Stout v. Jefferson County (Alabama) - Doc 1002 and Attachments
Content
FILED
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002 Filed 03/13/15 Page 1 of 6
2015 Mar-13 PM 01:55
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LINDA STOUT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v.
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:
2:65-cv-396-MHH
GARDENDALE CITY BOARD OF
EDUCATION
MOTION TO INTERVENE
AS A DEFENDANT
AND
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
Comes now the Gardendale City Board of Education, by and through the
undersigned counsel, in accordance with pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24, to move
this Court for leave to intervene as a Defendant in this action, relying upon the
incorporated supporting memorandum of law, saying as follows:
MOTION TO INTERVENE
1.
Ala. Code § 16-11-2(b) states that “the general administration and
supervision of the public schools and educational interests of each city shall be
vested in a city board of education, to be comprised of five members who shall be
residents of the city.” (Ex. 1.)
1
1/2735364.1
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002 Filed 03/13/15 Page 2 of 6
2.
Ala. Code § 16-11-9 states as follows:
The city board of education is hereby vested with all powers
necessary or proper for the administration and management of the free
public schools with such city and adjacent territory to the city which
has been annexed as a part of the school district which includes a city
having a city board of education.
(Ex. 2.)
3.
On March 12, 2014, by Ordinance 2014-007, the City of Gardendale
established the Gardendale City Board of Education. (Ex. 3.)
4.
The Gardendale City Board of Education (“Gardendale Board”) is in
the process of negotiating a separation agreement for the transfer of operation from
the Jefferson County Board of Education to the Gardendale Board.
5.
In order to resolve issues regarding the transfer of operation from the
Jefferson County Board of Education (“JefCo”) to the Gardendale Board, upon
which the parties could not agree, the parties petitioned the Alabama State
Superintendent of Education, Dr. Thomas R. Bice, to determine from the facts the
just and proper disposition of the matters pursuant to Ala. Code § 16-4-8. (Ex. 4.)
6.
On February 26, 2015, Dr. Bice issued a Final Decision.1 (Ex. 5.)
The Final Decision was made subject to the United States District Court’s
jurisdiction in Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Education to review and/or
1
The Gardendale Board and JefCo have jointly petitioned Dr. Bice to intervene to resolve remaining issues resulting
from his Final Decision. Stated otherwise, Gardendale Board and JefCo have jointly asked the State Superintendent
to further intervene to resolve issues remaining.
2
1/2735364.1
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002 Filed 03/13/15 Page 3 of 6
modify the decision to ensure compliance with federal desegregation laws and the
order of the Court.
7.
Stout Amended Order Dated September 8, 1971 (Doc. 226). The
Amended Order (Doc. 226) entered by Judge Sam C. Pointer, Jr. on September 8,
1971 (Ex. 6) explicitly states that this Court shall assume jurisdiction over separate
school systems in Jefferson County formed after the issuance of his Order. See
¶¶ V. and VI.
8.
In compliance with the Amended Order of this Court (Doc. 226) dated
September 8, 1971, the Gardendale Board petitions hereby to intervene as a
Defendant to demonstrate to the Court that the operations of the Gardendale Board
will not adversely affect desegregation.
WHEREFORE, the Gardendale Board respectfully petitions the Court to
enter an order granting leave for the Gardendale Board to intervene as a
Defendant-Intervenor.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Rule 24 of the Fed. R. Civ. P. states:
On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who . . .
claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the
subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action
may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to
protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that
interest.
3
1/2735364.1
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002 Filed 03/13/15 Page 4 of 6
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). The Eleventh Circuit has interpreted this Rule to be applied
through the use of a four-part test which includes the following elements: (1)
timeliness, (2) an interest relating to the action, (3) that the interest would be
impaired or impeded by the case, and (4) that the interest is not adequately
represented by the parties. See: United States v. South Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist.,
922 F.2d 704, 710 (11th Cir. 1994). See also: Poynor v. Chesapeake Energy Ltd.
P’ship (In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litigation), 570 F.3d 244, 247 (5th Cir. 2009)
(citing Sierra Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d 1202, 1204-05 (5th Cir. 1994)). Those four
criterion must be met in order for an intervenor to qualify for Intervention of Right,
but Rule 24 is to be construed liberally, . . . and doubts resolved in favor of the
proposed intervenor.
Intervention of Right
Gardendale Board respectfully submits that intervention should be granted in
order for the Court to facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction over a separate
school system in Jefferson County formed after the Court’s Amended Order dated
September 8, 1971.
In accordance with the Court’s Amended Order dated September 8, 1971,
this Court has exercised jurisdiction over newly formed separate school systems
such as Hoover, Leeds and Trussville. Granting intervention for the Gardendale
Board would be consistent with previous decisions of the Court.
4
1/2735364.1
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002 Filed 03/13/15 Page 5 of 6
WHEREFORE, Gardendale Board respectfully requests that the Court enter
an order granting leave for Gardendale Board to intervene as a DefendantIntervenor.
Respectfully submitted,
s/Donald B. Sweeney, Jr.
Donald B. Sweeney, Jr.
ASB-3803-w77d
Alan K. Zeigler
ASB-0462-R73A
Attorneys for the
Gardendale City Board of Education
OF COUNSEL
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
One Federal Place
1819 Fifth Avenue North
Birmingham, AL 35203-2104
Telephone: (205) 521-8000
Facsimile: (205) 521-8800
[email protected]
5
1/2735364.1
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002 Filed 03/13/15 Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 13, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing
with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification
of such filing to the following:
Shaheena Ahmad Simons
Thomas A. Falkinburg
Natane Singleton
Veronica R. Percia
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
Educational Opportunities Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW - PHB 4300
Washington, D.C. 20530
Sharon D. Kelly
Alice Martin
U.S. Attorney's Office
1801 4th Avenue North
Birmingham, AL 35203-2101
Carl Johnson
Whit Colvin
Bishop Colvin Johnson & Kent
1910 First Avenue, North
Birmingham, AL 35203-4006
Monique Lin-Luse
NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund
40 Rector Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 1006
and I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the
document to the following non-CM/ECF participants:
None
s/Donald B. Sweeney, Jr.
Donald B. Sweeney, Jr.
6
1/2735364.1
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-1 Filed 03/13/15 Page 1 of 1
FILED
2015 Mar-13 PM 01:55
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-2 Filed 03/13/15 Page 1 of 1
FILED
2015 Mar-13 PM 01:55
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-3 Filed 03/13/15 Page 1 of 3
FILED
2015 Mar-13 PM 01:55
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-3 Filed 03/13/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-3 Filed 03/13/15 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-4 Filed 03/13/15 Page 1 of 1
FILED
2015 Mar-13 PM 01:55
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-5 Filed 03/13/15 Page 1 of 3
FILED
2015 Mar-13 PM 01:55
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-5 Filed 03/13/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-5 Filed 03/13/15 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-6 Filed 03/13/15 Page 1 of 12
FILED
2015 Mar-13 PM 01:55
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-6 Filed 03/13/15 Page 2 of 12
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-6 Filed 03/13/15 Page 3 of 12
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-6 Filed 03/13/15 Page 4 of 12
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-6 Filed 03/13/15 Page 5 of 12
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-6 Filed 03/13/15 Page 6 of 12
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-6 Filed 03/13/15 Page 7 of 12
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-6 Filed 03/13/15 Page 8 of 12
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-6 Filed 03/13/15 Page 9 of 12
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-6 Filed 03/13/15 Page 10 of 12
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-6 Filed 03/13/15 Page 11 of 12
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-6 Filed 03/13/15 Page 12 of 12
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002 Filed 03/13/15 Page 1 of 6
2015 Mar-13 PM 01:55
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LINDA STOUT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v.
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:
2:65-cv-396-MHH
GARDENDALE CITY BOARD OF
EDUCATION
MOTION TO INTERVENE
AS A DEFENDANT
AND
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
Comes now the Gardendale City Board of Education, by and through the
undersigned counsel, in accordance with pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24, to move
this Court for leave to intervene as a Defendant in this action, relying upon the
incorporated supporting memorandum of law, saying as follows:
MOTION TO INTERVENE
1.
Ala. Code § 16-11-2(b) states that “the general administration and
supervision of the public schools and educational interests of each city shall be
vested in a city board of education, to be comprised of five members who shall be
residents of the city.” (Ex. 1.)
1
1/2735364.1
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002 Filed 03/13/15 Page 2 of 6
2.
Ala. Code § 16-11-9 states as follows:
The city board of education is hereby vested with all powers
necessary or proper for the administration and management of the free
public schools with such city and adjacent territory to the city which
has been annexed as a part of the school district which includes a city
having a city board of education.
(Ex. 2.)
3.
On March 12, 2014, by Ordinance 2014-007, the City of Gardendale
established the Gardendale City Board of Education. (Ex. 3.)
4.
The Gardendale City Board of Education (“Gardendale Board”) is in
the process of negotiating a separation agreement for the transfer of operation from
the Jefferson County Board of Education to the Gardendale Board.
5.
In order to resolve issues regarding the transfer of operation from the
Jefferson County Board of Education (“JefCo”) to the Gardendale Board, upon
which the parties could not agree, the parties petitioned the Alabama State
Superintendent of Education, Dr. Thomas R. Bice, to determine from the facts the
just and proper disposition of the matters pursuant to Ala. Code § 16-4-8. (Ex. 4.)
6.
On February 26, 2015, Dr. Bice issued a Final Decision.1 (Ex. 5.)
The Final Decision was made subject to the United States District Court’s
jurisdiction in Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Education to review and/or
1
The Gardendale Board and JefCo have jointly petitioned Dr. Bice to intervene to resolve remaining issues resulting
from his Final Decision. Stated otherwise, Gardendale Board and JefCo have jointly asked the State Superintendent
to further intervene to resolve issues remaining.
2
1/2735364.1
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002 Filed 03/13/15 Page 3 of 6
modify the decision to ensure compliance with federal desegregation laws and the
order of the Court.
7.
Stout Amended Order Dated September 8, 1971 (Doc. 226). The
Amended Order (Doc. 226) entered by Judge Sam C. Pointer, Jr. on September 8,
1971 (Ex. 6) explicitly states that this Court shall assume jurisdiction over separate
school systems in Jefferson County formed after the issuance of his Order. See
¶¶ V. and VI.
8.
In compliance with the Amended Order of this Court (Doc. 226) dated
September 8, 1971, the Gardendale Board petitions hereby to intervene as a
Defendant to demonstrate to the Court that the operations of the Gardendale Board
will not adversely affect desegregation.
WHEREFORE, the Gardendale Board respectfully petitions the Court to
enter an order granting leave for the Gardendale Board to intervene as a
Defendant-Intervenor.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Rule 24 of the Fed. R. Civ. P. states:
On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who . . .
claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the
subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action
may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to
protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that
interest.
3
1/2735364.1
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002 Filed 03/13/15 Page 4 of 6
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). The Eleventh Circuit has interpreted this Rule to be applied
through the use of a four-part test which includes the following elements: (1)
timeliness, (2) an interest relating to the action, (3) that the interest would be
impaired or impeded by the case, and (4) that the interest is not adequately
represented by the parties. See: United States v. South Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist.,
922 F.2d 704, 710 (11th Cir. 1994). See also: Poynor v. Chesapeake Energy Ltd.
P’ship (In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litigation), 570 F.3d 244, 247 (5th Cir. 2009)
(citing Sierra Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d 1202, 1204-05 (5th Cir. 1994)). Those four
criterion must be met in order for an intervenor to qualify for Intervention of Right,
but Rule 24 is to be construed liberally, . . . and doubts resolved in favor of the
proposed intervenor.
Intervention of Right
Gardendale Board respectfully submits that intervention should be granted in
order for the Court to facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction over a separate
school system in Jefferson County formed after the Court’s Amended Order dated
September 8, 1971.
In accordance with the Court’s Amended Order dated September 8, 1971,
this Court has exercised jurisdiction over newly formed separate school systems
such as Hoover, Leeds and Trussville. Granting intervention for the Gardendale
Board would be consistent with previous decisions of the Court.
4
1/2735364.1
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002 Filed 03/13/15 Page 5 of 6
WHEREFORE, Gardendale Board respectfully requests that the Court enter
an order granting leave for Gardendale Board to intervene as a DefendantIntervenor.
Respectfully submitted,
s/Donald B. Sweeney, Jr.
Donald B. Sweeney, Jr.
ASB-3803-w77d
Alan K. Zeigler
ASB-0462-R73A
Attorneys for the
Gardendale City Board of Education
OF COUNSEL
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
One Federal Place
1819 Fifth Avenue North
Birmingham, AL 35203-2104
Telephone: (205) 521-8000
Facsimile: (205) 521-8800
[email protected]
5
1/2735364.1
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002 Filed 03/13/15 Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 13, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing
with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification
of such filing to the following:
Shaheena Ahmad Simons
Thomas A. Falkinburg
Natane Singleton
Veronica R. Percia
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
Educational Opportunities Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW - PHB 4300
Washington, D.C. 20530
Sharon D. Kelly
Alice Martin
U.S. Attorney's Office
1801 4th Avenue North
Birmingham, AL 35203-2101
Carl Johnson
Whit Colvin
Bishop Colvin Johnson & Kent
1910 First Avenue, North
Birmingham, AL 35203-4006
Monique Lin-Luse
NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund
40 Rector Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 1006
and I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the
document to the following non-CM/ECF participants:
None
s/Donald B. Sweeney, Jr.
Donald B. Sweeney, Jr.
6
1/2735364.1
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-1 Filed 03/13/15 Page 1 of 1
FILED
2015 Mar-13 PM 01:55
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-2 Filed 03/13/15 Page 1 of 1
FILED
2015 Mar-13 PM 01:55
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-3 Filed 03/13/15 Page 1 of 3
FILED
2015 Mar-13 PM 01:55
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-3 Filed 03/13/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-3 Filed 03/13/15 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-4 Filed 03/13/15 Page 1 of 1
FILED
2015 Mar-13 PM 01:55
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-5 Filed 03/13/15 Page 1 of 3
FILED
2015 Mar-13 PM 01:55
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-5 Filed 03/13/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-5 Filed 03/13/15 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-6 Filed 03/13/15 Page 1 of 12
FILED
2015 Mar-13 PM 01:55
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-6 Filed 03/13/15 Page 2 of 12
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-6 Filed 03/13/15 Page 3 of 12
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-6 Filed 03/13/15 Page 4 of 12
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-6 Filed 03/13/15 Page 5 of 12
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-6 Filed 03/13/15 Page 6 of 12
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-6 Filed 03/13/15 Page 7 of 12
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-6 Filed 03/13/15 Page 8 of 12
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-6 Filed 03/13/15 Page 9 of 12
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-6 Filed 03/13/15 Page 10 of 12
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-6 Filed 03/13/15 Page 11 of 12
Case 2:65-cv-00396-MHH Document 1002-6 Filed 03/13/15 Page 12 of 12
