12916 Motion for Leave to Intervene

download 12916 Motion for Leave to Intervene

of 32

  • date post

    25-Feb-2018
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    215
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of 12916 Motion for Leave to Intervene

  • 7/25/2019 12916 Motion for Leave to Intervene

    1/32

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

    MONROE DIVISION

    JIMMY ANDREWS, ET AL CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:65-cv-11297PLAINTIFF,

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

    PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR,

    VERSUS JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

    MONROE CITY SCHOOL BOARD, ET ALDEFENDANTS MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

    MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

    NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, come Movers, the Neville

    Alumni and Friends Association, Greg Jones, and Nici Hanks pursuant to Rule 24 of the

    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, who respectfully request that this Honorable Court

    issue an order allowing them to intervene in this action, all for the reasons more fully set

    forth in the Memorandum in Support filed herewith and adopted herein by reference.

    Respectfully submitted,

    BREITHAUPT, DUNN, DUBOS,

    SHAFTO & WOLLESON, LLC

    1811 Tower Drive, Suite D

    P.O. Box 14106

    Monroe, Louisiana 71207Telephone: (318) 322-1202

    Facsimile: (318) 322-1984

    Email:swolleson@bddswlaw.comrwoodard@bddswlaw.com

    BY: /s/P. Scott Wolleson.P. Scott Wolleson (#22691) (T.A.)

    Russell A. Woodard, Jr. (#34163)

    Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ-KLH Document 121 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1773

    mailto:swolleson@bddswlaw.commailto:swolleson@bddswlaw.commailto:swolleson@bddswlaw.commailto:rwoodard@bddswlaw.commailto:rwoodard@bddswlaw.commailto:rwoodard@bddswlaw.commailto:swolleson@bddswlaw.com
  • 7/25/2019 12916 Motion for Leave to Intervene

    2/32

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing Movers Motion to for

    Leave to Intervene has been served on all counsel of record by this Honorable Courts

    CM/ECF system.

    Monroe, Louisiana, this 29thday of January, 2016.

    /s/ P. Scott Wolleson

    P. Scott Wolleson

    Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ-KLH Document 121 Filed 01/29/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1774

  • 7/25/2019 12916 Motion for Leave to Intervene

    3/32

    1

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

    MONROE DIVISION

    JIMMY ANDREWS, ET AL CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:65-cv-11297

    PLAINTIFF,

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

    PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR,

    VERSUS JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

    MONROE CITY SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL

    DEFENDANTS MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

    MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

    FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

    Respectfully submitted,

    BREITHAUPT, DUNN, DUBOS,

    SHAFTO & WOLLESON, LLC1811 Tower Drive, Suite DP.O. Box 14106Monroe, Louisiana 71207Telephone: (318) 322-1202Facsimile: (318) 322-1984

    Email:swolleson@bddswlaw.comrwoodard@bddswlaw.com

    BY: /s/P. Scott Wolleson.P. Scott Wolleson (#22691) (T.A.)Russell A. Woodard, Jr. (#34163)

    Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ-KLH Document 121-1 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1775

    mailto:swolleson@bddswlaw.commailto:swolleson@bddswlaw.commailto:swolleson@bddswlaw.commailto:rwoodard@bddswlaw.commailto:rwoodard@bddswlaw.commailto:rwoodard@bddswlaw.commailto:swolleson@bddswlaw.com
  • 7/25/2019 12916 Motion for Leave to Intervene

    4/32

    2

    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

    CASES

    Adams v. Baldwin County Board of Education of Baldwin County, Georgia, 628 F.2d895, 897 (5th Cir.1980) ............................................................................................................. 10

    Calhoun v. Cook, 487 F.2d 680, 684 (5th Cir.1973) .................................................................... 10Dayton Bd. of Education v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406, 410, 97 S.Ct. 2766, 2770, 53

    L.Ed.2d 851 (1977) ..................................................................................................................... 8Doe v. Glickman, 256 F.3d 371, 375 (5th Cir.2001))Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 490,

    112 S. Ct. 1430, 1445, 118 L. Ed. 2d 108 (1992) ....................................................................... 7Graham v. Evangeline Parish School Board, 132 F. App'x 507, 511 (5thCir. 2005) .................... 7Green v. Cty. Sch. Bd. of New Kent Cty., Va., 391 U.S. 430, 437-38, 88 S. Ct. 1689, 1694,

    20 L. Ed. 2d 716 (1968) ............................................................................................................ 11Guarjardo v. Estelle, 71-H-570 (S.D. Tex. 7/14/1983), 568 F.Supp. 1354, 1356 ......................... 9

    Jones v. Caddo Parish School Board, 499 F.2d 914, 917 (5th Cir.1974) .................................... 10Kneeland v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n.,806 F.2d 1285, 1288 (5thCir.) ................................. 8Kneeland v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n., cert. denied, 484 U.S. 817, 108 S. Ct. 72, 98

    L. Ed.2d 35 (1987 ....................................................................................................................... 8Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 482 F.2d 1253, 1254 (5th Cir.1973) ......................... 10Lister v. Commissioners Court, 566 F.2d 490, 493 (5thCir. 1978) ................................................ 9Saldano v. Roach, 363 F.3d 545, 551 (5th Cir.2004) ..................................................................... 7United States v. CRUCIAL.,722 F.2d 1182, 1190 (5th Cir. 1983) .............................................. 10United States v. Franklin Parish School Board.,47 F.3d 755, 757 (5thCir. 1995) ................... 7,10United States v. Perry County Board of Education, 567 F.2d 277, 280 (5th Cir.1978) ............... 10Young v. Pierce, P-80-8-CA (E.D. La. 7/3/1986), 640 F.Supp. 1476, 1477 .................................. 9

    OTHER AUTHORITIES

    INDEPENDENT, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) ........................................................... 4Manual of Complex Litigation, Fourth Ed., Sec. 11.52 .................................................................. 8

    Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ-KLH Document 121-1 Filed 01/29/16 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:1776

  • 7/25/2019 12916 Motion for Leave to Intervene

    5/32

    3

    MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:

    The Neville Alumni and Friends Association (NAFA), Greg Jones, and Nici

    Hanks move to intervene in this action as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2) of the

    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the following reasons:

    I. Introduction

    NAFA is a non-profit corporation formed in 1995 whose mission is to provide

    supplemental funding for programs or projects to enhance the quality of instructional

    delivery and student life, and to promote excellence in higher education at [Neville High

    School].1Dwanye Ludley serves on the executive board of NAFA.2Greg Jones is the

    father of a student at Neville High School.3Nici Hanks is the mother of a student at Lee

    Junior High School and of a student at Sallie Humble Elementary School.4

    Movants have a direct and substantial interest in the implementation of the

    consent decree throughout the District. Movants are interested in achieving good

    educational outcomes for all students in the District which can only be achieved by good

    faith cooperation and the assistance of competent, independent professionals. Movants

    also have a direct interest in course offerings and assignment of principals, teachers, and

    staff at schools throughout the District, including the above-mentioned schools.

    Disposition of this case without this intervention will impair or impede the ability

    of movants to protect their interests in returning the District to local control.

    II. Movants Demonstrate an Adequate Factual Basis for Intervention

    1Seehttp://neville.mcschools.net/alumni_news/neville_alumni_and_friends_association2Declaration of D. Ludley, attached as Exhibit 1.3Declaration of G. Jones, attached as Exhibit 2.4Declaration of N. Hanks, attached as Exhibit 3.

    Case 3:65-cv-11297-RGJ-KLH Document 121-1 Filed 01/29/16 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:1777

    http://neville.mcschools.net/alumni_news/neville_alumni_and_friends_associationhttp://neville.mcschools.net/alumni_news/neville_alumni_and_friends_associationhttp://neville.mcschools.net/alumni_news/neville_alumni_and_friends_associationhttp://neville.mcschools.net/alumni_news/neville_alumni_and_friends_association
  • 7/25/2019 12916 Motion for Leave to Intervene

    6/32

    4

    Movants seek to intervene on an expedited basis in order to challenge the

    deficient implementation of the December 2015 consent decree by the existing parties to

    this action, the Monroe City School Board (MCSB) and the United States. While the

    MCSB and the United States are presumed, as a matter of law, to adequately represent

    the students in the Monroe City School District (the District), recent events related to

    the nomination of a court monitor establish that movants are not adequately represented

    by the existing parties.

    The facts outlined in the declarations of MCSB members Bill Willson,5Jennifer

    Haneline,

    6

    and Vickie Dayton,

    7

    establish nonfeasance and bad faith on the part of the

    MCSB and, potentially, collusion between certain MCSB members and the United States

    with respect to the appointment of a court monitor. According to the declarations, the

    MCSB president and vice president have thwarted the goal of unitary status by:

    Discouraging certain MCSB members from attending the September 2015hearing on Consideration of Unitary Status;

    Failing to adequately inform all MCSB members of the September 2015ruling on unitary status;

    Refusing to include all MCSB members in the negotiation process leadingup to the adoption of the December 2015 Consent Decree;

    Refusing to engage all MCSB members in the process to select theIndepen