12916 Motion for Leave to Intervene
date post
25-Feb-2018Category
Documents
view
215download
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.com7/25/2019 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.com7/25/2019 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_association7/25/2019 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