Carolina

Marshall Winn (529)

Wallace K. Lightsey (1037)WYCHE, P.A.

44 East Camperdown WayGreenville, S.C. 29601Tel.: 864-242-8200

Fax: 864-235-8900

[email protected]

[email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff


3:14-cv-03504-CMC Date Filed 04/20/15 Entry Number 23-1 Page 1 of 9

8/9/2019 3:14-cv-03504 #23

7/17

3:14 cv 03504 CMC Date Filed 04/20/15 Entry Number 23 1 Page 1 of 9


8/9/2019 3:14-cv-03504 #23

8/17

y g


8/9/2019 3:14-cv-03504 #23

9/17


8/9/2019 3:14-cv-03504 #23

10/17


8/9/2019 3:14-cv-03504 #23

11/17


8/9/2019 3:14-cv-03504 #23

12/17


8/9/2019 3:14-cv-03504 #23

13/17


8/9/2019 3:14-cv-03504 #23

14/17


8/9/2019 3:14-cv-03504 #23

15/17


8/9/2019 3:14-cv-03504 #23

16/17


8/9/2019 3:14-cv-03504 #23

17/17

3:14-cv-03504 #23

Documents